How Torture Helped Win WWII

[Puppycow]

A little historical perspective (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii/)

[ImaginalDisc]

False premise, false conclusion.

In the conflict generally regarded today as the most ethical in history, World War II, enhanced interrogation techniques were regularly used by the Allies, and senior politicians knew it perfectly well, just as we now discover that Nancy Pelosi did in the early stages of the war against terror.

Yes, let's just say WWII was the most ethical in history, despite deliberate massacre of civilians by both sides, IQ testing soldiers to send the dumbest onto the beaches of Normandy and the ever controvertial topic of nuclear weapons.

FFS, we had a segregated military as we fought against ethnic supremecists.


So, when we wring our hands about the waterboarding that took place at the hands of the CIA and their proxies in secret locations around the world, let us not pretend that such techniques are in any way historically exceptional, for in fact they constitute the norm. The only surprising thing is the extent of the information that we have been given about such unpleasant but ultimately necessary practices. Sometimes the defense of liberty requires making some pretty unpalatable decisions, but it was ever thus.

No one's aruging that torture hasn't happened before. The arugment's much more over A) we were told it wasn't happening and then it turns out that's a lie and B) we're better than that.

[subvicepresident]

... despite deliberate massacre of civilians by both sides, IQ testing soldiers to send the dumbest onto the beaches of Normandy...

Could you please provide some source for this claim.
Tnx.

[Comsat Angel]

The Dailybeast article is complete piffle. To assert that the D-Day landings depended on 19 turned agents is to simplify to the point of stupidity. Signals intelligence? Photographic reconnaissance? Press and media analysis? All far more significant than the turned agents. Admiral Canaris had gone as head of the Abwehr well before D-Day. Is there any proof that Churchill was aware of the turning of these 19 agents, rather than a bare assertion? As to how they were persuaded to co-operate, easy: "Work for us or we'll hang you".

[ImaginalDisc]

Could you please provide some source for this claim.
Tnx.

Oh, damn.

I can't. I could have sworn I'd read a credible source regarding that, but some Googling doesn't turn anything up. I think I took hearsay for fact.

:covereyes

[ingoa]

Without having a direct source:

The axis powers tortured fore sure more. Does it mean that they won? I will complain to my history teacher.:jaw-dropp

[gumboot]

The entire article is a fiction. Most of the double-agents used by the Allies turned themselves in the moment they arrived in the UK. In fact, none of the key German spies used for the Fortitude misinformation campaigns were German - most of them came from German-occupied territories, hated the Germans, and had volunteered to act as German spies specifically so they could be double agents.

One agent, a Spaniard called Juan Pujol, actually offered to act as a spy for the British in 1940 but his offer was refused so he volunteered to be a spy for the Germans, got sent to the UK, and immediately offered himself to the British again.

Part of the reason for this is that the German intelligence service - the Abwehr - were lead by one Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, an ardent anti-Nazi, who actively aided the allies. He hand-picked non-Nazis as his key staff, except for one whom he selected as a Nazi to keep the illusion of loyalty. The Abwehr were in fact involved in numerous attempts to assassinate Hitler. Canaris sent many of his agents to England with the express mission of becoming double agents for the British (effectively making them triple agents).

It's ironic, actually. The claim is made that even in this "most ethical of wars" we had to resort to the immoral for victory. The reality is that the very moral nature of our cause ensured that many of the "enemy" including the head of their intelligence agency, were on our side.

Wilhelm Canaris did everything he could to defeat the Nazi regime and their plans, even "recruiting" Jews and sending them on "missions" so they could escape persecution. He risked himself countless times to save allied agents. Eventually his actions drew suspicion and he was removed from his position. After the July 20 plot failed (Canaris couldn't take part as he was under house arrest) evidence was uncovered of at least 15 other plots against Hitler that Canaris had orchestrated, and on April 9, 1945 he was executed at Flossenbürg concentration camp.

After the war his subordinates testified to his courage, and his name appears on a memorial to members of the German resistance.

So, was it immoral torture that enabled us to use German intelligence agents against the Nazi regime? No. It was the righteousness of our cause.

The success of the WW2 allies in turning German agents is a perfect example of why we must, at all times, adhere to the principles of righteousness, justice, and morality. Even in war. Especially in war.

[Darat]

...snip...

Yes, let's just say WWII was the most ethical in history, despite deliberate massacre of civilians by both sides, IQ testing soldiers to send the dumbest onto the beaches of Normandy and the ever controvertial topic of nuclear weapons.

...snip...

He's being quite disingenuous with that remark - most people use that phrase in regards to the justification for why the Allies fought WWII, not about how the war itself was conducted.

[aggle-rithm]

Yes, let's just say WWII was the most ethical in history, despite deliberate massacre of civilians by both sides, IQ testing soldiers to send the dumbest onto the beaches of Normandy and the ever controvertial topic of nuclear weapons.


Yes, WWII could only be considered "ethical" if you don't examine it too closely.

As with any war, I'm sure.

[aggle-rithm]

He's being quite disingenuous with that remark - most people use that phrase in regards to the justification for why the Allies fought WWII, not about how the war itself was conducted.

It was all about oil!

1. US cuts off oil exports to Japan in retaliation for their attacks on China
2. Japan needs oil, so it makes plans to capture the oil reserves in the Pacific Rim.
3. Japan knocks out much of the US Pacific Fleet to clear the way for step 2.
4. US declares war on Japan
5. Germany declares war on US
6. ?
7. Profit!

[aggle-rithm]

IQ testing soldiers to send the dumbest onto the beaches of Normandy

Could you please provide some source for this claim.
Tnx.

Oh, damn.

I can't.

I hate it when that happens!

Actually, there is evidence that the military used the smartest soldiers as cannon fodder towards the end of the war. My dad was in the ASTP, a fast-track training program for engineers and other much-needed professionals during the war. He took less than a year of classes before some general found out they were coddling these egg-headed college boys when they should be sending them into combat.

After a brief time in boot camp, the "college boys" were sent to the front lines as replacement troops (also known as "dead meat"). Many were killed in their boats before even firing a shot.

My father was lucky. He came down with hepatitis in Germany and was sent home.

[Doghouse Reilly]

I hate it when that happens!

Actually, there is evidence that the military used the smartest soldiers as cannon fodder towards the end of the war. My dad was in the ASTP, a fast-track training program for engineers and other much-needed professionals during the war. He took less than a year of classes before some general found out they were coddling these egg-headed college boys when they should be sending them into combat.

After a brief time in boot camp, the "college boys" were sent to the front lines as replacement troops (also known as "dead meat"). Many were killed in their boats before even firing a shot.

My father was lucky. He came down with hepatitis in Germany and was sent home.


Going to have to ask for a cite on that one too. I'm having a hard time accepting that "some general" would have the power based on his notion that they were "coddling" these men to re-formulate the fundamental and well established strategy of retaining and training soldiers in the engineering and professional jobs during wartime.
So basically, I'd like to see evidence for the claim that "the military used the smartest soldiers as cannon fodder..."
Thanks.

[oldhat]

Re: Torture Helped Us Win WW2

No, it didn't...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html

For six decades, they held their silence.

The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.

When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.

Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

"I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University

More...

[Brainster]

Oh, damn.

I can't. I could have sworn I'd read a credible source regarding that, but some Googling doesn't turn anything up. I think I took hearsay for fact.

:covereyes

Among the first on the beaches at Normandy were FDR's son Quentin and Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. In fact, the latter was one of the Medal of Honor recipients for his actions on D-Day.

[Panhead56]

most ethical???
As an military history nerd with an european (Norwegian) perspective, I must say that I cannot remember ever having stumbled over a claim that WWII was fought in a special ethical way, and far from "the most ethical". So how this can be "generally regarded" I don't understand. But it may be different in the US??

[Doghouse Reilly]

most ethical???
As an military history nerd with an european (Norwegian) perspective, I must say that I cannot remember ever having stumbled over a claim that WWII was fought in a special ethical way, and far from "the most ethical". So how this can be "generally regarded" I don't understand. But it may be different in the US??

I'm born and raised in the U.S. and I have never heard this claim either. So I would say it is probably not "generally regarded" as such.

[Lonewulf]

False premise, false conclusion.



Yes, let's just say WWII was the most ethical in history, despite deliberate massacre of civilians by both sides, IQ testing soldiers to send the dumbest onto the beaches of Normandy and the ever controvertial topic of nuclear weapons.

FFS, we had a segregated military as we fought against ethnic supremecists.

Don't forget the U.S. concentration camps for Japanese citizens.

[Professor Yaffle]

Oh, damn.

I can't. I could have sworn I'd read a credible source regarding that, but some Googling doesn't turn anything up. I think I took hearsay for fact.

:covereyes

Only tangentially related, but there was some research recently that pupported to show that those soldiers with a higher IQ were more likely to die in battle than those of lower IQ.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/12/iq-and-survival-in-war-scottish.html

There was a Bad Science thread pointing out some holes in the research - I'll see if I can find it.

http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7474&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=soldiers+war+intelligence

[Safe-Keeper]

Nothing to add except from this - is it enough of a justification that lives were saved? For perspective, I once read (ie. take this with a grain of salt) that during WWII, the Germans used POW's and concentration/death camp inmates as guinea pigs for medical experiments, often (or always?) without any form of painkiller. The purpose of one of these projects was to increase the survival rate of victims of hypothermia on the Eastern front. The Germans would force prisoners into freezing baths until they were nearly dead, for then to try out various ways of reviving them. The knowledge gained from these experiments would be put to use on the East front, where lots of lives were saved.

Does it follow from this that the US would be justified in the hypothetical use of, say, GTMO detainees as guinea pigs for medical experiments? Nope.

So, when we wring our hands about the waterboarding that took place at the hands of the CIA and their proxies in secret locations around the world, let us not pretend that such techniques are in any way historically exceptional, for in fact they constitute the norm.Throughout history, many horrific techniques and practices have been "considered the norm". Land mines were once a completely accepted part of warfare - now over a 100 countries have signed a pledge to ban them, and their usage is plummeting. Not only is the argument that torture is "part of the norm", fortunately, untrue, it's also an appeal to tradition fallacy.

The only surprising thing is the extent of the information that we have been given about such unpleasant but ultimately necessary practices. Sometimes the defence of liberty requires making some pretty unpalatable decisions, but it was ever thus.Ultimately an oxymoron, as "liberty", to most of us, means freedom from oppression and horrific practices such as torture. Might as well ban every political party but the GOP and state it's in defence of democracy.

[aggle-rithm]

Going to have to ask for a cite on that one too. I'm having a hard time accepting that "some general" would have the power based on his notion that they were "coddling" these men to re-formulate the fundamental and well established strategy of retaining and training soldiers in the engineering and professional jobs during wartime.
So basically, I'd like to see evidence for the claim that "the military used the smartest soldiers as cannon fodder..."
Thanks.

In my dad's memoir about his experiences, he wrote:

"We had no way of knowing that at about that time, General George C. Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff, found out about the ASTP that was sending a number of boys to college for some unspecified reason. He was then quoted as remarking "WE'RE ABOUT TO LOSE THE WAR AND WE'RE STILL SENDING BOYS TO COLLEGE?" After that, the ASTP sort of died. "

He had some first-hand knowledge, of course, but he also used History of the 398th as a reference.

See also Scholars in Foxholes: The Story of the Army Specialized Training Program in World War II , by Louis E. Keefer

[drkitten]

Going to have to ask for a cite on that one too. I'm having a hard time accepting that "some general" would have the power based on his notion that they were "coddling" these men to re-formulate the fundamental and well established strategy of retaining and training soldiers in the engineering and professional jobs during wartime.
So basically, I'd like to see evidence for the claim that "the military used the smartest soldiers as cannon fodder..."
Thanks.

Well, if you check the VMI roster (http://www.vmi.edu/uploadedFiles/Archives/Records/World_War_II_ASTP/ASTPRoster.pdf), [p. 4], participation in ASTP dropped drammatically from 1943 to 1944, even as the total number of people in uniform (and of new recruits requiring training) shot up dramatically.

Where did they go if not to ASTP?

ETA: Even better citation. From the official ASTP web site (http://www.astpww2.org/): "But due to the impending invasion of Normandy and the need for additional manpower in its ground forces in Europe, the Army disbanded the program in early 1944. Most of the ASTP soldiers were then assigned to the infantry."

[Doghouse Reilly]

Well, if you check the VMI roster (http://www.vmi.edu/uploadedFiles/Archives/Records/World_War_II_ASTP/ASTPRoster.pdf), [p. 4], participation in ASTP dropped drammatically from 1943 to 1944, even as the total number of people in uniform (and of new recruits requiring training) shot up dramatically.

Where did they go if not to ASTP?

ETA: Even better citation. From the official ASTP web site (http://www.astpww2.org/): "But due to the impending invasion of Normandy and the need for additional manpower in its ground forces in Europe, the Army disbanded the program in early 1944. Most of the ASTP soldiers were then assigned to the infantry."

Thanks for that. Any evidence though that the soldiers who would have been participating in ASTP were MORE likely to end up on the front lines?

The original claim was that "the military used the smartest soldiers as cannon fodder..."

[aggle-rithm]

Thanks for that. Any evidence though that the soldiers who would have been participating in ASTP were MORE likely to end up on the front lines?

The original claim was that "the military used the smartest soldiers as cannon fodder..."

"Cannon fodder" is a somewhat inflammatory word; it was used by a former participant in the program who wrote that these men were used as "poorly trained cannon fodder".

However, there is no question that many of them were used as replacement troops, which is a more accurate description and comes about as close to "cannon fodder" as you can get.

Consider how the Germans introduced "green" troops into fighting: As a unit became depleted by injuries and deaths, they simply continued to operate until there were not enough of them to keep fighting. At that point, the whole unit was pulled out of action, supplemented by fresh troops, and given time to allow the experienced soldiers train the newbies.

The Americans, on the other hand, treated soldiers like interchangeable parts. When a unit lost a man, that person was immediately replaced by a raw recruit. The old hands were supposed to train him, but in reality they shunned him, treating him like a bad luck charm and essentially leaving him to his fate. Naturally, replacement troops didn't last long.

My father wasn't used in the manner, but his extremely green platoon was placed in a highly vulnerable position along the border between France and Germany. He was wounded almost immediately, and was in the hospital when almost all of his compatriots were captured by the Germans when the Battle of the Bulge commenced. (The Germans attacked the weakest point, where the least experienced soldiers were stationed.)

[Slayhamlet]

They recruited double agents by torturing them? That doesn't make much sense.

Here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/secondworldwar.world)'s a more credible source concerning British use of torture during WWII. I'd like to see some evidence of how it "helped win" the war, though.

[themusicteacher]

Don't mean to make this political but...

Again, more obfuscation and outright lies from the "defender's of the faith" in order to justify immoral behavior. Good stuff from the "law-and-order, moral high ground, holier-than-thou" folks. Why can't they just admit they're scared as hell instead of fronting and chest-thumping and beating on other people to make themselves feel strong and right? Oh, that's right, because it would be in direct contradiction to their, "rugged indivudualist," take-no-prisoner, nationalistic (America is the greastest nation ever and above all reproach; RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!), jingoistic hubris.

Torture does not work and is immoral, end of story. Darth Cheney, STFU or, better yet, let's string you up by your testicles, put leaches on you, give you dysentery, waterboard you and beat you until you admit to rigging the 1918 World Series and planning an attack on the local Chuck E Cheese.

[six7s]

From the link in the OP (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii/):Fretting over waterboarding, writes British historian Andrew Roberts, obscures the fact that "enhanced interrogation techniques" have saved thousands of lives in every war.

Yeah... riiiiiiiiiight... obscures the facts, huh?

www.salon.com/.../torture/ Soufan: CIA torture actually hindered our intelligence gathering (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/)
An FBI agent testifies that an al-Qaida prisoner provided useful intelligence until the CIA got rough -- and casts doubt on Bush's statements about the effectiveness of harsh interrogations.

May 14, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- The testimony of a key witness at a Senate hearing Wednesday raised serious questions about the truthfulness of former President George W. Bush's own personal defense of the CIA's brutal interrogation program. Former FBI agent Ali Soufan also indicated that the harsh interrogation techniques may actually have hindered the collection of intelligence, causing a high-value prisoner to stop cooperating.

In the first congressional hearing on torture since the release of Bush administration memos that provided the legal justification for torture, Soufan told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the CIA's abusive techniques were "ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al-Qaida." According to Soufan, his own nonviolent interrogation of an al-Qaida suspect was quickly yielding valuable, actionable intelligence -- until the CIA intervened.

Soufan was with the FBI on March 28, 2002, when the United States captured its first suspected al-Qaida operative after 9/11, a man named Abu Zubaydah, held at a secret location overseas. Soufan had investigated terrorism cases dating back to the East Africa embassy bombings in 1998, and he was one of the first experts called after Zubaydah's captur <snip/>

ETA

Zubaydah had been injured during his capture, and Soufan's team arranged for medical care and continued talking to the prisoner. Within the next few days, Soufan made one of the most significant intelligence breakthroughs of the so-called war on terror. He learned from Zubaydah that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the attacks on 9/11.

Then, however, a CIA interrogation team from Washington led by a contractor arrived at the secret location. Zubaydah was stripped naked and the contractor began a series of coercive, abusive interrogations, based on Cold War-era communist techniques designed to elicit false confessions. During the Korean War, for example, Chinese interrogators employed the measures to get captured American pilots to make false confessions. "The new techniques did not produce results, as Abu Zubaydah shut down and stopped talking," Soufan explained. "After a few days of getting no information, and after repeated inquiries from D.C. asking why all of a sudden no information was being transmitted ... we again were given control of the interrogation."<snip/>






Torture does not work and is immoral, end of story. Darth Cheney, STFU or, better yet, let's string you up by your testicles, put leaches on you, give you dysentery, waterboard you and beat you until you admit to rigging the 1918 World Series and planning an attack on the local Chuck E Cheese.Or offer a choice of Cake or Death (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndIjV8Nk6DA) <<=== NSFW

ndIjV8Nk6DA

[Puppycow]

False premise, false conclusion.

Yes, let's just say WWII was the most ethical in history, despite deliberate massacre of civilians by both sides, IQ testing soldiers to send the dumbest onto the beaches of Normandy and the ever controvertial topic of nuclear weapons.
most ethical???
As an military history nerd with an european (Norwegian) perspective, I must say that I cannot remember ever having stumbled over a claim that WWII was fought in a special ethical way, and far from "the most ethical". So how this can be "generally regarded" I don't understand. But it may be different in the US??


I agree that WWII probably isn't "the most ethical" war in all senses. I think it probably is the most popular war in the English-speaking world, because there is a consensus that the people we were fighting against were bad guys. Also, they started it. So, "popular" and "good casus belli"

[Puppycow]

The entire article is a fiction. . . .

Interesting. Thanks for that history lesson.

ETA:
Re: Torture Helped Us Win WW2

No, it didn't...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html


That too.

[six7s]

I agree that WWII probably isn't "the most ethical" war in all senses. I think it probably is the most popular war in the English-speaking world, because there is a consensus that the people we were fighting against were bad guys. Also, they started it. So, "popular" and "good casus belli"And... they lost...

History is written by the victors survivors

[SezMe]

Re: Torture Helped Us Win WW2

No, it didn't...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html
Cicero, et. al. are denigrating that article over here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140808).

[Puppycow]

Torture does not work and is immoral, end of story. Darth Cheney, STFU or, better yet, let's string you up by your testicles, put leaches on you, give you dysentery, waterboard you and beat you until you admit to rigging the 1918 World Series and planning an attack on the local Chuck E Cheese.

So, torturing KSM is immoral, but torturing Cheney would be OK. Got it.

[Puppycow]

And... they lost...

So clearly, God was on OUR side. :duck:

[six7s]

So clearly, God was on OUR side. :duck:Or teh big bakery in teh sky ran out of teh cake...

[themusicteacher]

So, torturing KSM is immoral, but torturing Cheney would be OK. Got it.

Sorry, I forgot to push the "make Puppycow understand I was being sarcastic" button but thanks for trying to put it in context of the entire statement in light of what Dead-eye Dick has been saying for the past several years about torture. Allow me to translate:

If Dick thinks those things aren't torture, he shouldn't be afraid of it but would likely find that, once started, those things hurt...a lot and would likely cause him to say anything the torturer wants him to say (lies, all) to get it to stop.

I was being ironical.:boggled:

Then again, perhaps you were, too.

[drkitten]

Thanks for that. Any evidence though that the soldiers who would have been participating in ASTP were MORE likely to end up on the front lines?

Where do you think the "infantry" was, especially in light of the specific manpower needs of the Normandy invasion?

Infantry, almost by definition, is on the front line. You don't need infantry in the rear echelon.

[Darth Rotor]

Don't forget the U.S. concentration camps for Japanese citizens.
Are you sure the internment camps were for Japanese citizens, or Americans of Japanese descent? Statement seems a bit confused.

DR

[Cicero]

Re: Torture Helped Us Win WW2

No, it didn't...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html

For six decades, they held their silence.

The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.

When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.

Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

"I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University

More...

I'm not sure what the 2006 Fort Hunt article represents as far as WWII interrogations, never mind what their significance is to the CIA interrogations at GITMO. Henry Kolm, the now 93 year-old former interrogator at Fort Hunt, was questioning Rudolph Hess when his country had already unconditionally surrendered.


"The information we were able to get from prisoners was certainly not – as far as I know – because any of them were tortured or even mistreated. Unless the little practical joke that Captain Iwanowski liked to play on them could be called mistreatment,” Kohn writes.

“Iwanowski had been born and raised in Ohio and knew only the few words of Russian he had learned from his parents, but he sure looked Russian. (Especially when he wore the uniform of a Russian officer.) His ‘office,’ when the occasion called for it, was deep underground in what had been the ammunition bunkers. ‘Uncooperative’ German prisoners were told that the Americans were giving up on them and were turning them over to the Russians: one glance at Ivanowski’s ugly Mongolian face, lit-up with a theatrical colored spot light, waiting at the bottom of the steep, wet, moss-covered, concrete stairs, slapping his riding crop against his boots, with the recorded sound effects of groans and screams of agony, was usually all it took for a prisoner to want to talk to the ‘nice Americans.’ ”

Ret. Maj. Arnold Kohn's remembrances of his time at Fort Hunt ( the recollections not deemed important for The Washington Post to include in their article) are not so benign as Mr. Kolm's.

This article was not about the goings-on at Fort Hunt during WWII as much as it was about providing these three or four guys a political platform to rail against the three detainees waterboarded by the CIA.

[Cicero]

Don't forget the U.S. concentration camps for Japanese citizens.

Actually Japanese-Americans and Nisei. It would be prudent to not have Japanese citizens running around on U.S. soil when we were fighting them in the South Pacific, China/Burma/India, The Philippines etc. They were also internment camps, not concentration camps. They didn't do slave labor or have to surrender their gold teeth.

[jimbob]

The entire article is a fiction. Most of the double-agents used by the Allies turned themselves in the moment they arrived in the UK. In fact, none of the key German spies used for the Fortitude misinformation campaigns were German - most of them came from German-occupied territories, hated the Germans, and had volunteered to act as German spies specifically so they could be double agents.

One agent, a Spaniard called Juan Pujol, actually offered to act as a spy for the British in 1940 but his offer was refused so he volunteered to be a spy for the Germans, got sent to the UK, and immediately offered himself to the British again.

Part of the reason for this is that the German intelligence service - the Abwehr - were lead by one Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, an ardent anti-Nazi, who actively aided the allies. He hand-picked non-Nazis as his key staff, except for one whom he selected as a Nazi to keep the illusion of loyalty. The Abwehr were in fact involved in numerous attempts to assassinate Hitler. Canaris sent many of his agents to England with the express mission of becoming double agents for the British (effectively making them triple agents).

It's ironic, actually. The claim is made that even in this "most ethical of wars" we had to resort to the immoral for victory. The reality is that the very moral nature of our cause ensured that many of the "enemy" including the head of their intelligence agency, were on our side.

Wilhelm Canaris did everything he could to defeat the Nazi regime and their plans, even "recruiting" Jews and sending them on "missions" so they could escape persecution. He risked himself countless times to save allied agents. Eventually his actions drew suspicion and he was removed from his position. After the July 20 plot failed (Canaris couldn't take part as he was under house arrest) evidence was uncovered of at least 15 other plots against Hitler that Canaris had orchestrated, and on April 9, 1945 he was executed at Flossenbürg concentration camp.

After the war his subordinates testified to his courage, and his name appears on a memorial to members of the German resistance.

So, was it immoral torture that enabled us to use German intelligence agents against the Nazi regime? No. It was the righteousness of our cause.

The success of the WW2 allies in turning German agents is a perfect example of why we must, at all times, adhere to the principles of righteousness, justice, and morality. Even in war. Especially in war.

May I recommend the Book "Codename Tricycle - The True Story of the Second World War's Most Extraordinary Double Agent (Dusko Popov) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Codename-Tricycle-Second-Extraordinary-Double/dp/1844130886)"

It mentions Pujol, in discussing other people who were determined to work against the Nazis.

[aggle-rithm]

And... they lost...

History is written by the victors survivors

More accurately...

History is written by the ones who still have functional printing presses after the war.

[cbish]

[IQ testing soldiers to send the dumbest onto the beaches of Normandy[/QUOTE]

We had an elderly man who substitute taught at my school where I work. When 'Saving Private Ryan' came out, we had a discussion at lunch about it.

He landed at Normandy on Day 5. We were asking about the accuracy of the movie. He felt that Tom Hank's character had too high a rank for the first wave. He said they never would have sent a Captain into something like that. Maybe later in the day, but not in the morning.

He claimed that they started assembling units for the invasion about 18 months prior. He said they took every problem/malcontent/criminal soldier and put them in those first wave units. In short he said, "they took the toughest seargant and the toughest lieutenant they could find and gave them 100 idiots and taught them how to shoot." He went on to add, "the IQ of the US army went up 10 points of June 6, 1944". Harsh!

This man doesn't live here anymore and I don't know if he is even still alive.

[Galileo]

A little historical perspective (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii/)

I thought the Japs and Krauts lost the war?

[gumboot]

[IQ testing soldiers to send the dumbest onto the beaches of Normandy

We had an elderly man who substitute taught at my school where I work. When 'Saving Private Ryan' came out, we had a discussion at lunch about it.

He landed at Normandy on Day 5. We were asking about the accuracy of the movie. He felt that Tom Hank's character had too high a rank for the first wave. He said they never would have sent a Captain into something like that. Maybe later in the day, but not in the morning.

He claimed that they started assembling units for the invasion about 18 months prior. He said they took every problem/malcontent/criminal soldier and put them in those first wave units. In short he said, "they took the toughest seargant and the toughest lieutenant they could find and gave them 100 idiots and taught them how to shoot." He went on to add, "the IQ of the US army went up 10 points of June 6, 1944". Harsh!

This man doesn't live here anymore and I don't know if he is even still alive.[/QUOTE]

He's talking nonsense. The 5th Ranger Battalion was the first wave at Omaha Beach, not a bunch of yahoos but elite trained assault troops. Force B was let by Captain Ralph Goranson and Force C was led by Lieutenant Colonel Max Schneider. They were supplemented by the lead elements of the 1st Infantry Division which was the most experienced Infantry Division in the US Army, having been fighting in North Africa.

In addition, the second wave at Omaha Beach was the 29th Infantry Division and the remainder of the 1st Infantry Division.

The CO of the 1st Infantry Division - Clarence Huebner (probably a Major General at the time) and the CO of the 29th Division - General Norman Cota, were both in the second wave.

Cota is credited with inventing the Rangers motto, as when he arrived on the beach he found most of the first wave pinned down amongst the beach obstacles. He met up with Max Schneider of the 5th Rangers and asked "Which outfit is this?" To which the answer came "Fifth Rangers!" Then Cota gave his now immortal reply: “Well, goddamn it then, Rangers, lead the way!”

At the same time the 2nd Rangers were attacking Point du Hoc, being led by Lieutenant Colonel James Rudder, who was wounded twice during the action.

Meanwhile at Utah Beach, Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt Jr - eldest brother of the President, was in the first wave landing as Executive Officer of the 4th Infantry Division. He was first off his landing craft.

Also included in the first wave at Utah were two Lieutenant Colonels and a full Colonel - James Van Fleet. The CO of the 4th ID came ashore in the second or third wave.

[Cicero]

He's talking nonsense. The 5th Ranger Battalion was the first wave at Omaha Beach, not a bunch of yahoos but elite trained assault troops. Force B was let by Captain Ralph Goranson and Force C was led by Lieutenant Colonel Max Schneider. They were supplemented by the lead elements of the 1st Infantry Division which was the most experienced Infantry Division in the US Army, having been fighting in North Africa.

In addition, the second wave at Omaha Beach was the 29th Infantry Division and the remainder of the 1st Infantry Division.

The CO of the 1st Infantry Division - Clarence Huebner (probably a Major General at the time) and the CO of the 29th Division - General Norman Cota, were both in the second wave.

Cota is credited with inventing the Rangers motto, as when he arrived on the beach he found most of the first wave pinned down amongst the beach obstacles. He met up with Max Schneider of the 5th Rangers and asked "Which outfit is this?" To which the answer came "Fifth Rangers!" Then Cota gave his now immortal reply: “Well, goddamn it then, Rangers, lead the way!”

At the same time the 2nd Rangers were attacking Point du Hoc, being led by Lieutenant Colonel James Rudder, who was wounded twice during the action.

Meanwhile at Utah Beach, Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt Jr - eldest brother of the President, was in the first wave landing as Executive Officer of the 4th Infantry Division. He was first off his landing craft.

Also included in the first wave at Utah were two Lieutenant Colonels and a full Colonel - James Van Fleet. The CO of the 4th ID came ashore in the second or third wave.

One can only hope that cbish's substitute teacher was not assigned to his history class. As far as the Ranger's motto, it dates back to Maj. Robert Rodgers of Rodger's Rangers during the French & Indian War.

There was the ASTP (Army Specialized Training Program) better known as "All Safe To Peace." These were draftees with intellectual credentials assigned to college programs to educate engineers/scientists, but its true purpose was to prevent a brain drain from ground units that would suffer high casualties.

[cbish]

No actually he was a Chemistry teacher.

Anywho. Even if it wasn't true, it shows that even while it was happening, those ideas were floating around by those who were there.

[JoeTheJuggler]

A little historical perspective (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii/)

Aside from the objections to the history (as covered by many posters in this thread), I have this comment: I assume you mean this to be a historical perspective on the current issue of torture that occurred during the Bush administration. If so, arguing that you achieved some good end does nothing to make the acts not criminal.

The example I keep using is that I could say that I robbed the bank to use the money for a needed surgery for a loved one. That noble end is no defense for the crime of bank robbery. At best, I could plead with the judge to take into account as a mitigating circumstance when it's time to pass sentence.

Without having a direct source:

The axis powers tortured fore sure more. Does it mean that they won? I will complain to my history teacher.:jaw-dropp

Good point.

If we're using WWII as a sample, there is certainly no positive correlation between committing torture and success in the war. If anything, the correlation tends to be the other way around.

[Cicero]

Aside from the objections to the history (as covered by many posters in this thread), I have this comment: I assume you mean this to be a historical perspective on the current issue of torture that occurred during the Bush administration. If so, arguing that you achieved some good end does nothing to make the acts not criminal.

The example I keep using is that I could say that I robbed the bank to use the money for a needed surgery for a loved one. That noble end is no defense for the crime of bank robbery. At best, I could plead with the judge to take into account as a mitigating circumstance when it's time to pass sentence.



Good point.

If we're using WWII as a sample, there is certainly no positive correlation between committing torture and success in the war. If anything, the correlation tends to be the other way around.

But you said:



I think you're asking to argue whether the nuking of 2 civilian cities in Japan was justified. I don't think it was. However, that's another topic and really doesn't belong on this thread, I think.


So you even deny that the A-Bombs had a positive correlation to why Japan surrendered?

[JoeTheJuggler]

One can only hope that cbish's substitute teacher was not assigned to his history class. As far as the Ranger's motto, it dates back to Maj. Robert Rodgers of Rodger's Rangers during the French & Indian War.

I'm always leery of any history or social studies taught from a personal perspective. Aside from high-ranking people involved in the plans and decisions, I suspect that most of the people involved in D-Day really didn't know the details of the plan. I think the substitute teacher was repeating gossip and speculation he probably heard from his comrades in arms, but not anything from anyone in the know.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So you even deny that the A-Bombs had a positive correlation to why Japan surrendered?
Really there are plenty of threads on that topic, and I've offered my opinions on them. This thread is about torture.

ETA: I just noticed, you lifted that quote from another thread that was also about torture and not about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At any rate, this thread too isn't about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't think I need to go over yet again the definition of torture and show that Hiroshima & Nagasaki don't fit that definition. (The victims of the bombs were not in our custody, for one thing. The intentional infliction of severe pain was not for the purpose of getting information, a confession or as punishment, for another.)

[ANTPogo]

So you even deny that the A-Bombs had a positive correlation to why Japan surrendered?

Right after both bombs were dropped, the military attempted a coup against the emperor to prevent him from broadcasting a surrender statement. Were it not for the actions of a single member of the Imperial household, they would have succeeded, and kept the war going despite Japan being nuked twice.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Some threads in this forum on Hiroshima:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134237
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133896
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128303

[Cicero]

Right after both bombs were dropped, the military attempted a coup against the emperor to prevent him from broadcasting a surrender statement. Were it not for the actions of a single member of the Imperial household, they would have succeeded, and kept the war going despite Japan being nuked twice.

I have never seen anyone use the Kyūjō Incident as a argument for not dropping the A-Bombs on Japan. Probably for good reason since it only further demonstrates that invading the homeland would result in major American casualties.

[gumboot]

One can only hope that cbish's substitute teacher was not assigned to his history class. As far as the Ranger's motto, it dates back to Maj. Robert Rodgers of Rodger's Rangers during the French & Indian War.


No, Robert Ranger's 28 "Rules of Ranging" are used today in modified form by the 75th Ranger Regiment, and they also inspired the 19 standing orders of all US Special Forces, but the Rangers Motto "Rangers Lead the Way" was created on Omaha Beach.

[Cicero]

No, Robert Ranger's 28 "Rules of Ranging" are used today in modified form by the 75th Ranger Regiment, and they also inspired the 19 standing orders of all US Special Forces, but the Rangers Motto "Rangers Lead the Way" was created on Omaha Beach.

Actually, Cota said:


"Well, goddamn it!, Rangers, get up and lead the way!" not “Well, goddamn it then, Rangers, lead the way!”

This may have been the official moment the motto (a condensed version of Cota's exclamation), was adopted by the modern Army Rangers, but to suggest that Maj.Rodgers did not utter these words "Rangers, lead the way!" hundreds of years earlier is like saying Paris Hilton first said "That's hot!"

[gumboot]

Actually, Cota said:


"Well, goddamn it!, Rangers, get up and lead the way!" not “Well, goddamn it then, Rangers, lead the way!”

This may have been the official moment the motto (a condensed version of Cota's exclamation), was adopted by the modern Army Rangers, but to suggest that Maj.Rodgers did not utter these words hundreds of years earlier is like saying Paris Hilton first said "That's hot!"



Well I doubt he did say those words because "goddamn it" was hardly common parlance in the 18th Century. Also, Rogers was a Ranger. The whole point is Cota was telling the Ranger CO what to do. There's a long standing tradition in the military that the official order for an officer telling their own men to advance is "Follow me" (the whole point being officers should lead from the front).

Anyway, I was responding to what you claimed. You claimed the motto dated back to Roger's Rangers. It doesn't. It dates back to Omaha Beach. There's no dispute over that fact. There's a myriad of different variations of what Cota's exact orders were, but they definitely contained telling the Rangers to "lead the way", and the Rangers definitely then adopted that maxim as their motto. And it was definitely not a Ranger motto prior to that moment.

The actual motto of Roger's Rangers was "In Boldness Lies Safety".

[Cicero]

Well I doubt he did say those words because "goddamn it" was hardly common parlance in the 18th Century. Also, Rogers was a Ranger. The whole point is Cota was telling the Ranger CO what to do. There's a long standing tradition in the military that the official order for an officer telling their own men to advance is "Follow me" (the whole point being officers should lead from the front).



Come on. The only part of the quote that is germane to Major Rodgers is "Rangers lead the way." Except on the beaches of Normandy, officers were not the ones blowing holes in the wire and obstructions with Bangalore torpedoes. In Cota's sector, it was Corporal Gale Beccue of Ranger B Company along with a private that lead the way with Bangalore torpedos so officers could follow. Of course the 1st Infantry Division, whose motto "No Mission Too Difficult, No Sacrifice Too Great—Duty First” didn't need any coaxing.

Anyway, I was responding to what you claimed. You claimed the motto dated back to Roger's Rangers. It doesn't. It dates back to Omaha Beach. There's no dispute over that fact. There's a myriad of different variations of what Cota's exact orders were, but they definitely contained telling the Rangers to "lead the way", and the Rangers definitely then adopted that maxim as their motto. And it was definitely not a Ranger motto prior to that moment.

It 's not possible that Major Rodgers ever said "Rangers lead the way?" The modern Ranger motto may have originated from the order given by non-Ranger, General Cota, but the original sentiment is easily a declaration uttered by the founder of the unit, Major Rodgers. Roger's Rangers were always leading the way in the 18th Century. While Rangers lead the way on Pointe du Hoc, the Big Red 1 was the first on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. It was the Big Red 1 that drove inland and cleared a beachhead for supplies and troops.

Another quote attributed to Cota is, "Rangers, lead the way off this beach before we're all killed." Cota's remarks to the 116th are included in "The Longest Day," but not his remarks to the Ranger unit.

C Company 2nd Ranger Infantry Battalion landed two minutes after the first wave. So here they followed, not lead.

16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Division, T/Sgt. Phillip Streczyk knocked out the fortifications at the east side of Exit E-1. Lt. John Spalding, 16th Inf, 1st Division, documented that this was the first platoon of the 16th to hit the top.

The actual motto of Roger's Rangers was "In Boldness Lies Safety".

Many mottos followed the sentiment of "No Guts, No Glory," or..... "Who Dares Wins."

[aggle-rithm]

I thought the Japs and Krauts lost the war?

In a way, we all lost the war.

But in another, more accurate way, we cleaned their freakin' clocks, man!

[aggle-rithm]

Many mottos followed the sentiment of "No Guts, No Glory," or..... "Who Dares Wins."

Or there's General Montgomery's motto: "We ride right after tea."

[Cicero]

In a way, we all lost the war.

But in another, more accurate way, we cleaned their freakin' clocks, man!

Actually, the Brits really lost the war. While Japan and West Germany prospered after their defeat in WWII as the result of American aid, GB lost colonies and didn't enjoy any monetary fruits of victory.

[jimbob]

Well, the UK government has finally paid it's last instalment of Lend Lease (this century).

Given that empires are not a particularly good idea, stopping the Axis powers was a pretty good use of the British Empire*


*Not an entirely original thought...

[Cicero]

Or there's General Montgomery's motto: "We ride right after tea."

Meyrick Edward Clifton James motto: "One Limey is worth all the Heinies."

[gumboot]

It 's not possible that Major Rodgers ever said "Rangers lead the way?" The modern Ranger motto may have originated from the order given by non-Ranger, General Cota, but the original sentiment is easily a declaration uttered by the founder of the unit, Major Rodgers. Roger's Rangers were always leading the way in the 18th Century.

Highly unlikely. The original Rangers waged asymmetrical warfare totally unconnected to the rest of the military. They weren't "leading" anything. They were on their own. The notion of Rangers as a lead assault group for infantry originates in WW2. Even if he did say it, so what? He probably said all sorts of things. None of them were ever adopted as anyone's motto, and they're forgotten by history. They didn't inspire the modern US Army Ranger's motto.


While Rangers lead the way on Pointe du Hoc, the Big Red 1 was the first on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. It was the Big Red 1 that drove inland and cleared a beachhead for supplies and troops.

Only Force A of the Ranger Assault Group took Pointe du Hoc.

Force B of the Ranger Assault Group (Charlie Company, 2nd Ranger Battalion) landed at Dog Green Sector on Omaha Beach in the first wave (Captain Ralph Goranson is replaced by Captain John Miller in Saving Private Ryan), followed almost immediately (before the second wave) by Force C of the Ranger Assault Group which consisted of Able and Baker companies of the 2nd Ranger Battalion and the entire 5th Ranger Battalion (commanded by Lt. Col. Max Schneider).

The first American forces off the beach were survivors from Ranger Force B - they had scaled the cliffs near Dog White Sector and the Vierville draw by 07:30 and spent the rest of the day capturing WN-73 defending draw D-1.

Next off the beach were elements of the 29th Infantry Division and 5th Rangers Battalion who blew the wire between WN-68 and WN-70, followed by survivors from A and B Companies of 2nd Rangers who scaled the cliffs at WN-70 independently.

At the other end of the beach the 1st Infantry Division were moving off the beach by 07:45 and securing the E-1 and E-3 draws.



Another quote attributed to Cota is, "Rangers, lead the way off this beach before we're all killed." Cota's remarks to the 116th are included in "The Longest Day," but not his remarks to the Ranger unit.

The quote attributed to Cota in The Longest Day is "There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here." But this was actually said by Colonel George Taylor, CO of the 16th RCT (1st Div).


C Company 2nd Ranger Infantry Battalion landed two minutes after the first wave. So here they followed, not lead.

They were the first wave. The waves were half an hour apart. They were the first onto their sector, immediately to the right of the 116th RCT at the far western end of the beach. The 16th RCT were at the eastern end of the beach.


16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Division, T/Sgt. Phillip Streczyk knocked out the fortifications at the east side of Exit E-1. Lt. John Spalding, 16th Inf, 1st Division, documented that this was the first platoon of the 16th to hit the top.

They probably were, but it's well documented that at the western end of the beach the Rangers from C Company, 2nd Batt. were already atop the cliffs and soldiers of the 116th RCT (29th Div) were the first to cut the wires.

According to Spalding's own interview eight months after the action his force moved off the beach at about 07:45, and he reached the top about 08:00.


Many mottos followed the sentiment of "No Guts, No Glory," or..... "Who Dares Wins."

I fail to see your point. The Ranger Motto derives from a specific statement given by a specific person at a specific time and place to a specific group of soldiers.