Americans you have just started to discover that y

[Black Dog]

.But how far did it make through the world courts system and why has Canada not been charged with war crimes. NATO did take care to ensure all targets were legimate.

NATO's bombing blunders

NATO war crimes

DU and Kosovo

Turning a blind eye to war crimes

Yes we are saintly, and it is only ridiculous because you can not prove me wrong, you see that is your problem you simply can not believe that Canadian soldiers are professional , they did but if you read my orginal claim i did specify after WW II

Canadian personnel took part in the terrorist bombings of Dresden and other civilian population centres. Canadian personnel are known to have participated in war crimes, including executions of P.O.W's. Canada as a nation committed one big war crime against its own by interning aCanadians of Japanese descent and seizing their property. So don't try to tell us we're innocent and pure.

The Waffen SS was also made up of concentration camp gaurds, forced labour forces, can you honestly sit there and tell me that someone could shoot hundreds of jews in one day and believe it was right , believe it was for the betterment of his country, is that why they had such a high turn over rate....because they had high moral....

Actually the Waffen SS were all combat units. Concentration camp guards etc. would not have come from Waffen SS ranks (note that the Waffen SS has its own track record of atrocity). Ad for your statement doubting the idealogical commitment of individuals capable of war crimes: the SS membershi[p was selected in part for their commitment to and unwavering belief in Hitler and the Nazi cause.

[Hugo]

Perhaps you can show me in History, other than 1916 where Germany was even interested in peace, Germany was not going to give-up any territory it had gained.

Based on what? I think that, with an economy about to collapse and an army being bled white, they'd have settled for a return to 1914 borders if it had been offered.

As for germany suffering from "war guilt" as you claim perhaps they should have thought of that before invading Belgium. They were responsiable for WW I, they knew the risks before they attacked, Germany got what it deserved nothing more nothing less.

Actually, technically WWI was started either by Serbia or Austro-Hungary (depending upon whose side you pick). Germany was dragged in as an ally following the mobilizing of Russia, after Germany asked the Tsar to cease his mobilization or risk war, and the Tsar refused.

The US decided to enter the War in 1917, thier first troops did not arrive until june 1917, and did not enter combat until end Oct 1917. You make it sound like the US troops won the war... They would have lost the War with out the US involvement, and still suffer total defeat.

What also happened in October/November 1917 was the Bolshevik Revolution, when the USSR pulled out of the war. Following that, vast numbers of German troops left Russia and arrived on the Western Front. Since France had pretty much run out of men to conscript and England was fast reaching that point, it's likely all three would have reached a peace agreement. The arrival of American troops and war materiel refreshed the Entente effort.

The Nazi party rose to power because of a corrupt goverment nothing more and the people wanted change....

Actually, a huge part of Hitler's platform was that Germany had been wronged in WWI and would rise again to take her rightful place in history. Most Germans sympathized with this viewpoint.

police, firemen, rescue ops, forrest fire fighters are not civilians. They are professional that risk there lives for normal every day civilians.

They aren't soldiers, though, are they? They don't kill people - well, except for police officers, who are basically stooges of the State, just like soldiers.

Yes Canada's military aircraft did partake in air operations over serbia and kosovo...."military quote" .....During the air campaign our air elements conducted over 678 sorties or I should say 2,500 plus hours of flying time. Next.

Next? How about first? You haven't addressed my point at all!

Yes we are saintly, and it is only ridiculous because you can not prove me wrong, you see that is your problem you simply can not believe that Canadian soldiers are professional , they did but if you read my orginal claim i did specify after WW II.

So there were no Canadian servicemen taking part in the raids on Hamburg or Dresden, then? You deny that historical fact? You deny that they bombed civilians in Yugoslavia?

The Waffen SS was also made up of concentration camp gaurds, forced labour forces

No, it wasn't. They were a strictly combat force. Your ignorance does not cast the rest of your arguments in a good light. You're thinking of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Sicherheitsdienst, Einsatzgruppen, Totenkopfverbände and Gestapo. Actually, I doubt you were at all - someone so ignorant of the SS would almost certainly never have heard of any of them (except perhaps the Gestapo).

[Guest eureka]

I think Germany is getting off a little too lightly over its role in the cause of WWI. The Austrian Empire would not have gone too war without the explicit backing of Germany. Most historians of my readings would say that Germany wanted war and "egged" on Autria.

Bertrand Russell's attitude to WWI was that Britain should have stayed out and let Germany defeat France. He believed that had that happened there would not have been a second war.

He was probably correct in the second possibility though I do not agree that Britain should have stayed on the sidelines. The secons war was a consequence of failed statemanship after the First.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

But how far did it make through the world courts system and why has Canada not been charged with war crimes. NATO did take care to ensure all targets were legimate.

Above is my orginal question, WHY has Canada not been offically charged with war crimes, Why has the world court not pursued this?

Your site on NATO's bombing blunders. did you actually read all those articles, there is no proof that NATO intentional targeted those sites,They are very unfortunate accidents or mistakes. You are forgetting that most of these Aircraft were engaged by Serbian air defense forces making bombing more difficult.

I find it a bit ironic that serbia had the balls to charge anyone with WAR crimes, this coming from a country that would bomb and mortar it's own people and blame another to gain sympathy in the world press. Again unfortunate accidents happen in WAR and that is what they are unfortunate accidents not WAR crimes...the ethic cleanising of Albanians by Serbian troops was a WAR crime.

As for your claim on DU ammuntions Canada does not use DU wpns or muntions.

The link i provided you shows pictures of RCMP members and forenstic personal working in a mass grave of which was a small one just over 300 old men,women, and children....killed by the serbain army...something else they claimed never happened...it was the reason NATO bombed in the first place. they continued thier cleansing up until Serbia sued for peace...

Canadian personnel took part in the terrorist bombings of Dresden and other civilian population centres. Canadian personnel are known to have participated in war crimes, including executions of P.O.W's. Canada as a nation committed one big war crime against its own by interning aCanadians of Japanese descent and seizing their property. So don't try to tell us we're innocent and pure.

Dresden,berlin,etc etc happened when during WW II, my orginal claim was after WW II. That being said, regardless of who started the bombing of civilian centers they were terrorist attacks we have covered this already. and i agree those that had ordered these attacks should have been tried as War crimals. As for you comment on other war crimes can you elborate, the excution of POW's i'm not aware of this, i do know of the unoffical order not to take any SS prisoners, after the excution of Canadian soldiers during D-Day.

The interment of Japanese, and German Canadians was an attempt by all the allieds to control those that were actually working for the enemy. right idea, wrong excution.

Actually the Waffen SS were all combat units. Concentration camp guards etc. would not have come from Waffen SS ranks (note that the Waffen SS has its own track record of atrocity).

This practice continued through most of the war, but in the end, from 1944 onwards facing manpower shortages, Waffen-SS units received conscript replacements drawn from disbanded Luftwaffe or Navy units or labour battalions. While these were conscripts and often lacked any (An army unit consisting of soldiers who fight on foot) infantry training before being thrown into combat, some SS units exhibited very high morale and comradeship until the very end of the war

Waffen SS

waffen ss

Both these links prove that waffen SS were not only part of the elite fighting formations but also in fact part of the Concentration camps system, forced labour BNs ETC ETC..

The Waffen SS was also made up of concentration camp gaurds, forced labour forces, can you honestly sit there and tell me that someone could shoot hundreds of jews in one day and believe it was right , believe it was for the betterment of his country, is that why they had such a high turn over rate....because they had high moral....

Ad for your statement doubting the idealogical commitment of individuals capable of war crimes: the SS membershi[p was selected in part for their commitment to and unwavering belief in Hitler and the Nazi cause.

There is no doubt that when they first enlisted that there belief that they were jioning an elite unit was true and that they did have an unwavering belief in hilter and the NAZI party. take that same soldier tell him that it is his duty now to take part in the masacre of women and children at the end of the day do you think he is still has the same unwavering belief, or is he now surrending to his fears that he himself could be killed for not performing his duty....

[Army Guy]

Hugo:

Perhaps you can show me in History, other than 1916 where Germany was even interested in peace, Germany was not going to give-up any territory it had gained.

Based on what? I think that, with an economy about to collapse and an army being bled white, they'd have settled for a return to 1914 borders if it had been offered

Based on an actual comment or peace agreement that was offered. Germany had started offensive operations in central europe if the above conditions were such a major factor Why ? did they not sue for peace at that time. Or was it they were bent on capturing europe and defeating the allies, because they still had hope they could win...

(As for germany suffering from "war guilt" as you claim perhaps they should have thought of that before invading Belgium. They were responsiable for WW I, they knew the risks before they attacked, Germany got what it deserved nothing more nothing less.)

Actually, technically WWI was started either by Serbia or Austro-Hungary (depending upon whose side you pick). Germany was dragged in as an ally following the mobilizing of Russia, after Germany asked the Tsar to cease his mobilization or risk war, and the Tsar refused.

Let me rephase my orginal comment, we all know how WW I started, however Germany is responsable for it's actions it took during WW I. Show me how Austro- Hungary/ Germany defense agreement forced germany to attack France and Belguim.....Are you telling me that germany is not responsiable for deciding to attack these countries.

What also happened in October/November 1917 was the Bolshevik Revolution, when the USSR pulled out of the war. Following that, vast numbers of German troops left Russia and arrived on the Western Front. Since France had pretty much run out of men to conscript and England was fast reaching that point, it's likely all three would have reached a peace agreement. The arrival of American troops and war materiel refreshed the Entente effort.

WHY did Germany not have sued for peace at this time ? "likely to reach a peace agreement" Your opinion....History has proven you wrong....

Because German actions prove otherwise, putting thier troops on the western front to continue the WAR ....They knew the US troops were going to arrive shortly and it would prolong the WAR....WHY not sure for peace at this time ? because they knew there was still a chance to defeat the allies on the battle grounds they wanted it all....not peace but all there gains ....Again show me in history anything different....if you can't why should germany not be held responsable for thier part in WW I.

Actually, a huge part of Hitler's platform was that Germany had been wronged in WWI and would rise again to take her rightful place in history. Most Germans sympathized with this viewpoint.

Yes, i will agree with you but it is not the only problemn facing germany at the time. the below link will give you some more insitew to why the german people were ready to foolow Hilter and the Nazi party.

fall of germany

They aren't soldiers, though, are they? They don't kill people - well, except for police officers, who are basically stooges of the State, just like soldiers

And yet who is the first people you phone when there is trouble ...let me guess the stooges of the state...as is the fire dept, ambulance ,hospital,. You've already stated on this forum that you personal will not use force to protect you or your family...but have also stated that it is alright for someone else to use deadly force...So i have to ask why the grief over police persons....

In Spring 1999, Canadian forces did intentionally bombed civilians and non-military targets in Yugoslavia, far away from Kosovo where the conflict was supposed to be going on. Here's an excerpt from the case the Yugoslavian government filed against Canada with the ICJ:

Next? How about first? You haven't addressed my point at all!

You stated that Canadian forces pilots intentional bombed civilians and NON-military targets. you have not proven that they have , do you have a copy of all flight plans and target lists. NO you do not...if you did the world court would be very interested as so would i. what you are basing your comments on is a report from the Serbian goverment making claims it could not support in court....or the goverment of Canada and those pilots would be in court today...you and others on this board have a uncanny ability to piont your fingers and believe everything negative printed. if you put in as much effort in finding out the entire truth you have very little to complain about.

The Waffen SS was also made up of concentration camp gaurds, forced labour forces.

No, it wasn't. They were a strictly combat force. Your ignorance does not cast the rest of your arguments in a good light. You're thinking of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Sicherheitsdienst, Einsatzgruppen, Totenkopfverbände and Gestapo. Actually, I doubt you were at all - someone so ignorant of the SS would almost certainly never have heard of any of them (except perhaps the Gestapo).

Why don't you atleast try and read the sites i gave Black dog, i have more if you would like.

[Army Guy]

Crazy cunuck:

Germany was no more responsible for WWI than England, France, or any other nations that formed the alliances that defined the two sides of the war.

I never once said that Germany had no fault in the war. Dont put words in my mouth. Of course they did.

What does your above statement suggest.

However, WWI is in no way a black and white issue, so were they solely responsible?

Nor did i state that Germany was solely responsable for WW I. the previous posts we were talking about Germany, and only Germany hence my statement, sorry for the confussion.

France never HAD to go to war, under your way of looking at it. Neither did England, nor Russia, nor anyone for that matter. If germany's to blame because they are responsible for their own actions, then why isn't France and England and everyone else in the war? Nobody HAD to go to war did they? Why didn't England choose one of these other options you speak of? Why does their decision to go to war not place the blame for it on them?

No France did not have to go to war, but they are entitled to defend themselfs, let me ask you a question do you defend yourself if a thug is smacking you ? Are you to blame for someone else actions.... England had a defense pact with France, and they were being attacked by germany.

Explain to me why Germany had to attack France and Belguim in the first place.

To answer your question, NO one had to go to WAR. unless you want to give into those thugs and bend to thier will ,what right did Germany have to attack...france and belguim remember your the history buff and i know nothing.

And with regards to the Ottoman situation, you don't know what you are talking about. Great Britain promised the Arabs, led by Sharif Husayn, in the western lands of the Arabian Peninsula, an independant Arab state. This promise of a new independant state was a condition for their revolt against the Ottomans in 1916. However, England did not live up to their promise and instead, under a deal made with France, decided to divide the territory between England and France.

Actually me and Black dog already had this debate.

arabs

So as you can see be the mid 1920's british and french ottomen territory had been divided and the arabs looked after. How can you say they did nothing.

Now if you really wanna get into great detail about the Paris Peace Conferences, Wilson's recommendations, Germany's mistreatment, the causes and results of the war, etc. I'm all for it but unless you show a little more objectivity and knowledge of the events, you may lose your "Germany's to blame" argument pretty quick, my friend.

You want to debate then fine debate, but leave this you don't know crap to someone else. so far the only person that has proven any lack of knowledge of the topic is you sir, I've given you sources and ref's if you had read all the posts. as for my argument that germany is reposnable for it's actions in WW I prove me wrong.

[Black Dog]

Above is my orginal question, WHY has Canada not been offically charged with war crimes, Why has the world court not pursued this?

Because the World Court has concluded it doesn't have juridstiction since the former Yugoslavia was not an official member of the United Nations when it initiated the case in April 1999 and as a result was also not a party to the ICJ's statute.

Simply because war crimes are not prosecuted doesn't mean they did not occur.

Your site on NATO's bombing blunders. did you actually read all those articles, there is no proof that NATO intentional targeted those sites,They are very unfortunate accidents or mistakes. You are forgetting that most of these Aircraft were engaged by Serbian air defense forces making bombing more difficult.

I've made my opinion clear that any party that undertakes actions knowing they will result in civilian deaths is as morally responsible for those deaths as someone who targets them intentionally.

I find it a bit ironic that serbia had the balls to charge anyone with WAR crimes, this coming from a country that would bomb and mortar it's own people and blame another to gain sympathy in the world press. Again unfortunate accidents happen in WAR and that is what they are unfortunate accidents not WAR crimes...the ethic cleanising of Albanians by Serbian troops was a WAR crime.

As was the ethnic cleansing of Serbians by Kosovar forces (backed by NATO).

The link i provided you shows pictures of RCMP members and forenstic personal working in a mass grave of which was a small one just over 300 old men,women, and children....killed by the serbain army...something else they claimed never happened...it was the reason NATO bombed in the first place. they continued thier cleansing up until Serbia sued for peace...

The worst atrocities actually occurred afte rand in retaliation to NATO bombing.

The interment of Japanese, and German Canadians was an attempt by all the allieds to control those that were actually working for the enemy. right idea, wrong excution.

Given that there's no evidence any Japanese Canadians were enemy agents, it was the wrong execution of a wrong idea.

There is no doubt that when they first enlisted that there belief that they were jioning an elite unit was true and that they did have an unwavering belief in hilter and the NAZI party. take that same soldier tell him that it is his duty now to take part in the masacre of women and children at the end of the day do you think he is still has the same unwavering belief, or is he now surrending to his fears that he himself could be killed for not performing his duty....

I don't really see what point you're trying to make. All aliong, you've been claiming soldiers do what they do because of belief in the rightness of their cause. Yet, when presented with an example where that same belief led to crimes against humanity, you back away from your original argument by saying the Nazis involved couldn't have believed in killing innocent people. Well, if they didn't believe in the cause, why would they take part in the atrocities? They certainly weren't under threat of death since your own sources indicate that "In all of the SS records, reviewed between 1946 and 1950, there was not one case discovered where an SS member was killed for refusing to carry out an illegal order associated with the Holocaust."

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Because the World Court has concluded it doesn't have juridstiction since the former Yugoslavia was not an official member of the United Nations when it initiated the case in April 1999 and as a result was also not a party to the ICJ's statute.

Simply because war crimes are not prosecuted doesn't mean they did not occur.

No, but the members of NATO are and can be charged with crimes if they can be proved. regardless of the country of orgin of the complianant...

And i agree with you 100% , that because crimes are not proscuted does not mean they did not take place...But you have yet provided any proof that crimes did actually happen....All i said was that NATO did not intentional bomb civilian targets...not to sound cold but thier is going to be civilian cas in any conflict. you can not with 100% guarente hit what your shooting at.

This conflict had already gone through all the diplomatic channels to get the Serbs from killing albanians and yet the refused....are you saying we should have left it at that and let the killing continue....Armed force was required to get them to final stop....who defends the rights of the albanians...

I've made my opinion clear that any party that undertakes actions knowing they will result in civilian deaths is as morally responsible for those deaths as someone who targets them intentionally.

Being morally responsable for those deaths has nothing to do with war crimes.

and what choice did the serbs leave NATO....

As was the ethnic cleansing of Serbians by Kosovar forces (backed by NATO).

Yes it was, but the KLA was not supported by NATO or KFOR troops that were on the ground after the air campaign. Yes i know what the Serb's claim ....all BS...

The worst atrocities actually occurred afte rand in retaliation to NATO bombing.

Again BS, RCMP uncovered a mass grave of over 1500 persons that dated back some 3 months before the air campaign. that was an entire village and everyone in it....this find was one of the largest....Are you making excuses for the serbs and do you believe that it is alright for one side to ethic cleanse another....

Given that there's no evidence any Japanese Canadians were enemy agents, it was the wrong execution of a wrong idea.

So what you are saying that no one of those interned did not pass on info to the enemy, they were not sypathic to thier home country. and would not commit any crimes again'st Canada or her allieds. As you say just because thier is no edvidance did not mean it did not happen. For the record i do not agree with the goverment decision to intern them either.

I don't really see what point you're trying to make. All aliong, you've been claiming soldiers do what they do because of belief in the rightness of their cause.

My piont is this, The Nazi party had complete control over all media, in doing so they had made the SS the unit to inspire to, the in thing to join...There was no mention of the slaughter of women and children in thier recruitment ads....just glory and honor on the battle field...they had no idea that they were going to be asked to commit crimes.

Yet, when presented with an example where that same belief led to crimes against humanity, you back away from your original argument by saying the Nazis involved couldn't have believed in killing innocent people.

I'm not backing away from any aurgument. but trying to show you orginally they did join for the same reason most soldiers do...however can you tell me that when forced with killing women and children their whole outlooked did not change. was it still the same country and party that they had been lead to believe.....

Well, if they didn't believe in the cause, why would they take part in the atrocities? They certainly weren't under threat of death since your own sources indicate that "In all of the SS records, reviewed between 1946 and 1950, there was not one case discovered where an SS member was killed for refusing to carry out an illegal order associated with the Holocaust."

This is true, there is not many cases that SS soldiers were excuted for not carring out orders... those that did refuse were sent away ASAP to not cause anymore of the same behavior.

But let me ask you this, if a murder says he is going to kill you if you don't obey his every word, and you've seen him kill before would you not believe him...or would you be willing to call his bluff....Which brings me back to this if that soldier believed he would die for not commiting these crimes, does he stll believe in the cause, the Nazi party or is he doing it just to stay alive....That is the difference in a Canadian soldier, and a Nazi soldier...I'm not forced by order of death to do anything. and those that did ceased being soldiers and became murders with a uniform.

[Black Dog]

And i agree with you 100% , that because crimes are not proscuted does not mean they did not take place...But you have yet provided any proof that crimes did actually happen....All i said was that NATO did not intentional bomb civilian targets...not to sound cold but thier is going to be civilian cas in any conflict. you can not with 100% guarente hit what your shooting at.

A case against NATO

NATO war crimes: the complaint

Again BS, RCMP uncovered a mass grave of over 1500 persons that dated back some 3 months before the air campaign. that was an entire village and everyone in it....this find was one of the largest....Are you making excuses for the serbs and do you believe that it is alright for one side to ethic cleanse another....

No such grave was found.

Where are the bodies?

No genocide. No justification.

So what you are saying that no one of those interned did not pass on info to the enemy, they were not sypathic to thier home country. and would not commit any crimes again'st Canada or her allieds. As you say just because thier is no edvidance did not mean it did not happen. For the record i do not agree with the goverment decision to intern them either.

See, we hav ethis thing in our country called "due process": its one of thos ethings that separates us from the tyrranical regimes we expressly oppose. yet here's a case wher ethousands were denied the right of due process of law. How is that at all defensible (even if you do not agree, you are justifying internment).

I'm not backing away from any aurgument. but trying to show you orginally they did join for the same reason most soldiers do...however can you tell me that when forced with killing women and children their whole outlooked did not change. was it still the same country and party that they had been lead to believe.....

You're squirming a bit now. You're trying to tell me that Nazis may have initially beleived in the cause and joined up (thus, according to your reasoning, fulfilling their duty as good citizens). Yet, once they saw what there country stood for (despite the central role of anti-semetism and racial purity in the Nazi ideaology), they wanted to back out but couldn't under penalty of death (even though there was no such penalty). If that were the case, how were the Nazis able to run anad maintain such an efficient killing machine? Somebody must have beleive dthat seving his country and killing innocents were one in the same.

Why is it so hard to accept that everyone is capable of performing barabaric acts? Indeed, the more power a person has, the more youi convince them of the rightness of their cause, the more likely they are to commit such acts.

That is the difference in a Canadian soldier, and a Nazi soldier...I'm not forced by order of death to do anything. and those that did ceased being soldiers and became murders with a uniform.

All soldiers have the right to refuse to obey an illegal order. Obviously there were Nazis who refused and, by your own admission, were reasssigned, not killed.

So you're just wrong. (Incidentally, any Canadian soldier who didn't want to fight faced death or jail. That sounds like being forced to do something, doesn't it.)

[Black Dog]

Weak Case Against Milosevic has Hague in 'a panic'

Sgt. Honeybourn and forensic team leader Brian Strongman echoed Mr. Pritchard's doubts that the genocidal massacre by the Serbs ever took place.

"I can't say that there weren't 200,000 bodies because I wasn't covering the entire country," said Sgt. Honeybourn.

"But I never saw any sign of anything like 200,000. If there were that many, then why did they have us exhuming single graves? The biggest mass grave we examined contained about 20 and there was another one of 11. But mostly our nine-member team worked on single graves."

Mr. Strongman said he recalls that exhumations by the Canadian group and 11 other international teams never matched the "rumours" of mass graves holding the bodies of many thousands.

"We only spent 45 days there," he said, "but I believe the largest mass grave we investigated held 20 bodies. I was in Bosnia and remember one mass grave that held 200 -- certainly we never saw anything like that in Kosovo. Of course, Louise Arbour and people had to talk about figures like 200,000 to justify bringing in NATO."

Sgt. Honeybourn, a veteran of more than 30 years of police work, was a member of the first Canadian forensic specialist team that joined units from several western countries in the search for the alleged 200,000 buried victims.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

dgpa-dgap.mil.ca/Transcr/2000Jun/00061201.htm

TOPIC/SUJET: One year after the Kosovo conflict 3300 people remain missing AGENCY/AGENCE: CTV NEWSNET

DATE-TIME/DATE-HEURE: 12 07h00 Jun 00 REFERENCE: 00061201

One year after the Kosovo conflict the Red Cross says more than 3300 people remain missing. Hundreds of bodies have been found in mass graves and between 60 and 80% of them have been identified.

So your telling me this photo is false, your telling me that this team an RCMP team filed a false report.

My Webpage

and none of this happened as well.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/674056.stm

and you say they can not find the bodies.

news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/inside_kosovo/pristina.stm

My Webpage

My Webpage

There are more web sites avail but they contain very graphic pictures of the dead. and you already know my opion on that. however just those numbers alone add to more than 2000 dead. as you claim.

UN res

See, we hav ethis thing in our country called "due process": its one of thos ethings that separates us from the tyrranical regimes we expressly oppose. yet here's a case wher ethousands were denied the right of due process of law. How is that at all defensible (even if you do not agree, you are justifying internment).

My piont is that if there was edvidance that any person that was providing info, or assistance to the enemy that interment would be a wise decision. i clearly stated that i did not agree with interment.

You're squirming a bit now. You're trying to tell me that Nazis may have initially beleived in the cause and joined up (thus, according to your reasoning, fulfilling their duty as good citizens). Yet, once they saw what there country stood for (despite the central role of anti-semetism and racial purity in the Nazi ideaology), they wanted to back out but couldn't under penalty of death (even though there was no such penalty). If that were the case, how were the Nazis able to run anad maintain such an efficient killing machine? Somebody must have beleive dthat seving his country and killing innocents were one in the same.

It is one thing to go along with party lines, it is another to pull the trigger on an infant and still at the end of the day honestly believe it would make you a better person, or it was in the service of your country....There was a written and verbal penalty that refusing orders could result in death...was it followed in cases of refusing to kill civilians is another matter... why is that perhaps it suggest that it could not be enforced, even the HQ's knew it was not right to slaughter the innocent....Are you suggesting that all germanies troops knew what they may have to do in the way of killing innocent people and chalked it up to service for there country....and embraced it as all part of being a soldier....does not say much for the german people does it...that they are all stone hard killers....

Why is it so hard to accept that everyone is capable of performing barabaric acts? Indeed, the more power a person has, the more youi convince them of the rightness of their cause, the more likely they are to commit such acts.

Because , i am a Canadian soldier, and have worked with hundards of Canadian soldiers in places were commiting war crimes is common place and yet Canadian soldiers have remained professional, and always made the right decisions. I am postive that you could not convince a Canadian soldier to line up women and children and excute them like animals. Why is it so hard for you to accept that ....

[Black Dog]

I never said there weren't atrocities: quite the opposite. However, there's no evidence they were on the scale NATO said they were. Oh and two BBC articles you link to support my thesis that the major atrocities were spurred by the NATO air campaign:

Within hours of the Nato bombardment of Yugoslavia beginning on 25 March, the settlement and its neighbouring villages became the focus for what appears to have been a horrific series of attacks, as innocent ethnic Albanians were killed in presumed reprisals for KLA support.

The world was alerted to the fate of the men of Posto Selo on 11 April when Nato, acting on information supplied by the Kosovo Liberation Army, revealed that it had turned its spy satellites onto the area north of Orahovac - and found mass graves.

note: NATO bombing began in March

120 dead is indeed a horrific tally, no question. It was indeed a war crime. However, it was not genocide.

Are you suggesting that all germanies troops knew what they may have to do in the way of killing innocent people and chalked it up to service for there country....and embraced it as all part of being a soldier....does not say much for the german people does it...that they are all stone hard killers....

Yes. And I'm not saying it's a phenomenon limited to Germans, given the number of atrocities committed on a daily basis by military personnel.

Because , i am a Canadian soldier, and have worked with hundards of Canadian soldiers in places were commiting war crimes is common place and yet Canadian soldiers have remained professional, and always made the right decisions. I am postive that you could not convince a Canadian soldier to line up women and children and excute them like animals. Why is it so hard for you to accept that ....

I don't accept it because I don't think it's true. Once you tell someone that murder is justifiable in service of a cause, once that barrier is broken down, it's a fairly simple matter to extend that same leeway to anyone who stands against said cause, even if they are women and children. I'm certain that, under the right set of circumstances, even the most most upstanding Canadian soldier could and would point their weapon at a woman or child and pull the trigger.

[Black Dog]

Oh and as for your claims about the percision of NATO airstrikes, I just came across this:

The Kosovo cover up

Air power was effective in the Kosovo war not against military targets but against civilian ones. Military planners do not like to talk frankly about terror-bombing civilians ("strategic targeting" is the preferred euphemism), but what got Milosevic's attention was turning out the lights in downtown Belgrade. Making the Serb populace suffer by striking power stations—not "plinking" tanks in the Kosovo countryside—threatened his hold on power. The Serb dictator was not so much defeated as pushed back into his lair—for a time.

[CrazyCanuck]

QUOTE

Germany was no more responsible for WWI than England, France, or any other nations that formed the alliances that defined the two sides of the war.

I never once said that Germany had no fault in the war. Dont put words in my mouth. Of course they did.

What does your above statement suggest.

--------------------------------------------------

It suggests that Germany is no more responsible for the war than any other nations fighting in it. How is that hard to understand?

************************************************************

No France did not have to go to war, but they are entitled to defend themselfs, let me ask you a question do you defend yourself if a thug is smacking you ? Are you to blame for someone else actions.... England had a defense pact with France, and they were being attacked by germany.

Explain to me why Germany had to attack France and Belguim in the first place.

----------------------------------------------------------

Germany obviously recognized the situation in Europe and saw that a war was inevitable. Its not like the European empires weren't already prepared to go to war. The Germans were trying to get the upper hand on things. I'm not saying that it was right, i'm just saying that thats what happened. But if England is excused from fault because they were just fulfilling their pact with France, why isn't Germany excused considering they entered the war to fulfill a pact made with Austria/Hungary?

*******************************************************************

So as you can see be the mid 1920's british and french ottomen territory had been divided and the arabs looked after. How can you say they did nothing.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Don't take sentances out of context to misrepresent my position. All I said was that as far as fulfilling their deals made with the arabs, they did nothing.

*******************************************************************

as for my argument that germany is reposnable for it's actions in WW I prove me wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Don't shift the burden of proof. Its not my job to prove you wrong, its your job to prove you're right.

If all you're saying is that Germany is responsible for their actions, i completely agree. Thats not really what you've been saying until just now. You stated that the Paris Peace Conferences were fair and Germany got what it deserved, nothing more and nothing less. News Flash: The treaties signed at the conferences placed all blame for the war on Germany! If you agree with them, then you must believe that Germany was at total fault. Thats what i disagree with. The post-war negotiations should have been aimed at peace, and not simply revenge. It shouldn't have been about blame. Now I know it was tradition that the losing side pays for the war, but this wasn't traditional war, and England and France should've acknowledged that. Rather than trying to change the structure of Europe to address the problems that caused the war, the allied side simply made things worse by trying to humiliate and devestate the German people. This, I believe, was a significant factor that caused WWII.

[Hugo]

Germany had started offensive operations in central europe if the above conditions were such a major factor Why ? did they not sue for peace at that time. Or was it they were bent on capturing europe and defeating the allies, because they still had hope they could win...

I would say it had more to do with the fact that they had no hope for peace. At that point, the choices for Germany were to win or to be defeated. Had there been a third alternative, other than a desperate and bloody gambit of last resort or the destruction of the Hohenzollern State, I'm sure they would have pursued it. Wilhelm II may have been none too bright, however, there's nothing suggesting that he was insane enough to continue fighting with no soldiers, no guns, no bullets and no food if there was an alternative.

Even Hitler, in 1945, sought a peace settlement - and he was crazy!

As for germany suffering from "war guilt" as you claim perhaps they should have thought of that before invading Belgium.

And perhaps Austro-Hungary should have thought of it before delivering an impossible ultimatum to Serbia. For that matter, the USA should have thought of it before delivering a highly insulting and impossible ultimatum to Japan, which led them to believe that war was inevitable and that they should strike first to have any hope of winning.

That's a much-glossed-over fact of history.

Are you telling me that germany is not responsiable for deciding to attack these countries.

Sure, but the historical consensus is that WWI was not the fault of any one country. It was due to increasingly hostile and belligerent blocs of power. The attitudes of all European countries in the early 20th Century made war inevitable - it was always a question of when, until 1914.

WHY did Germany not have sued for peace at this time ? "likely to reach a peace agreement" Your opinion....History has proven you wrong....

It cannot have, because the circumstances I am speculating about never arose.

And yet who is the first people you phone when there is trouble

Ghostbusters!

let me guess the stooges of the state...as is the fire dept, ambulance ,hospital

Well, since I've been coerced into paying for them and as they're supposedly there for my benefit, why not? Would you have run into a Berlin street in 1943 and said, "Screw Hitler! Long live Stalin!"? What would I gain from such a stance beyond my own misery? One has to know how to pick one's battles.

So i have to ask why the grief over police persons....

Because their modes of operation are distinctly unjust and illegal. No private security firm could get away with a tenth of what the police do.

You stated that Canadian forces pilots intentional bombed civilians and NON-military targets. you have not proven that they have , do you have a copy of all flight plans and target lists. NO you do not...if you did the world court would be very interested as so would i.

Blackdog's responses to this point have been excellent and he obviously knows what he is talking about. I won't sully his arguments by my relative ignorance.

Why don't you atleast try and read the sites i gave Black dog, i have more if you would like.

You may have as many sites as you like. The fact remains that WWII historians all agree that the Waffen-SS was a frontline combat unit that was fanatically devoted to Hitler and the Reich. They wholeheartedly flung themselves into battle and had a legendary disregard for their own casualties (which was criticized by other generals).

As Blackdog has pointed out, your point is self-contradictory. You state that soldiers do what they do because they believe in their cause, and then when presented with a case where soldiers devoted to a cause committed atrocities and backed a wholly unjust and evil State, you claim that that couldn't possibly be right, against all the evidence, and that they must have been coerced.

The question here is what differentiates your motivation from that of a Waffen-SS soldier?

[Tawasakm]

Hugo this interests me:

For that matter, the USA should have thought of it before delivering a highly insulting and impossible ultimatum to Japan

Could you please provide a bit more detail?

[Hugo]

Could you please provide a bit more detail?

Sure. On July 24, 1941, the US government took the step of freezing all Japanese assets in America and imposed an oil and material goods embargo. Roosevelt described this as "economic war".

Japan persisted in trying to defuse the situation, but Roosevelt wanted in on WWII, so this wouldn't do. On November 26, the USA delivered a 10-point ultimatum known as the Hull Note to Japan demanding that it basically quit all territories gained since 1933. The US Ambassador in Tokyo called this "the document that pushed the button that started the war."

The USA imposed the embargo and freezing of assets as an objection to the Sino-Japanese war. They did not do this out of conviction that the war was wrong, but because Japanese actions in China conflicted with Theodore Roosevelt's Open Door Imperialism policy, which held that China should be open for American business. The Japanese presented two proposals to the USA in mid-November, the first being that they settle the Sino-Japanese war immediately and conduct a partial withdrawal of Japanese troops. The second proposed a cessation of military action in China in exchange for 1m gallons of aviation fuel. Roosevelt was initially prepared to make a counter-offer but later decided against it, instructing Cordell Hull to send the Hull Note which basically demanded that Japan abandon all gains in its costly Sino-Japanese war, or else. The Japanese fleet that was to attack Pearl Harbour set sail the same day.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Oh and as for your claims about the percision of NATO airstrikes, I just came across this:

The Kosovo cover up

civ watch

Serb media mistakes.

The above links seem to paint another picture, again your only seeing one side of the story, Yes i agree with you some civilians did die as a result of the bombings. according to the links above some 500 individuals can be linked to NATO bombing mistakes, or accidents.

The bottom link is in relation to your claims that NATO A/C attacked a civilian convoy, that the SERBS actually have cockpit conversation to prove thier claim. Highly unlikely as NATO takes great care and alot of monie pumped into equipment to ensure Radio transmissions are not picked up by anyone that is not intended to hear them....encrypted,freq hoping etc etc..all the serbs would have gotten is static....

legal aspects.

I never said there weren't atrocities: quite the opposite. However, there's no evidence they were on the scale NATO said they were. Oh and two BBC articles you link to support my thesis that the major atrocities were spurred by the NATO air campaign:

No you posted that the most bodies taken out of mass graves was 10 or 20, I've given you prove that there was mass graves were entire villages were wiped out .

yes, the examples that i gave were after the air campiagn...it does not suggest that there were none prior to that. US sat intell has already proven that those graves did exist prior to the air campiagn.

120 dead is indeed a horrific tally, no question. It was indeed a war crime. However, it was not genocide.

My Webpage

Nato speach

What do you consider genocide, before the air campiagn over 400,000 had fled there homes because of the Serbs ethinic cleansing.

Yes. And I'm not saying it's a phenomenon limited to Germans, given the number of atrocities committed on a daily basis by military personnel.

Military personal are not the only people that have a hand in war atrocties, civilians, goverment officals, So basical what your saying is that "all " military personal are evil. Whats that say about Canadian values and morals as Canada's military is made up of Average Canadians.

I don't accept it because I don't think it's true. Once you tell someone that murder is justifiable in service of a cause, once that barrier is broken down, it's a fairly simple matter to extend that same leeway to anyone who stands against said cause, even if they are women and children. I'm certain that, under the right set of circumstances, even the most most upstanding Canadian soldier could and would point their weapon at a woman or child and pull the trigger.

The training we (Canadian soldiers ) have recieve todate strictly enforces the RULES of engagements, Soldiers are not allow to think outside the box when it comes down to these rules. Soldiers also recive extensive training before going on any operation these rules are gone over thousands of times until they are instinctive....those rules are taken from the Genva convention and Candian law...

Candian soldiers also recieve extensive training on lawful orders and unlawful orders. they are taught to distinguish between the two, and what actions to take when given an unlawful order.

I could not think of ANY circumstances that would exist today that could make a Canadian soldier to comit those acts that Nazi troops did.

Do you think that YOU would be able to commit these crimes under any circumstances.

[Tawasakm]

Dear Hugo,

Thank you very kindly for your reply. It is edifying to encounter a poster who is willing to expand on his position and provide details. I appreciate this very much.

Tawasakm

[Black Dog]

No you posted that the most bodies taken out of mass graves was 10 or 20, I've given you prove that there was mass graves were entire villages were wiped out .

So where were the mass graves containing thousands of bodies? Again: atrocities occured. Savage war crimes were commmitted.

Body Count: War in Kosovo Was Cruel, Bitter, Savage; Genocide It Wasn't

In Kosovo last spring, Yugoslav forces did heinous things. They expelled hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians, burning houses and committing summary executions. It may well be enough to justify the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign and the war crimes indictment of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

But other allegations -- indiscriminate mass murder, rape camps, crematoriums, mutilation of the dead -- haven't been borne out in the six months since NATO troops entered Kosovo.

...

Rwanda was a true genocide. Kosovo was ethnic cleansing light," says Emilio Perez Pujol, a Spanish pathologist who exhumed bodies after both conflicts. In his sector of western Kosovo, he says, the United Nations told him to expect as many as 2,000 victims. His team found 187 corpses, none of which showed evidence to confirm local accounts of mutilations.

Some human-rights researchers now say that most killings and burnings occurred in areas where the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army had been active, or in urban streets that backed into rural areas where KLA fighters could infiltrate. They say the Serbs were trying to clear out areas of KLA support, using selective terror, robberies and sporadic killings.

...

... NATO saw a fatigued press corps drifting toward the contrarian story: civilians killed by NATO's bombs. NATO stepped up its claims about Serb "killing fields."

(Note: the WSJ is no left wing source, but a solid establishment paper. Also note that the authour, Danierl Pearl, was later executed by Islamic militants in Pakistan)

ilitary personal are not the only people that have a hand in war atrocties, civilians, goverment officals, So basical what your saying is that "all " military personal are evil. Whats that say about Canadian values and morals as Canada's military is made up of Average Canadians.

Where did I say that?

The training we (Canadian soldiers ) have recieve todate strictly enforces the RULES of engagements, Soldiers are not allow to think outside the box when it comes down to these rules. Soldiers also recive extensive training before going on any operation these rules are gone over thousands of times until they are instinctive....those rules are taken from the Genva convention and Candian law...

Candian soldiers also recieve extensive training on lawful orders and unlawful orders. they are taught to distinguish between the two, and what actions to take when given an unlawful order.

So what you seem to be saying is that killing is only wrong when it deviates from the standards set down by the military brass. Yet many Nazi atocities were committed within the boundaries of the Wermacht's rules of engagement (for example, massacres of Belgian villages were considered acceptable responses to resistance activities).

I could not think of ANY circumstances that would exist today that could make a Canadian soldier to comit those acts that Nazi troops did.

There are countless examples throughout history of military personnel either going outside accepted RoE or receiving official sanction to commit atorcities. You are taking it as a matter of faith that Canadians would somehow be unique among history's fighting forces in their inability to commit atrocities.

Do you think that YOU would be able to commit these crimes under any circumstances.

Under the right circumstances, probably.

[Army Guy]

Hugo:

I would say it had more to do with the fact that they had no hope for peace. At that point, the choices for Germany were to win or to be defeated. Had there been a third alternative, other than a desperate and bloody gambit of last resort or the destruction of the Hohenzollern State, I'm sure they would have pursued it. Wilhelm II may have been none too bright, however, there's nothing suggesting that he was insane enough to continue fighting with no soldiers, no guns, no bullets and no food if there was an alternative.

Even Hitler, in 1945, sought a peace settlement - and he was crazy!

So what your saying in for a penny in for a pound, that they were going to fight aslong as Germany was capable of fighting. That Germany could not stop the war even if it wanted to.?

I'm saying that Germany could have stop all the carnage any time it wanted to by simple pulling it's troops back to the orginal borders. That Germany and Germany alone has to take responsabilty for it's decision to attack France and belguim. But thier actions clearly show that the prize was worth the millions that had died. They wanted to conquor france and belgium and force it's will upon those people.

And why in good god's name would have anyone allowed Hilter go unpunished for his deeds and allow the nazi's peace.

And perhaps Austro-Hungary should have thought of it before delivering an impossible ultimatum to Serbia. For that matter, the USA should have thought of it before delivering a highly insulting and impossible ultimatum to Japan, which led them to believe that war was inevitable and that they should strike first to have any hope of winning.

That's a much-glossed-over fact of history.

Again what has that got to do with Germany attacking France and Belguim. It was not part of germany agreement with Austro-hungary. But clearly shows that Germany attacked with the objective of conquoring these two nations on top of helping Austro-hungary.

Sure, but the historical consensus is that WWI was not the fault of any one country. It was due to increasingly hostile and belligerent blocs of power. The attitudes of all European countries in the early 20th Century made war inevitable - it was always a question of when, until 1914.

So that excuses Germany for taking offensive operations on France and belguim. lets call a lemon a lemon shall we. Germany took it upon it self to attack those to countries. and used the Hustro-hungary agreement to borden the WAR. that drew alot more countries into it...

You may have as many sites as you like. The fact remains that WWII historians all agree that the Waffen-SS was a frontline combat unit that was fanatically devoted to Hitler and the Reich. They wholeheartedly flung themselves into battle and had a legendary disregard for their own casualties (which was criticized by other generals).

NO, the fact remains that the WAFFEN SS was made up of several different types of units,which included Concentration gaurds, labour camp gaurds, etc,etc, that alot of these troops had commited terriable crimes again'st humanity...I'm not saying that all those Waffen SS troops were involved in those crimes just that alot were. and may not have had the same devotion to country and Hilter as they once did.

Most if not all had testified that they themselfs were afraid for there own lives and being killed for not carry out any orders. (yes i am aware that not many were) however if you were part of an organization that killed thousands on a daily bases you would believe these threats as real.

I do agree with you that alot of generals and allied commanders did praise those SS units for being elite, and legendary in the acts in combat. But in respect for that what chioce did they have. Most allieds did not take to many SS prisoners, Russian troops took no SS prisoners, even Canadian troops took little SS troops prisoners after they had excuted over 150 Canadian soldiers during D-Day...so as the thier motivation were did it lay..with themselfs and just trying to stay alive, or were they truely devoted to Hilter and the Reich as you say...

  The question here is what differentiates your motivation from that of a Waffen-SS soldier?

To answer your question again, i am very confident that the goverment of Canada would not ask me to intentionally commit the type of crimes that the Nazi did. Nor would they expect me to compromise any of my morals or values that i have as an adult raised in Canada. With that knowledge i serve Canada, and strongly believe that Canada will always be on the side of what is good. That is my motivation.

[Black Dog]

AG, you need to take a look and see the logical inconsistencies in yiour argument.

You say:

To answer your question again, i am very confident that the goverment of Canada would not ask me to intentionally commit the type of crimes that the Nazi did. Nor would they expect me to compromise any of my morals or values that i have as an adult raised in Canada. With that knowledge i serve Canada, and strongly believe that Canada will always be on the side of what is good. That is my motivation.

Yet you also acknowledge the historical realities of Canadians being given official sanction to commit atrocities here:

even Canadian troops took little SS troops prisoners after they had excuted over 150 Canadian soldiers during D-Day

.

So, if Canadians can be convinced to kill surrendering enemy forces, what makes you so positive they cannot be convinced to undertake other atrocities? Further, what distinguishes acts of collective punishment inflicted by the Nazis (such as the destruction of villages in reprisal for resistance activities) from acts of collective punishment committed by Canadians (executing surrendered SS members)?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Even Hitler, in 1945, sought a peace settlement - and he was crazy!

This is false. Except for the crazy bit. Not once, even when everyone around him (with the exception of Goebbels) was begging him to sue for peace, or even surrender, Hitler refused. He said..."If Germany loses, then they weren't the stronger race, and so don't deserve to live anyway". Albert Speer spent the last months of the war trying to countermand Hitler's orders of total destruction (and risked execution for treason because of it) but never for one minute did Hitler try for peace...in fact, he took steps to sabotage any negotiations with the allies, to ensure no peace, only destruction of the loser, would occur.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

So where were the mass graves containing thousands of bodies? Again: atrocities occured. Savage war crimes were commmitted.

There are none, slip of the finger,it was suppose to be 150 persons. sorry for the misunderstanding. However that does not say that those numbers that are reported missing even today were not killed or for that matter even dug up and disposed of else where.

Why is it so hard for people to think that the serbs who killed thousands in Bosina would not do the same thing in Kosovo.

digging them up

hidding the evidance.

early grave

Where did I say that?

what does this imply then ...

Yes. And I'm not saying it's a phenomenon limited to Germans, given the number of atrocities committed on a daily basis by military personnel.

So what you seem to be saying is that killing is only wrong when it deviates from the standards set down by the military brass. Yet many Nazi atocities were committed within the boundaries of the Wermacht's rules of engagement (for example, massacres of Belgian villages were considered acceptable responses to resistance activities).

Those ROE's were not set incordance with the Genva convention. which clearly states that regardless of any orders given a soldier is responsiable for his actions if he carry's them out. Like i said before Canadian soldiers are taught what the genva convention is and what the ROE's are before entering an area of operations, if orders came down to wipe out a village or shot civilains it would be questioned at the highest level, and i'm certain that Canadian soldiers would not adhere to those orders....

There are countless examples throughout history of military personnel either going outside accepted RoE or receiving official sanction to commit atorcities. You are taking it as a matter of faith that Canadians would somehow be unique among history's fighting forces in their inability to commit atrocities.

Yes history is full of examples. but that does not prove that all soldiers are willing commiting these crimes all it proves is that some are or some countries are....And yes it is a matter of faith that i believe that Canadian troops in todays era would not willing kill women or children or carry out atrocities, like those that the Nazi did, it has to be a matter of faith as my life depends on other Canadian soldiers and thier actions.....

Under the right circumstances, probably

The military spends alot money in training, to get a soldier to fire his wpn agains't an known enemy....But to kill a unarmed women or child i can not think of a circumstance that would convince me. which leads me to believe your the same. but i'm curious what that circumstance would be ?

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

AG, you need to take a look and see the logical inconsistencies in yiour argument.

You say:

QUOTE

To answer your question again, i am very confident that the goverment of Canada would not ask me to intentionally commit the type of crimes that the Nazi did. Nor would they expect me to compromise any of my morals or values that i have as an adult raised in Canada. With that knowledge i serve Canada, and strongly believe that Canada will always be on the side of what is good. That is my motivation.

Yet you also acknowledge the historical realities of Canadians being given official sanction to commit atrocities here:

QUOTE

even Canadian troops took little SS troops prisoners after they had excuted over 150 Canadian soldiers during D-Day

No i never said they were given offical sanction. I said little SS prisoners were taken by Canadians after troops heard of the excutions during D-Day.

So, if Canadians can be convinced to kill surrendering enemy forces,

I did not once indicate that Canadians kill any SS that were in the process of surrendering. ( I said little SS prisoners were taken by Canadians after troops heard of the excutions during D-Day.) They did not afford the enemy time to surrender, by bringing overwhelming firepower to bear in all situations...wiping them out before they had a chance to do anything....

what makes you so positive they cannot be convinced to undertake other atrocities? Further, what distinguishes acts of collective punishment inflicted by the Nazis (such as the destruction of villages in reprisal for resistance activities) from acts of collective punishment committed by Canadians (executing surrendered SS members)?

Again i did not say they excuted any SS prisoners, what i did say is very few were taken prisoner, If you continuely press the enemy he does not have time to surrender. Until his postion is wiped out.through overwhelming firepower...SS prisoners were taken, that is a piont of history....Once a soldier indicates he wants to surrender then regardless he falls under the genva convention....and must be handled as a prisoner....