Tanks running people over?
Riboflavin
tanks to run over enemy infantrymen. My question is, does anyone know how
many people were killed/severely wounded by having an enemy tank run over
them in WW2? And correspondingly, what were the number of friendly
casualties from tank accidents in the same time frame?
I expect that friendly accidents would account for far more kills than tanks
running the enemy over, but I'd appreciate it if someone could come up with
numbers.
--
Kevin Allegood ribotr...@mindspring.pants.com
Remove the pants from my email address to reply
"Having a bad day? It takes 42 muscles to frown, but only 4 to pull
the trigger of a decent sniper rifle." - Dr. John D. Taylor
yau ming chiam
with its guns it will do that. That is its aim: to kill enemy soldiers.
You can't really know how many people got killed by being run over by a
tank. I don't think tank crew are going to paint squished infantrymen on
their tank next to their tank kills. That's just ridiculous.
During the landings at Normandy, Omaha etc.. the Allied tanks ran over their
own troop [lying in the sand who were unable to move due to wounds etc..] in
their haste to assult enemy positions. I think i remember reading that in
Cornelius Ryan's Longest Day.
Regards,
Yau-ming
Riboflavin wrote in message <74r85l$14l$2...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
Jon Cohen
Most likely because there would be no way, in combat, to kept track of it.
Did it happen-yes.
To friendlies-yes
To the enemy-well-a tank by itself is several tons of weapon.
Just like I do not believe we have any idea of the number of Japanese
soldiers blown up and/or trapped alive in caves in the PTO.
But please feel free to continue your search and update us here.
--
______________________________________________
Jon
To reply, use my link below.
Jon...@Bigfoot.com
ICQ # 948660
"Once the first shot is fired, you no longer have a command-you have a
family"
COMBAT!
"The real heroes are the ones who gave their lives for their country. I
don't like to be call a hero. I just did what I was trained to do."
Roy P. Benavidez, Staff Sergeant, US Army CMOH
"Just because someone can buy a computer and plug it into the wall doesn't
mean that they themselves are wired up right." - JMS
TMOliver
>
> Well yes a tank is a weapon and whether it squishes soldiers or kills them
> with its guns it will do that. That is its aim: to kill enemy soldiers.
>
squishers....
Both in fact in fiction, during WWII Africa, Urop and the
PTO were the scenes of too many accidents in which tank
crews bedded down for the night (seeking shelter from
rain, snow, etc.) beneath their machines which gradually
sunk into the soft ground below,crushing their crews.
--
TMOliver AKA El Pelon Sinverguenza
"I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather,
Not screaming in terror like his passengers..."
David Lesher
>During the landings at Normandy, Omaha etc.. the Allied tanks ran over their
>own troop [lying in the sand who were unable to move due to wounds etc..] in
>their haste to assult enemy positions. I think i remember reading that in
>Cornelius Ryan's Longest Day.
Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes also reports seeing such happening in the
hedgerows once onshore......
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
casita
make corduroy roads for tanks and trucks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Donald Phillipson
> Hope this isn't true, but I seem to recall hearing that bodies were used to
> make corduroy roads for tanks and trucks.
Your hearing may have been defective. Meat and
bones decay so fast as to be an inadequate roadbed
(especially for tanks, which chew up the surface
as well as imposing greater weight than trucks.)
The whole thing seems rather silly.
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734
ScootterP
Wrote:
>Hope this isn't true, but I seem to recall hearing that bodies were used to
>make corduroy roads for tanks and trucks.
Haven't heard that, but I do recall reading that in Russia the Germans used
dead Russians to lubricate their tank treads. After doing that they preferred
them over regular lubricant.
Scott
Remove "nospam" when replying by E-mail
"An empty taxicab drove up and Jack Warner got out"
- Warner Bros. staff member
~
HCALTMANN
>Hope this isn't true, but I seem to recall >hearing that bodies were used to
>make corduroy roads for tanks and trucks.
Before anyone else says it, I will: Yeah those bastard Nazi huns did it all
the time.
Come on now. Bodies would make very poor corduroy. -- Heinz
HeinzA -- HCAl...@aol.com (Heinz Altmann)
"As hard as I try to be sensitive and politically correct, I can't avoid
bumping my way into boorish opinions, thus offending those who are truly
enlightened." - Mike Royko
Mat Warren
back of tanks for close infantry support. There must have been a high
incident of accidents - people trying to hang onto a tank whilst it travelled
at full speed.
Regards
Mat
Dave Imrie
Carver, 424th US Infantry.
It goes like this.
MAROON MUD AND DOG-TAGS
A corpse in the road, a column of tanks
in a clanking, grinding fury,
maroon mud and dog-tags
nothing to bury.
This was meant to describe an event that happened in Belgium so this sort
of thing didn't just happen on D-Day
Dave Imrie
Riboflavin <ri...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
Z
>back of tanks for close infantry support. There must have been a high
>incident of accidents - people trying to hang onto a tank whilst it travelled
>at full speed.
Just 1940s-era Reactive Armour ;)
Zhivan
E.F.Schelby
>Haven't heard that, but I do recall reading that in Russia the Germans used
>dead Russians to lubricate their tank treads. After doing that they preferred
>them over regular lubricant.
Of course. Reminds me of the WWI propaganda story about the Kaiser's
corpse factory that turned fallen German soldiers into soap. Or the
tale about a tub full of eyeballs....
As Harold Laswell said, atrocity stories are great for arousing
hate. After the war, Edward Bernays of the CPI openly admitted that
he and his colleagues fabricated such niceties to provoke public
outcries against the Hun. Utterly charming, and sooo effective...
ES
mike muth
>
> Hope this isn't true, but I seem to recall hearing that bodies were used to
> make corduroy roads for tanks and trucks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The closest I can think of to this was the Japanese use of bodies as
landfill while building the Burma-Siam "Death Railway." This had to
have made for unstable embankments.
Human bodies (unlike armadillos) do not make good paving material.
Tanks have a tendency to totally destroy the bodies. Survivors from
Bataan told of one POW who was pushed in front of a Japanese tank. The
entire column made it a point to run over the body. When they had
passed, there was no body left - only a large bloody smear.
FWIW, when I was in Advanced Individual Training at Fort Knox, we were
taught (and this was in FM 17-1, Armor Operations) that the driver
should make an effort to run over enemy soldiers with his tank. Our
understanding, of course, was that we were to run over LIVE, resisting
soldiers.
Mike
ScootterP
Wrote:
I am sorry, I failed to say that they used the Russian bodies because they
could not obtain the normal lubricant. But after the normal supply of
lubricant was resumed they were reluctant to stop using the dead bodies because
they were very effective.
Yea, could very well have been false. But then again, the use of dead russians
as lubricant could have been nothing more than tank crews using whatever means
they had to keep their tanks in good working order. Nothing sinister or gastly
in their intent. In fact that is the way I took the story to be.
HarmonHall
>corpse factory that turned fallen German soldiers into soap. Or the
>tale about a tub full of eyeballs....
>
>As Harold Laswell said, atrocity stories are great for arousing
>hate. After the war, Edward Bernays of the CPI openly admitted that
>he and his colleagues fabricated such niceties to provoke public
>outcries against the Hun. Utterly charming, and sooo effective...
In fact I recently came across a reference (which I have yet to verify) of a
letter from the British Ministry of Information to the Church of England. The
gist of it was that when the Russians overran Central Europe they were going to
commit huge atrocities and publicizing them would weaken war morale. Thus the
CoE was being solicited to assist in spread atrocity stories about Germany.
I hope that is not true but if so, it puts an entirely different light the
atrocity emphasis and their source during that war.
Kurt Bowker
HCALTMANN wrote in message <19981214195950...@ng-fa2.aol.com>...
>From: "casita" <casi...@hotmail.com>
>>Hope this isn't true, but I seem to recall >hearing that bodies were
>>used to make corduroy roads for tanks and trucks.
>Before anyone else says it, I will: Yeah those bastard Nazi huns did it
>all the time.
>Come on now. Bodies would make very poor corduroy. -- Heinz
Relax Heinz, the war is over, be impartial, Alot of bad things happened
in the war, on all sides. Have some points to bring out, bring them out,
lets discuss it.
Kurt J. Bowker
kjbo...@email.msn.com
EPotter
tank's going back and forth over a German foxhole until the Germans were
crushed.
a...@dustdevil.com
Let me see if I can describe a picture of a German soldier I once saw.
Imagine a uniform full of rotten tomatoes and potatoes smashed flat.
The fabric was in good condition, with the mush squished out the arms
and neck opening, and the flattest German helmet you will ever see.
You could not recognize human parts, just applesauce.
In training you are told that tanks fight tanks, and infantry has to
watch out for itself.
In the heat of battle, the crew is worried about that anti-tank round
much more than where his soldiers are around him. Sorrow is for
later.
mike muth
> Relax Heinz, the war is over, be impartial, Alot of bad things happened
> in the war, on all sides. Have some points to bring out, bring them out,
> lets discuss it.
Actually, I think Heinz has a pretty good record of being impartial. I
also think he has a very good point. Bodies would make very poor
corduroy. Decomposing flesh is just not solid enough to take any
traffic.
Mike
Louis Capdeboscq
a
>letter from the British Ministry of Information to the Church of England.
The
>gist of it was that when the Russians overran Central Europe they were
going to
>commit huge atrocities and publicizing them would weaken war morale. Thus
the
>CoE was being solicited to assist in spread atrocity stories about Germany.
Someone posted it in another NG to "demonstrate" that the German atrocities
were fabricated. I haven't read the original document, just the quote (but
the poster's agenda certainly precluded showing the British in a better
light than reality).
It said that with the forthcoming Russian advance in Central Europe, there
was a likely possibility that tales of Soviet atrocities would spread (from
past Soviet record, that seemed a reasonable assessment !), which might
weaken civilian morale.
So it was asked of the Church of England to concentrate on stories about
German atrocities, numerous examples of which were available at the ministry
of information if the ministers lacked data.
>I hope that is not true but if so, it puts an entirely different light the
>atrocity emphasis and their source during that war.
Does it ? It sounds like very straightforward propaganda to me: the British
didn't even make up the German atrocities, they just told the Church to
mention them instead of the Soviet ones.
mike muth
> Yea, could very well have been false. But then again, the use of dead russians
> as lubricant could have been nothing more than tank crews using whatever means> they had to keep their tanks in good working order. Nothing sinister or gastly
> in their intent. In fact that is the way I took the story to be.
I regard the story as highly unlikely for several reasons.
1. Body fat is just not heavy enough make an adequate lubricant. I
suppose you could use it to retard rust, but tanks need something much
more substantial (Having served on M48's, M60's, M1's, and M551's, I
speak with a little knowledge of what a tank needs.). Imagine trying to
use the fat one trims from a cut of steak (well, some of us do trim
it...) to lube your car. Just not substantial or durable enough.
2. Despite the brutality of the war, I don't think the average tank
crew would seriously consider this.
3. Animal fats decompose too quickly to provide any long term
benefits. They are also easily washed off surfaces (anyone else ever
use water and sand to clean a mess kit?).
4. The stink would be terrible. This, by itself, would be a VERY
strong deterrent.
Mike
Yau-ming Chiam
that and ran over the troops carrying Sagger missiles and over the anti-tank
guns.
"A messy job" as an Israeli veteran said later.
Regards,
YM
HarmonHall
>>>Hope this isn't true, but I seem to recall >hearing that bodies were
>>>used to make corduroy roads for tanks and trucks.
>>Before anyone else says it, I will: Yeah those bastard Nazi huns did it
>>all the time.
>>Come on now. Bodies would make very poor corduroy. -- Heinz
>Relax Heinz, the war is over, be impartial, Alot of bad things happened
>in the war, on all sides. Have some points to bring out, bring them out,
>lets discuss it.
Then by all means let us be impartial. Bodies under tank treads are of no more
value than the crushed bones.
But before going in to that, just what need does a tank have for a road in the
first place?
casita
>traffic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HCALTMANN
The difference between German propaganda and Western propaganda during
WWII was this:
German propaganda was produced by the government, by Goebbels. This
was known to the German people. They saw him as the cheerleader of a
losing team. His lies did not survive the war.
Western propaganda was the product of a "free press." This press was
free to print the "truth," and many people believed it. These same people
still circulate these "truths."
Any comments?
HCALTMANN
>Kurt J. Bowker
>kjbo...@email.msn.com writes, after I >commented on a story that Germans used
>bodies to make corduroy roads for tanks and >trucks, to whit:
>>Hope this isn't true, but I seem to recall >hearing that bodies were
>>used to make corduroy roads for tanks and trucks.
And then I answered facetiously, but with good cause:
>>Before anyone else says it, I will: Yeah >>those bastard Nazi huns did it
>>all the time.
And then Kurt Bowker said:
>Relax Heinz, the war is over ...
And now its me again:
Apparently, the war of innuendo and propaganda slurs and lies is not yet
over. More and more implausible accusations seem to be made on this
newsgroup against the Germans. I object to that. I believe I have a
right to do that. Impartiality is achieved only if one weighs both sides.
Too many do not do that even today. This kind of things hurts me, and I
do not like the pain. Please, guys, think twice before you repeat what
"you have heard." Justice requires that.
And now I have to add the apparently necessary disclaimer: I am not a
revisionist, I do not deny the Holocaust, I do not deny that WWII started
with Germany's invasion of Poland, I do not deny that tens of millions
died on both sides, and that all of these deaths were unnecessary and can
be laid at the feet of Hitler and some of the Germans of his time. I am
ashamed to have been a German, but I am not guilty.
Miktb
that matter) is pure propaganda. Actually, the first time I heard it was in
the movie "Patton" when George C. Scott said "we'll grease our tracks with
their living guts"
As someone who has done more than my share of track maintenance on tanks let me
make a few observations:
1. You don't actually lubricate the tracks, they are run dry. The end
connectors and the drive sprocket exert way too much pressure and are exposed
to too much dirt and water to ever keep any type of grease for more than a few
minutes (remember the distinctive screeching sound that tanks make in all the
war movies? That's dry metal on metal track movement)
2. The only parts of the track system that gets lubricant are the shocks, the
road wheels, and support rollers. This is done with a high pressure grease gun
into sealed fittings (not the type of thing that works well with human bodies)
3. Human bodies are water based, this would make a lousy lubricant if you
could somehow find a way to use it. It couldn't stand the pressure and would
dry out too quickly.
The whole story is just the wartime equivalent of an "Urban Legend" Scares the
hell out of "crunchies" oops, I mean infantry soldiers though :-)
Mike Burk
George Hardy
harmo...@aol.com (HarmonHall) says:
>But before going in to that, just what need does a tank have
>for a road in the first place?
Mud. Just read a little about the eastern front. Tanks do very
poorly in mud 4 feet deep.
BTW, I think that this rumor came about due to the use of unshaped
logs for roads. There were some "dark humor" jokes made about the
roads.
GFH
***************************************************************
http://www.ankerstein.org/
The Anchor Stone Building Set (Anker-Steinbaukasten) Home Page
See what makes me tick.
***************************************************************
casita
>> as lubricant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that urinated into the hydralic system to make it work. And it did.
Obviously, a truck needs a better road then a tank. Hope to God they
never used frozen bodies. They may have just been in the way and no one
bothered to move them.
I did see a TV documentary where a CDN tanker had to hack rotting
corpses out of Shermans ( apparently the Germans called them "Ronsons") in
Normany to get them back into service for the next
crew.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mike Fester
: HCALTMANN wrote in message <19981214195950...@ng-fa2.aol.com>...
: >From: "casita" <casi...@hotmail.com>
:
: >>Hope this isn't true, but I seem to recall >hearing that bodies were
: >>used to make corduroy roads for tanks and trucks.
: Relax Heinz, the war is over, be impartial, Alot of bad things happened
I'd agree the war's over.
As for "impartial", I have never heard this sort of thing even hinted at
in Shirer, or Gilbert, nor anywhere else.
And just out of common sense, bodies would make a TERRIBLE road; a tank
would grind them into mud rather quickly, trucks more slowly.
Yeah, "A lot of bad things happened", but this one doesn't even make
sense as an atrocity.
Mike
TMOliver
>
> This thread should now be renamed "Propaganda." I'll take a first crack at it:
>
> The difference between German propaganda and Western propaganda during
> WWII was this:
>
> German propaganda was produced by the government, by Goebbels. This
> was known to the German people. They saw him as the cheerleader of a
> losing team. His lies did not survive the war.
>
inflammatory speaker and the government (in several
different departments) prepared most propaganda (because
it owned/operated most of the official organs of
communications), but a variety of privately sponsored
efforts (especially the cinema, absolutely dependent on
government approval for all aspects of film making) were
"private sector" propagandists.
> Western propaganda was the product of a "free press." This press was
> free to print the "truth," and many people believed it. These same people
> still circulate these "truths."
>
Certainly, in the US a great deal of official
"propaganda" was prepared and distributed by the
government. Because of the size of the country and the
vast numbers of privately owned media outlets
(newspapers, radio stations, magazines), the government
depended upon the private sectors willingness to print,
reprint, and broadcast its "official"
stories/propaganda. Most outlets cooperated out of
conviction (or on occasion, because things such as paper
supplies could dry up, broadcast licenses fail in
renewal, or from fear of legal action). On the other
hand, occasionlly newspapers( _Chicago Tribune_?) while
supporting the war, evidenced a substantial
antigovernment bias. Movie makers were quick to follow
the government lead, sometimes even to exceed it, for
"government cooperation" was essential, even for such
mundane parts of the business as film stock.
Over the years, propaganda has acquired an overwhelmingly
negative reputation. The truth of the matter is quite
different. There are only two kinds of propaganda,
"Ours" which is "Good", and "Theirs" which is "Bad."
>
> HeinzA -- HCAl...@aol.com (Heinz Altmann)
> "As hard as I try to be sensitive and politically correct, I can't avoid
> bumping my way into boorish opinions, thus offending those who are truly
> enlightened." - Mike Royko
--
TMOliver (who has seen the elephant)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gentlemen, charge your glasses for a toast to the ship!
May she and all of those who sail in her
Find fair winds and following seas,
And when her bell has last struck eight on time,
Come to safe moorings in the Isles of the Blest,
Secure in the regard of grateful nation and its
citizenry...
Louis Capdeboscq
>was known to the German people. They saw him as the cheerleader of a
>losing team. His lies did not survive the war.
The fact that Germany lost the war had something to do with Goebbels'
propaganda being short-lived: the Germans were taught a different version
afterwards.
As for the "his lies did not survive the war", we have in this very NG, 50
years after the event, some people believing that the Morgenthau plan was
implemented or that WWII was a result of imperialistic Western aggression on
peaceful Germany ;)
> Western propaganda was the product of a "free press." This press was
>free to print the "truth," and many people believed it. These same people
>still circulate these "truths."
Propaganda is propaganda, that's a fact. I'd say that one difference was
that the Allied press could freely criticize the Allied conduct of the war,
that the British ministry of information (in the case pointed out) could
only suggest, and that this did not necessarily carry the same meaning as a
"suggestion" from Goebbels' quarters. More importantly, this propaganda
could be debunked by mostly anyone caring to research it after the war,
while it is doubtful that such would have been the case if Germany had won.
I'll agree that there are some who still believe US, British, or Soviet
propaganda just are there are some who still believe the German brand.
George Hardy
<Louis.Ca...@wanadoo.fr> says:
>> Western propaganda was the product of a "free press."
>Propaganda is propaganda, that's a fact.
Yes, it is. I remember a presentation of US propaganda (anti-
German) films when I was at Cornell in the mid 50s. We were
to be shown 5, but only 3 were shown. Why? Because they all
used the same clips, identified as different events in each
film. By the third the audience was laughing at the "newly"
re-identified horror clip. Not the effect the sponsor had
intended.
One film, any one, alone and without other sources, was persuasive.
Together they were obviously just blatant lies.
Corsair
<Much nonsense about using bodies as road paving snipped>
>
>Apparently, the war of innuendo and propaganda slurs and lies is not yet
>over. More and more implausible accusations seem to be made on this
>newsgroup against the Germans. I object to that. I believe I have a
>right to do that. Impartiality is achieved only if one weighs both sides.
>Too many do not do that even today. This kind of things hurts me, and I
>do not like the pain. Please, guys, think twice before you repeat what
>"you have heard." Justice requires that.
Heinz,
Certainly, there will always be need to "set straight" those
who spout this nonsense. I think your response was just about right.
Their fault if they have no sense of humor or sarcasm
>
>And now I have to add the apparently necessary disclaimer: I am not a
>revisionist, I do not deny the Holocaust, I do not deny that WWII started
>with Germany's invasion of Poland, I do not deny that tens of millions
>died on both sides, and that all of these deaths were unnecessary and can
>be laid at the feet of Hitler and some of the Germans of his time. I am
>ashamed to have been a German, but I am not guilty.
>
Heinz, unless you were there supporting the Nazis, or doing
nothing to stop the horror they spread, don't be ashamed to be German!
Rember that German also produced Beetoven too! There is MUCH to
admire in German history and culture. It is strange that a
"civilized," urbane culture is occasionaly capable of shocking
brutality.. German Nazism, Japan and the Rape of Nanking, America and
our shameful treatment of the Indian cultures (no flames please.. I am
well aware of the massacres on BOTH sides of that coin).
To the point of the original post, I don't know if there can
ever be a definitive count as to how many troops lost their lives
under the tracks of tanks. It certainly did happen, on all sides that
used AFV's in combat. Ambrose wrote of American and British tanks
sliding into..and onto Allied troops during the hard freezes of the
winter of 1944, so acidents were far from unknown.
Corsair, The Mostly Harmless
**************************************
http://homepage2.rconnect.com/lsanders
**************************************
Adam Kippes
> I did see a TV documentary where a CDN tanker had to hack rotting
> corpses out of Shermans ( apparently the Germans called them "Ronsons") in
> Normany to get them back into service for the next crew.
It was the American crews who referred to Shermans as "Ronsons".
-- AK
--
adam....@pobox.com
PGP keys available from servers
HarmonHall
>>for a road in the first place?
>Mud. Just read a little about the eastern front. Tanks do very
>poorly in mud 4 feet deep.
But what good are a few bones in mud?
>BTW, I think that this rumor came about due to the use of unshaped
>logs for roads. There were some "dark humor" jokes made about the
>roads.
War propaganda as always. There was so much of it. Remember the japanese
canibals throwing away a perfectly good POW to make spleen soup?
rmacd...@microd.com
"You ran 'em over, you wash 'em off."
(Also had a friends driver just miss a T-55's bailing out tank crew)
--
Richard A. Macdonald, E.A.
SSG (Ret), USA, ADA (16P34)
Dedicated follower of Fra. Luca Pacioli, Master Juggler
"Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!
casita
roads when frozen.
I think that they were often run over and perhaps not a lot of respect
was shown towards war dead. Grim humour sort of thing. People sometimes
make light of body recovery and war graves registration, but for the mothers
of these men it made a big difference. The number of war dead with no known
graves is distressing. I do not know where the notion came that Germans
were any more or less sensitive than others in their treatment of the
dead.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
casita
corduroy. But, I wonder how much respect was shown for the dead.
HarmonHall
>years after the event, some people believing that the Morgenthau plan was
>implemented or that WWII was a result of imperialistic Western aggression on
>peaceful Germany ;)
Please ...
Fifty years after the war the Allied view of the war continues to dominate this
conference.
Which war other than that one (older of course) has the victor's view of the
war withstood the test of time?
>Propaganda is propaganda, that's a fact. I'd say that one difference was
>that the Allied press could freely criticize the Allied conduct of the war,
Speaking of living in a dreamworld... Or do you think aid and comfort to the
enemy did not apply to the press? Or do you think newspapers were not allocated
paper to print on?
>that the British ministry of information (in the case pointed out) could
>only suggest, and that this did not necessarily carry the same meaning as a
>"suggestion" from Goebbels' quarters.
It carried exactly the implicite threat to any rational person.
>More importantly, this propaganda
>could be debunked by mostly anyone caring to research it after the war,
>while it is doubtful that such would have been the case if Germany had won.
As you can see from responses and posts here, including your own, debunking
after the war, even 53 years after the war, is still treated as though there
were a war going on and those disagreeing are giving aid and comfort to the
enemy.
Much of it has been debunked and quite effectively and yet there are still
personal attacks for doing so. Most recently here there was suggested book on
Nuremberg that is only in print by the IHR. It is agreed it can not be
revisionist yet it was attacked and the person posting was attacked based upon
the publisher. The publisher was once firebombed for its publications which
gives a greater comprehension of the depth of the attacks for "debunking" which
you ssuggest is free and open.
casita
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
diesel or gas the most common engine for tanks?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nate Gordon
>>Propaganda is propaganda, that's a fact. I'd say that one difference was
>>that the Allied press could freely criticize the Allied conduct of the war,
>
>Speaking of living in a dreamworld... Or do you think aid and comfort to the
>enemy did not apply to the press? Or do you think newspapers were not allocated
>paper to print on?
Obviously you haven't read ANY sources from the period, or you would
have found many examples of newspapers criticizing aspects of the
conduct of the war. In addition, you might have read about the paper
(either the Chicago Tribune or the St. Louis major paper, I forget
which) that actually revealed classified information about how the
Americans were breaking Japanese codes...a revelation that was ignored
by the government.
>Most recently here there was suggested book on
>Nuremberg that is only in print by the IHR.
The very fact that it is in print by the IHR is condemnation enough.
Nate Gordon
cd00...@mindspring.com
"The sea was angry that day, my friends, like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli."
E.F.Schelby
>As for the "his lies did not survive the war", we have in this very NG, 50
>years after the event, some people believing that the Morgenthau plan was
>implemented or that WWII was a result of imperialistic Western aggression on
>peaceful Germany ;)
I think the belief is on your side, factual information is not.
That the Morgenthau Plan ideas were at least partly implemented in
the shape of JCS 1067
1) Has nothing to do with German Propaganda
2) Has nothing to with _opinions_ expressed in this newsgroup
3) Is based solely on respectable work done by American and British
scholars, and on documentation.
4) Shouldn't be lumped together with fantastic phrases like
"imperialistic Western aggression..."
References have been posted, and should be read, checked, and
debated based on evidence, not belief. Surely you can find them in
Dejanews if you wish. Now if one wants to disregard the evidence,
fine. But I don't think it is credible to joke about something one
hasn't bothered to investigate. Your post shows that you have not.
Regards,
ES
rmacd...@microd.com
<casi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gasoline: US, UK, Germany, Japan (some), France, and Poland
Diesel: USSR, Italy, Japan (some)
The big problem with the Sherman catching fire was actually the ammunition
storage. Adding water jackets to the ammo racks significantly improved crew
survival and reduced the vehicle flammability.
But then I have the advantage of having a copy of Hunnicutt's "Sherman" on the
shelf next to my desk.
--
Richard A. Macdonald, E.A.
SSG (Ret), USA, ADA (16P34)
Dedicated follower of Fra. Luca Pacioli, Master Juggler
"Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!
--
Does anybody else find it ironic that Bill Clinton says Saddam Hussein must be
punished because he didn't turn over documents and refused to cooperate with
investigators?
- Inside the Beltway [Wash Times - 12/18/98]
Jeff Heidman
>
> And now its me again:
>
> Apparently, the war of innuendo and propaganda slurs and lies is not yet
> over. More and more implausible accusations seem to be made on this
> newsgroup against the Germans. I object to that. I believe I have a
> right to do that. Impartiality is achieved only if one weighs both sides.
> Too many do not do that even today. This kind of things hurts me, and I
> do not like the pain. Please, guys, think twice before you repeat what
> "you have heard." Justice requires that.
I think we need to step back from this. I agree that many over-emphasize German
atrocities, and attempt to under-emphasize Allied ones. I also believe that this
group has some who make an active effort to discount or trivialize German
atrocities. There are certainly also those who attempt to claim that everyone was
bad, so it was all equal.
The point is that I do not think that in this case, any of that is happening.
Someone repeated some silly urban legend, and then everyone took it a little too
seriously. Is there really anyone out there who is claiming that the German use of
bodies as roads or lubricants is a real example of German (or whomever)
inhumanity? I would suggest that anyone making that claim is an idiot. As many
have pointed out, bodies make very poor mechanical tools of any sort, being rather
soft and squishy, even frozen.
There are more than enough German atrocities to indict without coming up with
these goofy examples, and everyone realizes that.
> And now I have to add the apparently necessary disclaimer: I am not a
> revisionist, I do not deny the Holocaust, I do not deny that WWII started
> with Germany's invasion of Poland, I do not deny that tens of millions
> died on both sides, and that all of these deaths were unnecessary and can
> be laid at the feet of Hitler and some of the Germans of his time. I am
> ashamed to have been a German, but I am not guilty.
Well said.
Jeff Heidman
Mark Van Alstine
Gordon) wrote:
> On 19 Dec 1998 17:08:25 GMT, harmo...@aol.com (HarmonHall) wrote:
>
> >>Propaganda is propaganda, that's a fact. I'd say that one difference was
> >>that the Allied press could freely criticize the Allied conduct of the war,
> >
> >Speaking of living in a dreamworld... Or do you think aid and comfort to the
> >enemy did not apply to the press? Or do you think newspapers were not
allocated
> >paper to print on?
>
> Obviously you haven't read ANY sources from the period, or you would
> have found many examples of newspapers criticizing aspects of the
> conduct of the war. In addition, you might have read about the paper
> (either the Chicago Tribune or the St. Louis major paper, I forget
> which) that actually revealed classified information about how the
> Americans were breaking Japanese codes...a revelation that was ignored
> by the government.
Costello's _Pacific War_ talks about this. As I recall it was the
_Tribune_ and, no, it wasn't ignored by the government. Far from it. The
intelligence community was livid. The only reason that the expose never
made it to court was that the publicity would have been like puring gas on
a fire, exposing our ability to crack Japanese codes like Purple and JN25.
So, in essence, everybody bit their tongues, crossed their fingers, and
hoped that the Japanese wouldn't pick up on this revelation. Fortunately,
they didn't. Probably because the FBI had already eliminated any semblance
of Japanese espionage capabilities. The Japanese intelligence gathering
was evidently reduced to reading U.S. newspapers from their embassies in
South America. Fortunately, it appears that none carried the _Tribune_.
Mark
--
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and
evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between
political parties--but right through every human heart--and all
human hearts." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
dave gower
gender, or other affiliation). Germany happened to have been where the
Nazi horror came to full bloom. Savage tendencies are found throughout
the human species. They exist in all persons, even the gentlest and most
civilized, and dominate a small fraction of people in every culture and
population. A Jewish friend of mine agonizes over the similarities he
sees between Nazis and extreme right-wing Isrealies.
The Nazi horror was a human horror. Hitler was a complex but
surprisingly ordinary man in unordinary circumstances. Any non-German
who thinks "it can't happen here" is fooling themselves. You are neither
guilty nor, I believe, need feel any shame not shared by all other
humans.
> HCALTMANN wrote:
>..I am not a revisionist, I do not deny the Holocaust, I do not deny that WWII started > with Germany's invasion of Poland, I do not deny that tens of millions
> died on both sides, and that all of these deaths were unnecessary and can
> be laid at the feet of Hitler and some of the Germans of his time. I am
> ashamed to have been a German, but I am not guilty.
........................................................................
"One good thing about self-pity...you don't have to doubt it's
sincerity."
TSBench
Van Alstine ) writes:
>In addition, you might have read about the paper
>> (either the Chicago Tribune or the St. Louis major paper, I forget
>> which) that actually revealed classified information about how the
>> Americans were breaking Japanese codes...a revelation that was ignored
>> by the government.
>
>Costello's _Pacific War_ talks about this. As I recall it was the
>_Tribune_ and, no, it wasn't ignored by the government. Far from it. The
>intelligence community was livid.>>>>
If I recall correctly, this was in a story in the Tribune filed by Stanley
Johnston, an Australian correspondent accredited to PTO. I believe the story
stemed from, and may have been repeated, in Johnston's "instant" book 'Queen
of the Flattops...The USS Lexington and the Coral Sea Battle." Also in that
book, Johnston repeated the mis-identification of a Japanese 'Tony" as a ME109,
giving rise to legends about the Japanese airforce being either supplimented by
German pilots or using German equipment.
I know after the Tribune incident, the USN tried to have Johnston's
accreditation pulled, but I don't know if they were successful.
Regards,
TSB
Bill Walker...Producer and Cohost of The Shooting Bench radio
program....General Manager, WDIS-Radio, Norfolk, Massachusetts.
HarmonHall
>>enemy did not apply to the press? Or do you think newspapers were not
>allocated
>>paper to print on?
>Obviously you haven't read ANY sources from the period, or you would
>have found many examples of newspapers criticizing aspects of the
>conduct of the war.
You mean criticism such as "we aren't winning fast enough" or "that battle
should have been fought differently"? That is hardly the kind of criticism that
was being referred to in this thread.
Can you provide some examples of substantive critism? Such as any paper that
continued its pre-war isolationist stance and continued railing against being
in the war through 1945? Can you find any saying loudly and into 1945 that the
US would not be in the war were it not for FDR's attacking german ships? Can
you find any opposition to the war itself after 1941?
Now that is criticism. The kind you are refering to is the kind that even the
communists permit.
>>Most recently here there was suggested book on
>>Nuremberg that is only in print by the IHR.
>The very fact that it is in print by the IHR is condemnation enough.
That position is what we call anti-intellectual. It is also the kind of post
that leads to threats and attacks on all publishers such as St. Martin's Press.
You keep attacking publishers, not be serious about finding the perps of crimes
agains them and real soon every nutcase group in the country is acting out
their criminal little fantasies.
That is exactly the way to lead to a political party taking the opportunity to
promote official censorhip for the votes. Perhaps Goebbels' grandson can run
the party.
Jeff Heidman
> >>Speaking of living in a dreamworld... Or do you think aid and comfort to the
> >>enemy did not apply to the press? Or do you think newspapers were not
> >allocated
> >>paper to print on?
>
> >Obviously you haven't read ANY sources from the period, or you would
> >have found many examples of newspapers criticizing aspects of the
> >conduct of the war.
>
> You mean criticism such as "we aren't winning fast enough" or "that battle
> should have been fought differently"? That is hardly the kind of criticism that
> was being referred to in this thread.
>
> Can you provide some examples of substantive critism? Such as any paper that
> continued its pre-war isolationist stance and continued railing against being
> in the war through 1945? Can you find any saying loudly and into 1945 that the
> US would not be in the war were it not for FDR's attacking german ships? Can
> you find any opposition to the war itself after 1941?
How is the lack of widespread demands to remove the US from the war evidence of
anything iother than the fact that it was pretty obvious to even the blatantly
stupid that it was a war that the US should have been in? Perhaps, and this is
just a guess, there was no papers blaming Roosevelt for getting involved in
WWIIbecause Roosevelt wasn;t very responsible for it?
> Now that is criticism. The kind you are refering to is the kind that even the
> communists permit.
So you are trying to say that the press in the US in WW2 was censored like the
communist press was in the USSR? A bold statement. I shall wait for some evidence
to back it up. Surely you have some?
> >>Most recently here there was suggested book on
> >>Nuremberg that is only in print by the IHR.
>
> >The very fact that it is in print by the IHR is condemnation enough.
>
> That position is what we call anti-intellectual.
Who is this "we" you are refferring to? Pointing out that a group like the
Istitute for Historical Review is a well-known neo-Nazi front is hardly
anti-intellectual. Rather, actually believing that the IHR is anything else show a
decided inability to think for oneself.
> It is also the kind of post
> that leads to threats and attacks on all publishers such as St. Martin's Press.
> You keep attacking publishers, not be serious about finding the perps of crimes
> agains them and real soon every nutcase group in the country is acting out
> their criminal little fantasies.
That is really funny that someone is defending the IHR against "every nutcase
group in the country". Can you spell I-R-O-N-Y?
> That is exactly the way to lead to a political party taking the opportunity to
> promote official censorhip for the votes. Perhaps Goebbels' grandson can run
> the party.
I am sure you would vote for him.
Jeff Heidman