W&P 2012 - Predicatable Swipe at Axis Re-enactors...

[Stefan1944]

Here we go again - another predictable cheap swipe at W&P Axis re-enactment:

http://jonathankent.wordpress.com/2012/ ... eace-2012/

The author takes the usual predictable swipe at axis re-enactors and appears to prefer the romance of the English civil war period...

Excuse me, but wasn't the English civil war also a bloody period of large scale massacre of soldiers, civilians, prisoners, torture, looting, religious persecution, ethnic cleansing and various other atrocities; and whilst some consider Oliver Cromwell a hero of civil liberty, others see him as a puritan, dictator, mass murderer and guilty of genocide...

So it would appear there are very few clean, romantic, pink and fluffy historic military periods or events to re-enact safely without risk of some criticism....

Still, as long as the public continue to enjoy the events and pay for the privilege we will probably remain in business...

.........

[berlin1945]

interesting article, obviously well researched and written, lol like feck total misunderstanding of what the hobby is all about.

[Tanaka]

Stuff the bullshit article, Loving the white german shepherd in the first photo. Only slight problem is that damn hitler made them a disqualification in the German Shepherd Dog Club of Germany breed standard in 1933. The Bastard

[les hearn]

knob

but he still wants to go again

jees if hes uncomfotable then why fucking go
seems he allready knew about it in the frist place............
so why fecking go in the first place
grrrrr


and why didnt he take pics of reenactors that look fucking great in the trenches dirty and dishelved as it was back then .....the real side of living history

[PaulW]

Well I posted this comment at the bottom of the article:-

For the love of God man, quit whining - and please DON'T don't attend again. As for there being a lack of "romance in twentieth century warfare", there is no 'romance' in any war - that's a totally bizarre comment you made. Next, I was there (brilliant show) and there were many re-enactors dressed as Soviet soldiers, yet you show none in your pictures. Many people rightly view Stalin's soldiers (Stalin having murdered between 30 and 50 million of his own people - far more than Hitler) in the same light as Hitler's soldiers, yet not a single critical comment of this from you. Showing your politics? Personally I don't have a problem with any of them, because they're re-enactors. Get it? They're not real. As for the snide 'Tea Party' gun nut comments aimed at families enjoying themselves, I seriously doubt if there's a safer more family friendly place in the country than the War and Peace show. I don't remember the last time time I heard of a violent crime there (unlike the rest of the UK) becasue it's packed to the brim with thoroughly decent people enjoying a shared love of history. Please don't attend again, the Show could do without your type.

The comment is 'awaiting moderation'. I wonder if they'll print it.....

Regards, Paul

[Stefan1944]

Nice one Paul.. will be interesting to see if your comment is published...

[Steiner]

Well Paul, whilst your comment hasn't been posted, at least others have, and he is engaging in debate - it's a start.

[fjr_hubner_mark1]

well said paul. you hit the nail on the head there mate

[Schnitzel]

So, having read the article twice now I'm actually sortof surprised by the reactions here. Honestly I've seen far worse article which would actually deserve the flak you guys are giving it but in this case it was just a general history buff getting some weird vibes from the portrayal of the WW2 period, and really who can blame him? It's still a relatively recent and horrific war.

His main point of argument is that this war is portrayed in a (for him) surprisingly clean way, his focus being on the Waffen SS since, well, according to the history books you can't get more evil than nazi's, right?

But since when is this not a topic of discussion amongst re-enactors anymore? About whether or not we are 'sanitizing' the war, willingly or not? Why is he giving flak for pointing this out, and why are the counter-arguments both in the article and in this topic confined to finger-pointing?

Yeah the Western Allies did their fair share of crap too, and god knows so did the Russians and so it has been since the dawn of time, but does that fact automatically means that you don't have to explain yourself for portraying such loaded impressions?

I'm honestly surprised at the bashing of the author here...

[les hearn]

may i sugest you go back and read it again

its another swipe at us doing ww2 reenacting not just ss or heer

[les hearn]

i see this as another journalist who is out to make a name for himself

i wonder if he actualy told the guy from sbg he was a journalist and was only interested in the truth

i fear not

as im sure the member of the group would have walked away

i was going to post on his blogg
...but dont want to get involved
as im sure all he wants to do is draw us out into another spatt on why and how we reenact

i say leave it ( the blogg) alone to die in the fields of kent

[Peiper]

So, having read the article twice now I'm actually sortof surprised by the reactions here. Honestly I've seen far worse article which would actually deserve the flak you guys are giving it but in this case it was just a general history buff getting some weird vibes from the portrayal of the WW2 period, and really who can blame him? It's still a relatively recent and horrific war.

His main point of argument is that this war is portrayed in a (for him) surprisingly clean way, his focus being on the Waffen SS since, well, according to the history books you can't get more evil than nazi's, right?

But since when is this not a topic of discussion amongst re-enactors anymore? About whether or not we are 'sanitizing' the war, willingly or not? Why is he giving flak for pointing this out, and why are the counter-arguments both in the article and in this topic confined to finger-pointing?

Yeah the Western Allies did their fair share of crap too, and god knows so did the Russians and so it has been since the dawn of time, but does that fact automatically means that you don't have to explain yourself for portraying such loaded impressions?

I'm honestly surprised at the bashing of the author here...

Eh ????
Not getting into a debate mate but your comments seem misguided tbh

How could we portray the "REAL" horrors of War as you put it, of course we can't because we are re-enactors,
we can only portray the tip of the iceberg, we cant go round re-enacting mock execution squads or hangings lol,
we can only portray certain parts of the War, we have to "sanitize" it to be acceptable to the public other wise
it would not be allowed, your remarks are a bit silly and naive imho !!!

We are right to bash this author because his comments are naive too but also are dangerous to our hobby, also his finger
pointing at SS portrayment deserves a bashing, as said above there were other reenactors portraying the "dark side" of
history too not just Russian but including Vietnam portrayals because they were there, how is it he didn't point the finger
at them, they did their fair share of murdering, raping and poisening people (napalm), but thats always the way with these
media types, they always point the finger at SS REENACTORS and thats the basis of their agument, no other facts or to
bother looking into the history of the subject, just because he has seen Schindlers list at some point it is ...."Aggggh the
evil SS, BANISH THEM" !!!!, basically it seems that this author wants to white wash history and in doing so stopping
SS portrayment and having the rosy parts of history seen instead because that is what he has said !!!

It seems to me your support of this "author" shows you are not a "true re-enactor", we support each other no mater
what portrayal they do because bad press at one affects us all, it only needs some asshole like ths putting ideas in
peoples heads to spoil what we do, whats next a petition to the Govt to stop re-enactment because that will happen
if we don't nip things like this in the bud and stop it from snowballing

[Crazy Feldgendarme]

From wikipedia.

Prisoners of war
SS troops lined-up against a wall on Dachau concentration camp's day of liberation
(US Army soldier photograph/National Archives)

The "Canicattì massacre" involved the killing of Italian civilians by Lieutenant Colonel McCaffrey. A confidential inquiry was made, but McCaffrey was never charged with an offense relating to the incident. He died in 1954. This incident remained virtually unknown until Joseph S. Salemi of New York University, whose father witnessed it, publicized it.[12]

The "Dachau massacre" involved the killing of German prisoners of war and surrendering SS soldiers at the Dachau concentration camp.[13]

In the "Biscari massacre", which consisted of two instances of mass murders, U.S. troops of the 45th Infantry Division killed roughly 75 prisoners of war, mostly Italian.[14][15]

"Operation Teardrop" involved eight surviving captured crewmen from the sunken German submarine U-546 are tortured by US military personnel. Historian Philip K. Lundeberg has written that the beating and torture of U-546's survivors was a singular atrocity motivated by the interrogators' need to quickly get information on what the US believed were potential missile attacks on the continental US by German submarines.[16]

In the aftermath of the Malmedy massacre a written order from Headquarters of the 328th US Army Infantry Regiment, dated 21 December 1944, stated: "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight."[17] Major-General Raymond Hufft (U.S. Army) gave instructions to his troops not to take prisoners when they crossed the Rhine in 1945. "After the war, when he reflected on the war crimes he authorized, he admitted, 'if the Germans had won, I would have been on trial at Nuremberg instead of them.'"[18] Stephen Ambrose related: "I've interviewed well over 1000 combat veterans. Only one of them said he shot a prisoner... Perhaps as many as one-third of the veterans...however, related incidents in which they saw other GIs shooting unarmed German prisoners who had their hands up."[19]

Near the French village of Audouville-la-Hubert 30 German Wehrmacht prisoners were massacred by U.S. paratroopers.[20]

Historian Peter Lieb has found that many US and Canadian units were ordered to not take prisoners during the D-Day landings in Normandy. If this view is correct it may explain the fate of 64 German prisoners (out of 130 captured) who did not make it to the POW collecting point on Omaha Beach on D-Day.[21]

According to an article in Der Spiegel by Klaus Wiegrefe, many personal memoirs of Allied soldiers have been willfully ignored by historians until now because they were at odds with the "Greatest Generation" mythology surrounding World War II. However, this has recently started to change, with books such as "The Day of Battle", by Rick Atkinson, where he describes Allied war crimes in Italy, and "D-Day: The Battle for Normandy," by Antony Beevor.[21] Beevor's latest work is currently discussed by scholars, and should some of them be proven right, it suggests that Allied war crimes in Normandy were much more extensive "than was previously realized".[20]

American soldiers in the Pacific sometimes deliberately killed Japanese soldiers who had surrendered, according to Richard Aldrich (Professor of History at Nottingham University). Aldrich published a study of diaries kept by United States and Australian soldiers, wherein it was stated that they sometimes massacred prisoners of war.[22] According to John Dower, in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[23] According to Professor Aldrich, it was common practice for U.S. troops not to take prisoners.[24] His analysis is supported by British historian Niall Ferguson,[25] who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U.S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."[26]

Ferguson states such practices played a role in the ratio of Japanese prisoners to dead being 1:100 in late 1944. That same year, efforts were taken by Allied high commanders to suppress "take no prisoners" attitudes[26] among their own personnel (as these were affecting intelligence gathering), and to encourage Japanese soldiers to surrender. Ferguson adds that measures by Allied commanders to improve the ratio of Japanese prisoners to Japanese dead resulted in it reaching 1:7, by mid-1945. Nevertheless, "taking no prisoners" was still "standard practice" among U. S. troops at the Battle of Okinawa, in April–June 1945.[27]

Ulrich Straus, a U.S. Japanologist, suggests that troops on the front line intensely hated Japanese military personnel and were "not easily persuaded" to take or protect prisoners, as they believed that Allied personnel who surrendered got "no mercy" from the Japanese.[28] Allied soldiers believed that Japanese soldiers were inclined to feign surrender in order to make surprise attacks.[28] Therefore, according to Straus, "Senior officers opposed the taking of prisoners on the grounds that it needlessly exposed American troops to risks ..."[28] When prisoners nevertheless were taken at Gualdacanal, Army interrogator Captain Burden noted that many times POW's were shot during transport because "it was too much bother to take [them] in".[29]

Ferguson suggests that "it was not only the fear of disciplinary action or of dishonor that deterred German and Japanese soldiers from surrendering. More important for most soldiers was the perception that prisoners would be killed by the enemy anyway, and so one might as well fight on."[30]

U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. prisoner of war compounds to two important factors, namely (1) a Japanese reluctance to surrender, and (2) a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were 'animals' or 'subhuman' and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to prisoners of war.[31] The latter reason is supported by Ferguson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians — as Untermenschen" (i.e. "subhuman").

I could go on to mention the us atrocities in Vietnam

The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, almost entirely civilians, most of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on 16 March 1968. Some of the victims were raped, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated. The massacre took place in the hamlets of Mỹ Lai and My Khe of Sơn Mỹ village during the Vietnam War.[42][43] Of the 26 US soldiers initially charged with criminal offenses or war crimes for actions at My Lai, only William Calley was convicted. Calley served four and one-half months of his two year sentence.

The incident prompted widespread outrage around the world, and reduced US domestic support for the Vietnam War. Three American Servicemen (Hugh Thompson, Jr., Glenn Andreotta, and Lawrence Colburn), who made an effort to halt the massacre and protect the wounded, were sharply criticized by U.S. Congressmen, and received hate mail, death threats, and mutilated animals on their doorsteps.[44] Thirty years after the event their efforts were honored.

but i doubt the guy would be willing to listen to to the truth about any allied military atrocities in any war so why bother.

[pepperpot]

Schnitzel, please tell me if you would make the same observation if this reporter was in your country, making the same comments?
pepperpot

[Schnitzel]

Eh ????
Not getting into a debate mate but your comments seem misguided tbh

How could we portray the "REAL" horrors of War as you put it, of course we can't because we are re-enactors,
we can only portray the tip of the iceberg, we cant go round re-enacting mock execution squads or hangings lol,
we can only portray certain parts of the War, we have to "sanitize" it to be acceptable to the public other wise
it would not be allowed, your remarks are a bit silly and naive imho !!!

We are right to bash this author because his comments are naive too but also are dangerous to our hobby, also his finger
pointing at SS portrayment deserves a bashing, as said above there were other reenactors portraying the "dark side" of
history too not just Russian but including Vietnam portrayals because they were there, how is it he didn't point the finger
at them, they did their fair share of murdering, raping and poisening people (napalm), but thats always the way with these
media types, they always point the finger at SS REENACTORS and thats the basis of their agument, no other facts or to
bother looking into the history of the subject, just because he has seen Schindlers list at some point it is ...."Aggggh the
evil SS, BANISH THEM" !!!!, basically it seems that this author wants to white wash history and in doing so stopping
SS portrayment and having the rosy parts of history seen instead because that is what he has said !!!

It seems to me your support of this "author" shows you are not a "true re-enactor", we support each other no mater
what portrayal they do because bad press at one affects us all, it only needs some asshole like ths putting ideas in
peoples heads to spoil what we do, whats next a petition to the Govt to stop re-enactment because that will happen
if we don't nip things like this in the bud and stop it from snowballing

This seems a bit overdramatic but yeah, I see the point being made about the author focussing solely on SS now. I just saw it as understandable since it's normal for people to have bad vibes with seeing SS (at least, people over here very much do) and here they're being used to illustrate the idea of WW2 being portrayed too cleanly. And yes, there's no way we can show how terrible the war was but when portraying units which have been labelled infamous it still always disappoints me somewhat when the only counter-argument I hear is that 'they did it too'. I would like to stress though that I have no issue with people re-enacting SS myself.

Schnitzel, please tell me if you would make the same observation if this reporter was in your country, making the same comments?
pepperpot

A fair point, and yes since WW2 german re-enactment is relatively new in my country I have seen my fair share of similar stories but I usually tend to find that even such articles usually have a nugget of truth worth discussing, in this case the possible sanitization of war and in influence of it on the visitors. Maybe I've just gotten too used to ignoring the shit surrounding it

There was one article which managed to rile me up tough, as it was one about how WW2 re-enactment was an insult to history or something, which was pretty ridiculous.

But hey, I'm willing to just admit that I simply don't get it as I'm obviously in the minority here and just leave it at that. It also doesn't help that this article is about people you know personally which I don't so yeah.