FDR and Bush 43

Let's compare and contrast here, shall we?

Three years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR has the Germans and Japanese
by the throat.

Three years after 9/11, Bush 43 allows Al Qaeda to murder American civilians
at will.

Walt

Let's compare and contrast here, shall we?

Three years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR has the Germans and
Japanese
by the throat.

Three years after 9/11, Bush 43 allows Al Qaeda to murder American civilians
at will.

Walt

Let's continue the comparison. FDR had an almost unaminous support in the
Congress. Bush clearly does not. FDR had almost unaminous support in the
American Press. Today Bush faces a majority of media outlets that wish his
presidency to fail regardless of the threat to the country.

FDR could jail American citizens with no proof of any crime or criminal intent.
Bush cannot bring himself to increase surveillance of our porous borders and
potential enemy aliens lest he arouse firestorm of protest in Congress and the
Media.

FDR already had selective service conscription in place and could increase the
size of the military to levels never dreamt of before or since. Bush finds
himself caught up in the backwash of the Peace Dividend recklessy squandered by
his predecessor.

FDR had two genuine allies and one nation coincidentally fighting one of the
same enemies and therefore worthy of support. Dozens of other countries
contributed tiny amounts of troops in order to gain some advantage in the
postwar redistribution of influence. Bush finds himself with only one genuine
ally and that one under the same internal and external assaults that he is
subject too. Dozens of countries are contributing tiny amounts and several
major countries are actually waiting out the results or actively conspiring
against him to suit thier own advantage in the post war world.

FDR allowed the Germans and Japanese to murder and torture American POWs at
will from 1941 to 1945 and the American Press never called him on it.

John Dupre'

"JDupre5762" wrote in message
...
Let's compare and contrast here, shall we?


FDR allowed the Germans and Japanese to murder and torture American
POWs at
will from 1941 to 1945 and the American Press never called him on
it.

No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly with
the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
survived the war.



John Dupre'

On 20 Jun 2004 04:38:58 GMT, (JDupre5762) wrote:

FDR had an almost unaminous support in the
Congress.

That would have come as a great surprise to FDR!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 07:58:16 GMT, "Eunometic"
wrote:

No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly with
the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
survived the war.

That didn't help the ones sent to Auschwitz.

A 5 percent casualty rate is pretty high, especially if you're not
fighting, and most especially if you're one of the victims.

75 percent of American PWs of the Japanese survived the war. That
doesn't mean they weren't ill-treated.

To be sure, the German military (and more particularly the air force)
were meticulous with respect to their rules for treating western PWs.
(They deliberately let Russian prisoners die by the hundreds of
thousands.) But the system didn't work if you got caught by the
Gestapo, as happened to most airmen on the run; it didn't work very
well if you were a Jew; and it didn't work at all toward the end, when
the PWs were sent on a lunatic death march to keep them from being
liberated by the Russians on the east or the Americans on the west.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly with
the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
survived the war.

There was just recently on the History Channel a story about the 101st airborne
in Normandy. The Germans murdered 32 wounded paratroopers in cold blood along
with a number of French civilians, including two priests.

The Germans also murdered after torture, @ six of the "Cockelshell" crews that
wrecked several merchant ships by using Limpet mines. They were all in uniform
and engaged on legitimate military operations.

The commander of 12th SS PzDiv had 20 Canadian prisoners murdered in cold blood
also.

The Germans did not -strictly- go by the GC, although they generally did
against the Western Allies.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly
with
the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
survived the war.

There was just recently on the History Channel a story about the
101st airborne
in Normandy. The Germans murdered 32 wounded paratroopers in cold
blood along
with a number of French civilians, including two priests.

The Germans also murdered after torture, @ six of the "Cockelshell"
crews that
wrecked several merchant ships by using Limpet mines. They were all
in uniform
and engaged on legitimate military operations.

British Commandos themseves did not take prisoners and were found with
orders not to do so as this presumably might imperil their mission.
This was the basis of Hitlers commando Order. Depite being in a
uniform I do not think that men who themselves never take prisoners
and kill those trying to surrender to them have an automatic right to
protection under the convention?

I do not know of the Cockshell crews opperated as Commandos but this
may the the basis of the executions. I have been unable to find any
details of the raids on the internet. Only something about a
novell/movie called the Cockellshell heroes.

On the whole the Germans stuck to the conventions and prosecuted those
German officers who broke them. The same can not always be said for
the Americans.


The commander of 12th SS PzDiv had 20 Canadian prisoners murdered in
cold blood
also.

Then he was a war criminal and would have been court martialed. I
presume he had expedient reasons such as no facilities such as no
abillity to transport them.

I am somewhat cynical of these claims, initialy, as they may be a beat
up like the Malmedy massacre and so many other crimes that turn out
to be mainly either escape attemps, accidents and mistakes.

Even this pro US piece reveals serious anomalies:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachau...assacre02.html

(Note the Malmedy 'massacre' confessions was obtained by severe
torture of the German POWs it was only the intervention of Taligunner
Jo McCarthy that assured justice. One German officer commited
suicide rather than "confess" against his collegues.)

In fact one should ALWAYS be extremely cyncial of 'war crimes' or
'massacres' they are often agitation porpaganda. In the first world
war in order to get the British (and Americans) into WW1 British
intelligence claimed that German troops were throwing Belgium babies
in the air and impaling them on bayonets, turning bodies into soap and
raping whole villages of women at a time. They even appologised after
the war for this!

These stories, like the baby incubator scandal, serve to promote war
agitation and they also excuse ones own people from their own
barabarity.

They always precede war and seem to excuse ones own attrocities.

War crimes should always be prosecuted but so should those who invent
war crimes. The consequences are just as severe.


The Germans did not -strictly- go by the GC, although they
generally did
against the Western Allies.

The Soviets were not signatories to the Geneva Convention: they were
already too busy murdering for their 'crimes' Latvians, Lethuanians,
Ukranians etc in real death camps the really were intended to murder
people to consider it worthwhile signing up to a treaty like that.



Walt

"Eunometic" wrote in message
...

Then he was a war criminal and would have been court martialed. I
presume he had expedient reasons such as no facilities such as no
abillity to transport them.

I am somewhat cynical of these claims, initialy, as they may be a beat
up like the Malmedy massacre and so many other crimes that turn out
to be mainly either escape attemps, accidents and mistakes.

Even this pro US piece reveals serious anomalies:

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachau...assacre02.html

(Note the Malmedy 'massacre' confessions was obtained by severe
torture of the German POWs it was only the intervention of Taligunner
Jo McCarthy that assured justice. One German officer commited
suicide rather than "confess" against his collegues.)


What "Taligunner Jo McCarthy" was that?

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 07:58:16 GMT, "Eunometic"

wrote:

No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly
with
the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
survived the war.

That didn't help the ones sent to Auschwitz.


Were those men killed? Do you have any proof? I'm aware that
Germans sometimes refused to negotiate with Jewish officers in POW
camps as they wished to give them no power but that is the extent of
it. I am vaguely aware of some American POWs that ended up there and
they survived (becuase I saw them interviewed I think)

Auschwitz as a term should means nothing for the purposes of this
discusion and you are close to invoking Godwins law, becuase its
rhetorical effect is so massive and emotive and you'll have to explain
what that means.

Auschwitz was a series of 3 camps that supplied labour to the
sorounding factories or included factories. Not all of these were
death camps indeed possibly non of them were. The death rate is
officialy down to 800,000 not the 4,000,000 once noted. Official
hopes to find the gas chambers now mostly rest on a converted but
demolished farm house outside the camp complex. There is a recent
attempt to analyse concrete remains as well.

Most people that went there for this those 800,000 that died either
were killed away from the 3 camps and some died of the diseases and
food shortages that occured in the closing months of the war.

I do not argue that Auswitz was not a death camp, I merely point out
that a trip to Auschwitz was NOT necesarily a death sentence.


A 5 percent casualty rate is pretty high, especially if you're not
fighting, and most especially if you're one of the victims

It includes those dying from 'escaping' and natural causes and the
wounds many naturaly have upon capture (EG downed airmen).
Treatment was offered, including surgery, for those wounded and it is
only proper that their care not be excluded from statistics. Once in
a camp the allied prisoners generally organised their own health care.

Conditions were harsh. These are some reports of the toughest of the
camps he
http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/id64.htm

Escaping prisoners caused the Germans lots of problems both
ecoomically and personally. Some individual guards who has lost a son
or family to Allied bombing, and had leave cancelled that could be
spent with family could be very resentfull and harsh. Naturaly this
depended on the individual with some more philoshophical over this.


75 percent of American PWs of the Japanese survived the war. That
doesn't mean they weren't ill-treated.

OK if I get caputured I'll go with the Germans and you go with the
Japanese.



To be sure, the German military (and more particularly the air
force)
were meticulous with respect to their rules for treating western
PWs.
(They deliberately let Russian prisoners die by the hundreds of
thousands.) But the system didn't work if you got caught by the
Gestapo,

I don't regard that as correct. The huge numbers of prisoners taken
at the begining of the war overwhelmed the German facilities to take
care of them. It was the same with German prisoners at Stalingrad.
It takes the captors days even weeks to even work out how many
prisoners they have.

Argentinians died on the Malvinas due to malnutrition and exposure
only recently.

as happened to most airmen on the run; it didn't work very
well if you were a Jew;

I have to be harsh he I suppose you get many of your ideas out of
watching crap Hollywood war films which are known for their technical,
military and historical inaccuracy. In fact it is hard to beat an
American film in this area for their vile agitprop, sterotypes and
slanders and more irritatingly for converting heroes that were
British, Canadian or Australian into Americans.

At the same time they turn the enemy, usualy Germans into wooden
idiots who have 2/3rds of their bodies hanging out of tank turrets,
don't post sentries, can aim or are always commiting atrocities.

If you read "Robert J Stove's" 'The Unsleeping Eye' a 'brief history
of Secret Police' you will note most arrests of Jews by the Gestapo
(basically the equivalent of FBI) were for protective custody with
most of the Jews released several days latter. Strange but true.

Some of the Gestapo interogrators were brutal whereas others prefered
to rely on their intellectual skills.

There were plenty of American war criminals in the second world war
and they most got away with it from the small shootings of prisoners
in camps or at the time of capture to: Eisenhowers Rhine Death Camps.


and it didn't work at all toward the end, when
the PWs were sent on a lunatic death march to keep them from being
liberated by the Russians on the east or the Americans on the west.

The trafic loss of life (1200 men I think) was not an intentional
Death march and it was not standard practice: it was no worse than
American treatment of POWs but emergent from the rapidly deteriorating
conditions in the last days of the war that was killing civilians and
military alike. That is what happens when the enemy isn't offered
terms of surrender: they fight on and they know they may have no
choice but to fight to the death. The Brutal rapes and massacres
that the Russians were commiting meant that surrender was unthinkable.
Women having their legs torn apart with trucks. The Germans were
perpared to surrender to the Allies.

100,000 Germans died in the Rhine death camps. Many could have been
released much earlier and been better treated. That is only the
'official' number and many sources put the numbers much higher.

The Malmedy massacre was most certainly also not a massacre yet this
non attrocity was used as an excuse to murder surrendered Waffen SS
men, it was used to smash to a pulp the testicles of 22 year old
soldiers to extract confessions often of men who were no where near
the area and simply in a related company.

Americans are capable of Atrocity, Abu Graib showed that. I don't
hold that against them but I don't hold them as superior as they hold
and i don't hold the Germans anywhere near as villainous as they are
made out.

If this war goes on get used to being viewed as and American as being
as ghoulish as the Hollywood stereotype of a German soldier.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

The Germans also murdered after torture, @ six of the "Cockelshell"
crews that
wrecked several merchant ships by using Limpet mines. They were all
in uniform
and engaged on legitimate military operations.

British Commandos themseves did not take prisoners and were found with
orders not to do so as this presumably might imperil their mission.
This was the basis of Hitlers commando Order.

So you are excusing Hitler?

Depite being in a
uniform I do not think that men who themselves never take prisoners
and kill those trying to surrender to them have an automatic right to
protection under the convention

I do not know of the Cockshell crews opperated as Commandos but this
may the the basis of the executions. I have been unable to find any
details of the raids on the internet. Only something about a
novell/movie called the Cockellshell heroes.


It took me about ten seconds to find this:

"Marine Bill Sparks, who has died aged 80, was the last of the two surviving
“Cockleshell Heroes� responsible for paddling a canoe 85 miles through
enemy defences to cripple German merchant ships at Bordeaux.

During the night of December 11 1942, 10 Royal Marines set out in five craft;
but eight of them were shot or drowned. Sparks and Major “Blondie� Hasler
found themselves pursued through France and Spain by vengeful Germans for three
months before they reached safety.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/799434/posts


If British commandos did not take prisoners, that would be in accord with their
typical mission. I would not have expected the Cockelshell crews to take
prisoners either. But the Germans who captured these Royal Marines certainly
had the facilities to take prisoners. They were clearly in uniform and carrying
clandestine, but clear military operations.

On the whole the Germans stuck to the conventions and prosecuted those
German officers who broke them. The same can not always be said for
the Americans.

Details?



The commander of 12th SS PzDiv had 20 Canadian prisoners murdered in
cold blood
also.

Then he was a war criminal and would have been court martialed.

Here's some detail on that:

"The atrocities continued. Other Canadians were captured and taken to the
Abbaye d'Ardenne, the headquarters of the German division where Meyer had
watched the battle unfold. In the abbey garden eleven Canadians were
interrogated and then killed on 7 June, each Canadian prisoner shaking hands
with his comrades before being executed. At noon the next day seven more
Canadians were shot at the Abbaye; their murders coincided with the execution
of Canadian POWs on the Caen-Fountenay Road. The following evening Canadian
prisoners were taken to the 12th SS's 2nd Battalion headquarters to meet their
death. On the now tranquil grounds of the Chateau d'Audrieu, Canadian POWs were
interrogated and duly executed, first in threes and later in more efficient
larger numbers. These large-scale incidents represent 120 of 156 murders
committed by the Hitlerjugend during the first ten days of the Normandy
Campaign. Other murders took place on a smaller scale at locations like
Bretteville d'Orgueuise, Norrey and le Mesnil-Patry. News of the murders began
to filter back to the Canadian ranks in Normandy, but there was little
immediate proof of the atrocities.[8] "

http://grad.usask.ca/gateway/archive9.html


I
presume he had expedient reasons such as no facilities such as no
abillity to transport them.

No. You don't seem very qualifed to comment, as these murders of the Canadian
POW's is fairly well known.


I am somewhat cynical of these claims, initialy, as they may be a beat
up like the Malmedy massacre and so many other crimes that turn out
to be mainly either escape attemps, accidents and mistakes.

If you can show that Americans did anything like the above, get back to me.

snip



The Germans did not -strictly- go by the GC, although they
generally did
against the Western Allies.


As I said, the Germans did not -strictly- go by the GC although they generally
did against the Western Allies.

Walt