The SS (separated from the Holocaust thread).

[Bellman]

Kissa' - when you have done with 'soap' and 'skin' why not give us the benefit of your reading on Quisling.

How are the collaborators viewed now by the revisionists ?
What was the impact of the occupation on the birthrate ?
How many people are now descendants of the "Master Race '' ?
What is the state of play on neo-fascism in Norway today ?

I would be interested in your views on the connection/s between music and fascism - please trace
(in no more than 1000 words ) events such as Hitlers 'claimed' Wagnerian conversion on a mountainside,
through Heydrich's violin expertise to the Auschwitz prisoners orchestra.
As a student lover of music and the sword, I am sure you can instruct us here.

[Kissaki]

Just what is your problem, Bellmann?

[Bellman]

I would genuinely like you to address the questions.

Do you have a problem doing that ?
If so what is it ?

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Bellman

I would genuinely like you to address the questions.

Do you have a problem doing that ?
If so what is it ?

Then I would genuinely like to know what interest you have in those things, and why you keep sniping at my posts. I haven't insulted you. All I ask is that you exhibit a minimum of manners.

[Dead Mans Hand]

Foreword: I apologize in advance, fellows. Since I am trying to reply to each intelligent and relevant post, this one may be abit long.

@Mog
Yes there is a moral and leal difference between a reprisal and "collateral damage" as you dub it.

-Reprisal, implicates that it is done in response to an attack - the village actively decided to harbor partisans thus in the interest of self defense the SS acted. If you really want to split hairs - Afganistan and Iraq were reprisals.
-"Collateral damage" implies that you do not care how many innocent lives you are taking to achieve an objective. Most people see this as far more barbaric and evil. That is why we invest millions in guided weapons.

Simply, to paraphrase you're arguement: It was wrong of the SS to respond to attacks on themselves by killing those who harbored the individuals that attacked them. While, it was perfectly acceptable (due to wartime circumstances) for the Allies to drop thousands of tons of weaponry onto unsuspecting civilians in order to terrorize them. Please explain (further) why you believe that is ok?

Also, as per the "we couldn't have stopped the Soviets" it's bull, circa 1945 the Soviet Army was exhausted and ill equipped. Regardless, you're agruement here is we have no moral obligation to protect innocent life, because it might cost ours. Given that rationale you find it perfectly acceptable to allow civilian deaths when it is convenient. When you respond, keep in mind I am not putting words in your mouth, only removing your "Us vs Nazi's" twist on your response, if this is how you feel it is either universal or bigoted.

@XabbaRus (and for brievity those who ask if I'm a Nazi)
I am not even familiar with Combat 18, also I am not a Nazi. Trust me, if I were I'd A) be more offensive and B) be "loud and proud" so to speak. I imagine few have you have encountered an actual Nazi as there are very few left in the world. Neo-Nazi's are nothing but punks that have no real concept of why or what they are doing. A true Nazi is usually higher class and highly educated. I have known a few of each. I will not deny it, but I am not a "believer" the Nazi's treatment of what they deemed "enemies of the state" was deplorable and shamed my country. I will however stand by the men that served in the field and I will tell you that I thing Germany had every right to win that war - aside from their practice of genocide that began in 1943 shamed Germany and disgraced the honor of her men.
*Bear in mind the Holocaust started late 1943 before that the Germans had deported or rounded up "Enemies of the state" until other nations refused to accept any more refugees.
-Disclaimer, were I a Nazi and I made this post and it was found out my fellow Nazi's would probably render unto me serious bodily harm. I'm nolonger going to discuss this, so believe what you will.

@Xabba
I despise the British for their hypocrasy at Nuremburg - and aside from that Montgomery was a borish man with an over inflated image of self importance and his obsession out doing the Americans cost many brave and excellent men their lives. Frankly? He was the worst general of the war IMHO. Also as for Churchill? He was a liar and a hypocrite, common of the British Parlimentary system.

The point is not to justify what happend in the camps. The majority of SS actions in the field were honorable. Infact if you research the SS on the division level you'll find that the 3rd SS Totenkopf (not to be confused with Totenkopf SS) was responsable for most of the crimes, while some devisions had absolutely no charges levied at them. But I'm sure you've already done that before passing judgemnt? I mean how could all of you judge hundreds of thousands of men if you didn't know, right? Silly me...

@Kissaki
Thank for atleast looking at this logically. I'm glad you can atleast agree with parts of an arguement and disagree with others. Many people cannot make that distinction.

However as for quarter, if a man goes out to field he has actively chosen to go to battle. I feel that as long as no quarter is asked, it is acceptable for none to be given. Justice is balance, as long as there is not a double standard I find it to be honorable. As per the unspoken agreement between Japanese and the US, the Japanese would not surrender and would break the credence of surrender to attack - so we stopped accepting. Fair and understandable. It is not acceptable for me to dishonor men who are if nothingelse, honest. Thank you for recognizing Rommel. He is my personal favorite.

The SS are demonized because they were feared. Veterans of all nations returned home with nightmares of men that would fight with the ferocity of boars. You're only mistatement is that the majority of European countries were Nazi countries. Lets not forget, Hitler and the Nazi party started in the Ostereich.

To acknoweldge "what goes around comes around" is to acknoweldge that almost all of Nazi "crimes" were reprisals.

[Bellman]

As a WASP you could'nt insult me.

''Manners'' - Have you had a humour by-pass ?

Why cant you address the questions .............**please**

It only requires the same abstract dysfunctionalism to address these issues. Or are these topics too painfull for you ?

[Bellman]

Dead Man - you have confirmed what most of us knew all along -
The Germans do have a sense of humour -

"what goes around comes around" is to acknoweldge that almost all of Nazi "crimes" were reprisals.

Great stuff - what a joker. (Or provoker)

How far back in cause and effect do you go - Hitler cheated, swizzled as a student so the camps haul back gold teeth, hair ?

You wear your predjudices on your sleeve - or is that another arm-band ?

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@Kissaki
Thank for atleast looking at this logically. I'm glad you can atleast agree with parts of an arguement and disagree with others. Many people cannot make that distinction.

No problem, Dead Mans Hand. I may not agree with everything you say, and may in fact thoroughly disagree with you on some points, but that doesn't mean I don't respect you and your right to have your own opinions. There's a right way and a wrong way to voice those opinions however, and you're being more respectful and well-mannered than most. Regardless of what a person's opinion is, so long as he is being rational and well-mannered, I will hear him out and perhaps engage in debate. I don't care if he's in support of capital punishment for anyone called Mike - if he's being courteous in his arguments, I will return that courtesy. Resorting to ad hominem attacks - regardless of what one might think of a person - is immature, and injurious to one's own case.

However as for quarter, if a man goes out to field he has actively chosen to go to battle. I feel that as long as no quarter is asked, it is acceptable for none to be given. Justice is balance, as long as there is not a double standard I find it to be honorable.

I do not see how a surrendering soldier disrupts the balance in any way. Most soldiers do not wish to be fighting, they do not wish for war. They do it either because they feel it's necessary, or because it's preferable to the repercussions. There were people like Funkgefreiter Werner Hess (U-530) who said:

"I went into the U-boat arm of my own free will. The first reason for this was that one could earn a lot of money. The second reason was that in this way I could help my father. He was a well-known Social Democrat and had enormous difficulties under Hitler. Life on a U-boat was hard and primitive but after I became a U-boat man my father was left in peace."
("Convoy", Martin Middlebrook, 2003)

I don't think he was less deserving of quarter for joining the Kriegsmarine. If, as a combattant, you yourself would give quarter (as is your duty by law, and hopefully conscience), why should you not be able to expect the same thing? There are, of course, episodes when you simply can't afford to take any prisoners, but by and large you do. If you have thrown down your arms, you are no longer a fighting soldier, nor should you be treated as such. The killings in war is out of necessity, not revenge. If it's out of revenge, it's an unmitigated atrocity.

As per the unspoken agreement between Japanese and the US, the Japanese would not surrender and would break the credence of surrender to attack - so we stopped accepting. Fair and understandable. It is not acceptable for me to dishonor men who are if nothingelse, honest. Thank you for recognizing Rommel. He is my personal favorite.

I am not aware of any such unspoken agreement. I am aware, however, that Japanese did occasionally surrender - and by the war's end, in large numbers. At first, there were soldiers who would surrender saying, "Now that I am captured, I wish to take my own life. If your ways do not allow this, however, I shall be a model prisoner." And model prisoners they were. They had not been instructed in what they could and could not tell, and several bombing raids had Japanese POWs among their crews, who knew the location of hidden bunkers. It wasn't until later that the Japanese government rectified their blunder, and started instructing soldiers about what they were and were not allowed to reveal.

The reason the Allied were cautious about accepting Japanese surrenders was bad experiences. Two men would surrender, the first with his hands in the air and the second priming a grenade. Of any unspoken agreement I know not.

The SS are demonized because they were feared. Veterans of all nations returned home with nightmares of men that would fight with the ferocity of boars. You're only mistatement is that the majority of European countries were Nazi countries. Lets not forget, Hitler and the Nazi party started in the Ostereich.

Could you point out where I've said that most European countries were Nazi countries? I am positive I have not said this, and if I did, it was a mistake on my part. I believe I said something about hate having extended to include the whole of Europe IF there hadn't been any Allied nations there... my point being that even though the majority of Europe wasn't Nazi, they would still be hated for being on the same continent as the Nazies (just like some people hate ALL the Germans for what the Nazies did).

To acknoweldge "what goes around comes around" is to acknoweldge that almost all of Nazi "crimes" were reprisals.

I disagree. The Holocaust constitutes the bulk of Nazi crimes, and "what goes around comes around" does not fit the bill here. When I used that phrase in referance to Berlin, it's because of the Wehrmacht's brutal campaign in Russia - the Russians wanted to get even, and the Germans knew it. That doesn't make it right, however, as two wrongs don't make a right. But it was to be expected.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Bellman

Great stuff - what a joker. (Or provoker)

This from the man with Tourette's.

You wear your predjudices on your sleeve - or is that another arm-band ?

Where do you wear yours, apart from your mouth? You have yet to post your opinion here, feeling smug about shooting blanks at those you disagree with, but being too insecure to produce an opinion of your own. You were funny at first, but now I'm beginning to find your monotony tedious.

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@Xabba
Frankly? He was the worst general of the war IMHO.

So El Alamein was a cock up then? Hmmm pretty good for a bad general. If you want to look for worse generals I'd say there were a a couple on the soviet side.

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

Also as for Churchill? He was a liar and a hypocrite, common of the British Parlimentary system.

No different to any politician then regardless of the system.

You know what I have read about the SS and as August has pointed out the reason they were created I am not going to rehash it, but to say they were honourable I just don't understand when there honour was based on allegience to a sadistic regime and ideology. To say they didn't join up for ideological reasons was just bollocks. You didn't have to be to smart to listen to Hitler's speeches before the war to see where it was heading and what he was up to. The ones who did left.

I am all for freedom of speech but I find your comments offensive.

[August]

When debating relative blame it all comes down to intent.

While some of the things done by the allied side were wrong, they were NOT the reason why the allied nations went to war in the first place.

The Axis nations, on the other hand STARTED the war for the sole purpose of eliminating and/or enslaving the local populations of those nations they subjugated. If that is a good enough reason for any soldier to kill civilian men, women and children in wholesale lots when ordered to by their superiors, then that kind of honor is something the world could do without.

By the way there are a few things i've read in this thread that i'd like to refute.

All U-Boat men were not members of the Nazi party.

Nazi concentration camps were being built as early as 1934.

The Waffen SS were not feared by "veterans of all nations". While their favored status in the nazi heirarchy meant they sometimes were better equipped than their counterpart Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe (Fallschirmjager) ground units, their combat effectiveness was no better and indeed in many cases much worse.

Fanaticism does not equal combat prowess.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

You know what I have read about the SS and as August has pointed out the reason they were created I am not going to rehash it, but to say they were honourable I just don't understand when there honour was based on allegience to a sadistic regime and ideology.

Honour is purely subjective. What's honourable in culture A may not be honourable in culture B, and why should one expect someone from culture A to adhere to B's code of honour? There were honourable SS, even from an Allied viewpoint. History has simply chosen to focus on the dishonourable ones.

To say they didn't join up for ideological reasons was just bollocks. You didn't have to be to smart to listen to Hitler's speeches before the war to see where it was heading and what he was up to. The ones who did left.

That's 20/20 hindsight talking. Some could see it, and some of those welcomed it. Germany was a whipped nation after WWI, and people were bitter after the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed punitive restrictions, demanded ridiculous amounts in war compensations and most humiliating of all, had to sign that they were the sole instigators of the war. With the great depression as well, it was not a difficult task to make them hunger for war, as they lusted for revenge.

They joined for Germany - the SS, too. People join elite branches because they want to be part of an elite. None of the special forces guys I've spoken to joined because they felt a special allegiance to King or Country, so why should the SS people's motivations be any different? People join the Foreign Legion not to fight for France, but to fight - period. They don't care about politics, they just know that wherever there is conflict, they'll be there first. Off their rockers? You could certainly make that case. But there is nothing to indicate that ideology was the prime reason for anyone to join.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by August

The Axis nations, on the other hand STARTED the war for the sole purpose of eliminating and/or enslaving the local populations of those nations they subjugated.

This is simply not true, and the only times I've seen this argument before is in WWII Allied propaganda. The reason for going to war was to restore and create a third Reich, to create a Grossdeutschland. That was the main reason. They also wanted to restore their honour after the crushing humiliation of Versailles, and this is the main reason why it was so easy to make Germans call for war. They wanted to get even, and prove themselves as a great nation once more.

True, the prospects for anyone with "impure" blood were bleak, but they were not the reason Hitler wanted Europe. They were the reason Hitler attacked Russia, because he wanted to eliminate the Eastern threat. Apart from that, there was no enslaving of the local population in the "white" countries.

Nazi concentration camps were being built as early as 1934.

1933, actually, but they were not for the purpose of ethnic cleansing or anything like that, they were for "habitual and dangerous criminals". The SS Deathshead division was formed to guard these camps in 1936, but the first deportation of Jews didn't occur until 1940. The infamous "Endlösung" wasn't conceived until summer 1941, and implemented in 1942. That's when certain KZ-camps were transformed into death camps.

The Waffen SS were not feared by "veterans of all nations". While their favored status in the nazi heirarchy meant they sometimes were better equipped than their counterpart Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe (Fallschirmjager) ground units, their combat effectiveness was no better and indeed in many cases much worse.

"Many" is stretching it. There are examples of SS incompetance in combat, but by and large they had the better training. So they were rarely worse than the Wehrmacht, and typically better. Like you said, being favoured meant they were given all they needed to be an elite, and that includes better training.

[August]

Originally Posted by Kissaki

This is simply not true, and the only times I've seen this argument before is in WWII Allied propaganda. The reason for going to war was to restore and create a third Reich, to create a Grossdeutschland. That was the main reason. They also wanted to restore their honour after the crushing humiliation of Versailles, and this is the main reason why it was so easy to make Germans call for war. They wanted to get even, and prove themselves as a great nation once more.

So you're saying "Lebensraum" was just a figment of the Allied propaganda machines imagination? I don't think so. Hitlers version of "Greater Germany" extended from the Atlantic to the Urals and from Norway to Africa. At what point does this concept go beyond the seemingly innocuous "restoring and creating a third reich"?

True, the prospects for anyone with "impure" blood were bleak, but they were not the reason Hitler wanted Europe. They were the reason Hitler attacked Russia, because he wanted to eliminate the Eastern threat. Apart from that, there was no enslaving of the local population in the "white" countries.

I beg to differ. Perhaps you forget that large numbers of people from France, Holland, Poland and Belgium, to name a few "white countries", were forced to be slave workers for the Germans.

1933, actually, but they were not for the purpose of ethnic cleansing or anything like that, they were for "habitual and dangerous criminals". The SS Deathshead division was formed to guard these camps in 1936, but the first deportation of Jews didn't occur until 1940. The infamous "Endlösung" wasn't conceived until summer 1941, and implemented in 1942. That's when certain KZ-camps were transformed into death camps.

The habitual and dangerous criminals you mention included Communists, trade unionists, Catholic politicians and all other perceived anti-nazi elements in society. Mass arrests by the SD (Heydrich) of such people began way back in 1933 and while the camps they were sent to may not have been run as death camps in the classic sense, both the starvation rations and the extreme brutality common in those places ensured that few of them would live for very long.

"Many" is stretching it. There are examples of SS incompetance in combat, but by and large they had the better training. So they were rarely worse than the Wehrmacht, and typically better. Like you said, being favoured meant they were given all they needed to be an elite, and that includes better training.

OK i'll grant you that "many" may be arguable, but the Waffen SS were hardly units that (allied) "Veterans of all nations returned home with nightmares of men that would fight with the ferocity of boars" as was asserted.

The fact is in Allied eyes they were no better than the German paratrooper divisions, nor were they any more effective opponents than regular army outfits like the Afrika Corps or Gross Deutchland.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by August

So you're saying "Lebensraum" was just a figment of the Allied propaganda machines imagination? I don't think so. Hitlers version of "Greater Germany" extended from the Atlantic to the Urals and from Norway to Africa. At what point does this concept go beyond the seemingly innocuous "restoring and creating a third reich"?

Lebensraum did not entail the enslavement of the local population, with the exception of the "impurest" races. The goal might still have been to deport/exterminate such people anyway, instead of using them for labour. You were allowed to be of "impure" descent (at the expense of certain civil liberties), but certain races were more despised than others. The Indo-Asian race was not so despised, however, and Hitler even sent expeditions as far as Tibet to find the origin of the "master race".

I beg to differ. Perhaps you forget that large numbers of people from France, Holland, Poland and Belgium, to name a few "white countries", were forced to be slave workers for the Germans.

Tall tales, I'm afraid. Yes it's true that the civilians helped build a lot of fortifications and other stuff, but this was usually on a volunteer basis. Rommel got the French villagers eagerly working on preparations for invasion of the Normandy beaches, by saying that the Allies were least likely to land where there were most fortifications. And no vilager wanted the war in his own back yard.

My father has many accounts from the occupation, none of which include forced labour. Indeed, whenever he - or anyone else I know who lived through the occupation - speaks of the Germans, he says they were mostly decent folk. I should add that my great-uncle said the soldiers were alright; that it was the officers you should be wary of.

As for forced labour, prisoners could be forced to work, yes, but civilians were mainly left alone in the countries you mention (with the exception of Poland). The Wehrmacht was actually given a program to endear themselves to the locals, and forced labour would've been frowned upon. The animosity towards the Germans by the local population in France in particular has been greatly exaggerated.

The habitual and dangerous criminals you mention included Communists, trade unionists, Catholic politicians and all other perceived anti-nazi elements in society.

Yes - hence my use of quotation marks.

Mass arrests by the SD (Heydrich) of such people began way back in 1933 and while the camps they were sent to may not have been run as death camps in the classic sense, both the starvation rations and the extreme brutality common in those places ensured that few of them would live for very long.

Quite so, but in all fairness it was nothing Britain hadn't already done in her colonies. Not that that excuses the Nazies in any way.