70th anniversary of VE Day - and the ambiguity of war.

[Holders]

With the concentration on the election, the 70th anniversary of VE day has been somewhat ignored. Veterans of the campaign are fast declining in numbers and this is the last notable anniversary that many of them will see.

The 1939-45 war is often portrayed as black and white, but here's an incident that I had described to me first hand by one of the participants that illustrates that in some circumstances it wasn't quite.

I was staying in a villa on a vineyard just outside Civitella in Tuscany, owned by an old lady. She described how an incident in which she'd been involved during the war had been  dramatised by the BBC. Her story goes like this: It was shortly after the Italians had capitulated and made peace with the allies, who were advancing up Italy and would reach the town soon. The Italian military no longer being involved, three junior German soldiers were billeted in the town. They knew it was just a matter of days before the allies arrived and were just waiting out their time. Not looking for confrontation, they gave sweets to children and cigarettes to the adults. One evening they were playing cards in their barracks when a group of local partisans burst in and shot the lot of them. Soon after, the Gestapo arrived to wreak retribution and rounded up 1-200 local civilians, saying that they'd all be shot unless someone told them who'd killed the soldiers and handed them over. A young girl (the old lady I later met) managed to get away over a wall and ran down the hill towards the advancing British troops. She was captured and taken to an officer where she explained the situation, imploring him advance more rapidly on the town so that the civilians could be saved. His response was along the lines of "why should I put my troops at risk to save a bunch of Italian civilians when not so long ago you were our enemies?".

The civilians refused to give the partisans away to the Germans and were put against a wall and shot.

So, who were the guilty parties?

The Gestapo for the cold-blooded murder of civilians?
The British for not coming to help quicker (they arrived the next day)?
The partisans for their own unnecessary initial assault and for not attempting to save the civilians?

For me, this story sums up the ambiguity of war and the fact that it's often the innocent who take the brunt.

There's a lovely little museum, display and description of the events in the very room which had been the German soldiers' guardhouse, where they were shot, with a visitors' book containing messages in all the relevant languages.

[nose]

Nothing is ever clear cut in war... on a day to day basis on the front line or in areas that are close to the front all sorts goes on and normal rules do not apply...... that is just the way it is because there is no obvious rule of law save for the biggest bloke with the biggest gun tends to do as he wishes....  it's best not to moralise to much about particular incidents.

However when taking a step back it is obvious the german's systematic rule of cruelty and abuse needed stopping and so WE were the good guys but within our team there were obviously some elements that were bound to have behaved badly.

when confronting terrorist/geurilla organizations they fire weapons from crowded urban areas, they hide behind a so called human shield and know western powers are loathed to do the necessary and suffer the consequences.

War is unpleasant and not a game... i agree the inocent usually pay the highest price.

[Holders]

Yes.

Cold-blooded murder like that is a war crime but I tend to think of the "partisans" as perhaps the most treacherous and cowardly and the three German soldiers in these circumstances as among the innocents.

There were obviously many other similar incidents but this was so telling for me as I heard it first hand and saw all the places.

[bog]

The horrors of war bring about so many awful times like these. Man's inhumanity to man. I have no answer to your posting but only to say how we should feel blessed to have lived a quite orderly life since May 1945 and how indebted to those who fought and gave their lives for our very existence. 
The election should not be allowed to overshadow May 8th 1945. 

[Sgt Fulham]

History has always fascinated me in how it is so different and terrifying from the life I have always lived. In my opinion the partisans are to blame in this situation but as you say its not clear cut. They shot 'innocent' men and cost the lives of hundreds based on their actions.

It will be a sad day when there are no more world war 2 veterans to share their story, and thank you for sharing this story told to you!

[nose]

Yes.

Cold-blooded murder like that is a war crime but I tend to think of the "partisans" as perhaps the most treacherous and cowardly and the three German soldiers in these circumstances as among the innocents.

There were obviously many other similar incidents but this was so telling for me as I heard it first hand and saw all the places.

Perhaps everybody should be made to go to such places and have the horror of war personalised and talk to victims....... It might help, it couldn't make things worse!

[HatterDon]

Please remember that ALL stories like this are emotionally charged, and are always told from the point of view of the side that wants sympathy.

[Holders]

Yes, they're all emotionally charged but this brought home to me the grey-ness of it all. That the Germans weren't always the bad guys and the partisans not always the heroic resistance fighters. It was interesting to hear it from the Italian perspective, that the British were reluctant to put themselves out to help because they'd so recently been our enemies and perhaps the German response was exacerbated because they'd so recently been their allies!

[Rupert]

I can fully empathise with the British officer. He has to think of the care of his men, who he is sending into danger frequently enough.

Imagine you are that officer. A young girl comes running up and urges you to hurry, the villagers a mile ahead of you are about to be massacred. Do you urge your men to speed up their advance?

1) No? The villagers are massacred, you callous swine.

2) Yes? Oh, it's a trap, your men are cut to pieces by a couple of machine guns that your scouts would otherwise have spotted had you taken your time, you callous swine.

We can all be experts on the best course of action, but I would almost certainly have done what the officer mentioned above did. Sorry, but the villagers lives would not compare to the lives of my men who I had trained and fought alongside.

[cmg]

It's good, on a day on which we are overwhelmed, either in interest or boredom, by a political election, to take a little time to consider those who were prepared to put their lives on the line so that we could enjoy the freedom to be interested or bored by a political election.

Thanks, Dad and all the rest of your comrades.

Pretty hopeless, I think, to try to apply he kind of rules that govern sporting events to warfare. Particularly in the kind of warfare that occurs today.

If you are after moral ambiguity, you might consider this, which is true:
As is known, the Allied forces in Europe after 1944 were confronted by elements of both the German Army and the Waffen SS. Soon after landing, due to certain incidents involving the killing of US, Polish, British and Canadian prisoners by Waffen SS elements, certain units in the British Army (and probably of the other Allied armies, too, although I can only speak with confidence of the British) decided, unofficially, that they would decline to take any SS prisoners (just to make this clear, they weren't going to let them get away: they were going to shoot them whether or not they were wanting to surrender). Now you may think that this, although against the official Conventions of war, was fair enough. Certainly it did not overly worry those soldiers involved.
But there is a little twist in the tale.
It was widely believed then, as it still is now by some including movie makers, that the SS troops wore black uniforms. This was not so, usually their uniforms were the same 'field grey' as the Army with distinguishing badges and trims. But German tank crew, whether Army or SS DID wear black, so not many Army tank crew ended up as PoWs either.

[Holders]

It's good, on a day on which we are overwhelmed, either in interest or boredom, by a political election, to take a little time to consider those who were prepared to put their lives on the line so that we could enjoy the freedom to be interested or bored by a political election.

Thanks, Dad and all the rest of your comrades.

Pretty hopeless, I think, to try to apply he kind of rules that govern sporting events to warfare. Particularly in the kind of warfare that occurs today.

If you are after moral ambiguity, you might consider this, which is true:
As is known, the Allied forces in Europe after 1944 were confronted by elements of both the German Army and the Waffen SS. Soon after landing, due to certain incidents involving the killing of US, Polish, British and Canadian prisoners by Waffen SS elements, certain units in the British Army (and probably of the other Allied armies, too, although I can only speak with confidence of the British) decided, unofficially, that they would decline to take any SS prisoners (just to make this clear, they weren't going to let them get away: they were going to shoot them whether or not they were wanting to surrender). Now you may think that this, although against the official Conventions of war, was fair enough. Certainly it did not overly worry those soldiers involved.
But there is a little twist in the tale.
It was widely believed then, as it still is now by some including movie makers, that the SS troops wore black uniforms. This was not so, usually their uniforms were the same 'field grey' as the Army with distinguishing badges and trims. But German tank crew, whether Army or SS DID wear black, so not many Army tank crew ended up as PoWs either.

The difference is that we can discuss even the morality of it, if we'd been in the Soviet Union or it was the Red Army we were talking about, then either we wouldn't be allowed to discuss it or the information would never have come to light. The atrocities carried out by our former allies from the east on the defeated German civilians was immoral in the extreme.

No one side has the monopoly on morality.

[YankeeJim]

It's good, on a day on which we are overwhelmed, either in interest or boredom, by a political election, to take a little time to consider those who were prepared to put their lives on the line so that we could enjoy the freedom to be interested or bored by a political election.

Thanks, Dad and all the rest of your comrades.

Pretty hopeless, I think, to try to apply he kind of rules that govern sporting events to warfare. Particularly in the kind of warfare that occurs today.

If you are after moral ambiguity, you might consider this, which is true:
As is known, the Allied forces in Europe after 1944 were confronted by elements of both the German Army and the Waffen SS. Soon after landing, due to certain incidents involving the killing of US, Polish, British and Canadian prisoners by Waffen SS elements, certain units in the British Army (and probably of the other Allied armies, too, although I can only speak with confidence of the British) decided, unofficially, that they would decline to take any SS prisoners (just to make this clear, they weren't going to let them get away: they were going to shoot them whether or not they were wanting to surrender). Now you may think that this, although against the official Conventions of war, was fair enough. Certainly it did not overly worry those soldiers involved.
But there is a little twist in the tale.
It was widely believed then, as it still is now by some including movie makers, that the SS troops wore black uniforms. This was not so, usually their uniforms were the same 'field grey' as the Army with distinguishing badges and trims. But German tank crew, whether Army or SS DID wear black, so not many Army tank crew ended up as PoWs either.

The difference is that we can discuss even the morality of it, if we'd been in the Soviet Union or it was the Red Army we were talking about, then either we wouldn't be allowed to discuss it or the information would never have come to light. The atrocities carried out by our former allies from the east on the defeated German civilians was immoral in the extreme.

No one side has the monopoly on morality.

Excellent observation.
I would add that I'd only give credence to the soldiers that were there. No one knows better the horror of war than the combat veteran.
We don't know the whys or why nots of the actions of any of the participants. We can only do what others do, make a moral judgement based on what we know. I'd submit that is exactly what all those involved did.

[Holders]

Legal justice is easy with 20/20 hindsight, natural justice takes place at the time. I suppose I was just making a plea for open-mindedness for all participants. whether on the winning side or otherwise, whatever nationality. There but for the grace of the gods go we...