RustyCanteen Posted May 21, 2015 Share #26 Posted May 21, 2015 History is what is it is - the article presented eyewitness accounts of what they saw. There is a lot of talk creeping in this discussion that seems to be non-US militaria at best. Please keep it friendly and on-topic or this thread will be moderated. RC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViewfinderGyrene Posted May 21, 2015 Share #27 Posted May 21, 2015 History is what is it is - the article presented eyewitness accounts of what they saw. There is a lot of talk creeping in this discussion that seems to be non-US militaria at best. Please keep it friendly and on-topic or this thread will be moderated. RC Thank you, RC. How is it that some don't realize that sentiments can be implied in text? Such things do not by any means have to be directly stated, especially regarding topics of this nature. One merely has to be aware of what the SS was capable of and carried out over their history. Our men making them stand at attention was most likely viewed as a test of fidelity to Hitler in the minds of the guards themselves anyway, by doing it they thought they were being loyal to him to their deaths. Everything in this article is comparative, that is our overall point of our posts. If one knows the history of the SS, why use passive language when speaking about their execution? It implies some sort of underlying sympathy. No, compared to the torture that the SS put captured Allied servicemen and resistance agents through in their dungeons and prisons, what is being described is nothing but some stress relief for those who came upon the death camp for the first time, and had scarcely wrapped their minds around what they saw. It's not as if they were teenage Hilter Youth that didn't know any better. The guards did what they did in the camps with educated [and the most heavily inductrinated] minds. The entire point of the thread and replies is why use language that expresses clearly anything less than "This veteran liberated Dachau and saw the execution of the sinister minds that oversaw the camp"... ? That's all....that's all we've said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutiger83 Posted May 21, 2015 Share #28 Posted May 21, 2015 How is it that some don't realize that sentiments can be implied in text? . To state that you know what the author of the article was “implying” rather that what he was “stating” is basically saying that you are twisting the article to fit what you believe. So this is basically your theory of what the author really meant in the article but no proof to back up your theory? How can you honestly know what the author was implying? You stated that you thought the author was “implying” he was sympathetic to the SS but you give nothing to back up your thought process. Since the author discussed more in detail about how the liberation affected people and did not focus on how bad the SS were, he is sympathetic to the SS? Hogwash!! The entire article is about the liberation of Dachau and its’ affect on people. I see this article as trying to describe the mindset of the troops who liberated Dachau. As I said in an earlier post, the author even went on to discuss how much it affected the doctor after the war. I gave complete sentences from the article to back up what I was saying. I have only seen incomplete sentences or no sentences to back up what you and others are stating the author “implied”. How can you state he was “implying” something when you have nothing to back up what you are stating? I cannot imagine the horrors seen by the WWII veterans who liberated Dachau. This article is merely trying to focus on how much that affected those who were actually there. As the veteran who wrote the letters home to his wife stated “'When all other names are forgotten, Dachau will still be remembered.'” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajbUSWM Posted May 21, 2015 Share #29 Posted May 21, 2015 Good comments all. This is my last comment on this thread. For some all negative US WWII stories are enlightening (even welcomed) and for others they are misleading and agenda driven stories designed to blemish America's reputation. Watch for articles like this to increase more and more often each year until our war heroes are rewritten as demons. If we allow that to happen, shame on us for not standing up for our veterans. It will be a sad day for not only collectors like us, but for future American generations. God bless those who have and currently serve and thank you to all those who posted comments on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViewfinderGyrene Posted May 21, 2015 Share #30 Posted May 21, 2015 Thank you OP, well said. This too will be my final post. One can only say so much, and cannot make point any clearer... Then rather than stating an accusation, I'll merely ask "why?" use language like this. This is an excerpt, a portion of the article written by the author, and not an excerpt from the man's own letters...these are the two sentences that we all take issue with...word choice is everything in a piece like this... "Historians have described the massacre of dozens of SS guards at the hands of American GIs as arguably the most shameful episode in American involvement in WWII. The troops were so outraged at the horrific scenes at Dachau, where tens of thousands of innocent prisoners were killed and 30,000 left to die, that they lost their heads - and took revenge." All historians have outside points-of-view, yet the article written for a publication that is closer to "People" that any historical publication. uses the word "massacre". Thousands of prisoners lie around the GIs dying or dead, and they choose to use the wrod "massacre" to describe the execution of the SS...talk about hogwash. It completely offsets the tone of the entire piece, not matter what words they end with. In the wake of Malmedy and seeing Dachau, the author using the word "massacre" to describe this single event is just insensitive. The 2nd sentence makes it seem like they shouldn't have had a visceral reaction to what they saw. Talk about judgement, they'd already fought their way through hell, and then they see this? Who of us here can say we would not have felt the same way and reacted the same way? None, because none of us were there. A portion of the article was requested for our [not just my] point, and it has been provided. Inevitably something will have been "conveniently left out" of course... Anyone can choose to respond as they feel, but it is my request that anyone reply to the entire post, seems like only portions of others' posts are being taken issue with, which is the same thing the other is dissatisfied with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12A54 Posted May 21, 2015 Share #31 Posted May 21, 2015 My last comment as well. What sets us apart from the SS and other such enemies throughout our history is that when we stray for whatever reason from the ethical and moral compass that routinely guides us we reflect, correct, rebuke, prosecute, or consciously absolve those who may have committed acts outside the norm. That can not be said of many, if not most of our enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutiger83 Posted May 21, 2015 Share #32 Posted May 21, 2015 For some all negative US WWII stories are enlightening (even welcomed) and for others they are misleading and agenda driven stories designed to blemish America's reputation. Watch for articles like this to increase more and more often each year until our war heroes are rewritten as demons. If we allow that to happen, shame on us for not standing up for our veterans. It will be a sad day for not only collectors like us, but for future American generations. I still don’t understand how the article is “misleading and agenda driven to blemish America’s reputation”. You have shown nothing at all to back up what you are saying. The only one that I see agenda driven is you. Rather than trying to “watch for articles” that supposedly have some hidden agenda and twisting things in the article because of our closed minds, why not read an article with an open mind and let it spark our interest to learn more? It will definitely be a sad day for all future American generations when we try to hide the past rather than learn from the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutiger83 Posted May 21, 2015 Share #33 Posted May 21, 2015 Thank you OP, well said. This too will be my final post. One can only say so much, and cannot make point any clearer... Ummm...ajbUSWM was not the OP who started this thread. It was MAW. It is quite obvious that some read this article and take instant offense at the article. When Americans are not shown in anything but glowing light, they get upset. There are others who look at this article as describing something that happened during WWII. They take the actions as something that happened in the context of the war but realize that these types of actions do happen in war. The two will never agree but we can't hide the past just because of a knee-jerk reaction. We must always keep an open mind and learn from the past. We can't sugar coat what happened at Dachau. The reactions of the vets who liberated Dachau can be seen as understandable when taken in the context of the time. To not talk about what actually happened would be a real travesty to history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shenkursk Posted May 21, 2015 Share #34 Posted May 21, 2015 Sounds like everyone has made their points and there is nowhere to go but down the rabbit hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts