Canadian and German war crimes in Normandy

This is true, but the atrocities weren't exactly one-sided.

A while back in a different thread, I mentioned a Canadian TV documentary website called 'In Desperate Battle' which covers Canadian Army operations Normandy. There's some information about atrocities committed by both sides. This is a very large website, so I'll note the relevant web pages.

Juno Beach

Canada lost many more soldiers in the First War. So, they were prepared for high casualties in the Second. There is a statue of a Canadian Sergeant who was crucified in WW1. The incident was investigated but, can not be verified. But, if Canadian soldiers had seen or heard of the statue, I am sure it would have made an impact. The Canadian landing at Dieppe had been a massacre. The Canadians captured at Dieppe in 1942 were kept in shackles at PW camp by the Germans for most of the time. So, I think there was no honeymoon period when they hit Normandy. The 12th SS wasn't nicknamed the Murder Division for nothing. Because they were Hitler Jugend, I think some people have the notion they were little Richie Cunninghams.

There is a big difference between genocide and rage from being at war. Although I do not agree with either, it is impossible for us (those who did not fight in this war) to comment on any activity encountered during these six long years.

True. It is important to compare 'apples and apples'. For that reason, one may compare the holocaust with the US treatment of German POWs. Any war crimes by soldiers at Normandy, or any other battlefield location (even the Bulge), regardless of which side, are in a different category.

GFH ******************************************************* ******** http://www.ankerstein.org/ The Anchor Stone Building Set (Anker-Steinbaukasten) Home Page See what makes me tick. ******************************************************* ********

Hiya!

casita schrieb: <Snip> More likely Leonardo di Caprios. But I don't see your point. Do you propose a war crime diminishes with the age of the victim?

Regards, Alex.

I noticed that all of your cites were from the Valour and the Horror which has been pretty thoroughly discredited by the veterans. Also, I think that there is a big difference from individual atrocities committed by soldiers in the heat of battle and the systemic atrocities committed by the SS.

I just read an interesting account of an incident in the Rhineland campaign in 1945. Apparently, a sniper shot a couple of Canadian troops but surrendered with about 30 of his buddies when a Wasp flamethrower was brought up. An enraged young soldier who had just lost one of his friends to this sniper wanted to shoot him. The Sgt-Major took him aside and said, 'We don't do that.'

Invidual soldiers of all armies will commit atrocities especially if discipline starts to fall. However, SS troops were trained to commit atrocities and committed them with great frequency. It's inappropriate to compare the atrocities of individuals versus systemic atrocities of

It doesn't exactly paint a flattering picture of the Canadian Army in Normandy. I can see why some veterans might be angry about it, because not enough was said about the heroic side of Canadians in battle. And there were plenty of heroics to cover. It was mostly negative instead, but it was a Canadian TV production, or no?

What specifically was discredited?

You mean that certain veterans denied what Maj. General Dextraze said, or claimed what Sgt. Gariepy said isn't true? Ashforth too?

I agree. But that probably doesn't matter much to the dead.

Definitely, but I didn't compare those two things. You did. I was comparing war crimes committed on a battlefield by both sides.

Do you

Age of the victim? It's the age of the perpetrator I would be more concerned with.

Is there a minimum age that you can be charged with a war crime? Is there a 'Young Offenders Act' for war criminals?

I read that other German units referred to the 12th SS Hitlerjugend as the 'Murder Division'. I recall reading they were all born in 1926 ( I do not have a cite for that ). I think the 12th SS was one of the most fearsome German units in Normandy.

Also, I think that there

I agree, Bill. First on the old Western Front and then in Normandy, German infantry had become experienced at digging in and making Allied advances slow and bloody ( ie: first 20 mins SPR and Steam boat Willie ). Perhaps Canadians didn't always show as much patience as they could have.

Although I missed the original posting here is something I would like to pass along. Every Army taking part in WWII committed atrocities. There were absolutely no exceptions The Normandy and Caen fighting areas saw quite a few committed by both British, Canadian, and other German forces besides the 12th SS 'Hitler Jugend:

The soldier who kills out of rage is not in control and any soldier is terribly mistaken in killing soldiers who have surrendered. This only serves to steel the resolve of those oppossing them. Chivalry on the field of battle should be reserved for POW's only, it is a terribly outdate code..those oppossing you should be annhilated by whatever means necessary. Total combat is just that..TOTAL. Smoke, burning oil, whatever..if it kills the enemy then so be it.

says...

Which isn't surprising, as it appears the objective of the producers (TV news people, not historians) was to paint an unflattering picture of the Canadian Army in Normandy. Well done gentlemen. The lack of balance and perspective pervaded the entire series.

There is an entire book written on the subject ('Valour and Horror Revisited', Bercuson and Wise, 1994). I can't dig it up right now, but recall seeing somewhere a list of 41 (or perhaps 21?) factual errors in one episode, probably the Bomber Command story. In addition to veterans, Canadian historians who support the series can be counted on one hand, and as far as I recall, all do so with reservations. They support some aspects of the series, rejecting most of the rest. The Ombudsman of the producing network raised many serious questions about the series. It's also my contention that demanding that detractors list the incorrect 'facts' misses the point. The producers selectively chose only the facts that supported their attempts to 'break' these fifty year old stories. The issue is the use of 'facts' or statements and deliberately ignoring the context in which they occurred, or relying on their contextual ambiguity to support only one side of the argument. These are the tactics of the news media, not historians. The CBC Ombudsman wrote 'Accuracy is not achieved simply by making sure that the facts chosen for presentation are right. To be accurate means ensuring that all relevant facts are present.' In their rebuttal, the producers respond 'Says who?'. These are the arbiters of truth whose interpretation we are to accept.

And before he did, the producers of the program made the comparison and drew no distinction between them. You rely on their interpretation for your