The SS (separated from the Holocaust thread).

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Abraham

Aren't you glorifying the Waffen-SS a little bit far too much? The Waffen-SS committed many war atrocities and sa such discredited themselves. And although they did not do the butchers job of the SS Einsatzgruppen (SS Action Groups) nor guarded the concentration and extermination camps, there can be little doubt that they would have done it without a shrug had Himmler ordered them so.

All generalizations are false, as any amount of scrutiny will reveal. There was in fact an SS officer who was praised at the Nürnberg trials (would that I remembered his name), for having refused to participate in mass murder. Believing in an ideology is one thing. Following orders to commit foul murder is a different thing entirely. There was no oath that they would strive to kill as many Jews as possible, nor was that specified in the ideology itself.

After all, the SS-Totenkopf Standarten were incorporated in a Waffen-SS division without a problem. Their 'honor' was 'loyalty', without any moral inhibitions, to a whicked political system. So they served a whicked system, not their fatherland.

They ultimately served this wicked system, yes - to the detriment of their Fatherland. However, I do believe that Germany was the main motivator for most of them - not ideology. People joined the SS for the same reason people join special forces units today - they want to be part of a fighting elite, they want to be the best of the best. And brainwashing happens now as then. I served with a Marine (Royal Norwegian) dropout, who explained that he met all the physical requirements - he just wasn't psycho enough to stay in the marines.

I also have a good friend who served in the French Foreign Legion, and he had only praise for fanatical loyalty - because a good soldier is an a-political soldier, and does not make moral decisions on his own. He's just happy to think "we deserve to win", and doesn't analyze further than that.

And can you name "some of the most brilliant commanders to ever walk this earth"? Army level, Corps level, even Division level SS Generals that really stand out in military history? I don't know any...

Michael Wittmann? A Nazi he was, but that doesn't reduce his military brilliance. "Nazi" is never the sum of a man.

Not so. The SS was part of the Nazi party structure and being SS implied being Nazi. The Waffen-SS even got Nazi indoctrination lessons.

Like I said, the reasons for joining were not necessarily (in fact, usually not) ideological ones. Many men from occupied countries also joined the SS, but for pretty much the same reason as men join the foreign legion. Adventure, proving themselves, whatever. And naturally you'd have to be partial to the German side of the conflict, but not necessarily the ideology. I remember we were also supposed to say "God save King and Country", but that didn't turn us into fanatics.

If you seriously wish to know of the some of the darkest horrors of the camps, research Doctor Mengele and other Nazi "medical" experiments. Anyone - and I do mean anyone - that can support Nazi's after that deserves to be shot.

You get to decide who deserves to be shot? Well, as long as it's one of them I suppose it's ok...

Dr. Mengele - an SS doctor - was just an exponent of the Nazi system. While not all Nazi's were like Dr. Mengele, he certainly fitted the picture of a true SS Nazi; surprisingly few of those who worked with him seem to have protested.

How was Mengele the picture of a true SS Nazi? Because he committed horrible experiments? Tell me where that's mentioned in the ideology, "thou shalt be an evil bastard". Mengele certainly was one, but that alone points neither here nor there on the political compass.


As a last note I'd like to point out that the casualty rates in POW camps in WWII occupied Norway soared at first, when they were staffed by Norwegian volunteers. As soon as the Germans took over, however, they dropped to almost nothing.

[Dead Mans Hand]

Firstly I would like to say that the link posted before hand in reference to "attrocities" is almost 90% bull****. Yes, yes blame the SS!! But the majority of those "attrocities" were commited in reprisal to attack, that's right they were provoked. Lets blame the ****s that attacked and then hid amongst civilians (partisans of all nationalities French, Russian, etc.) How is that to be delt with? When civilians carry weapons they become soldiers, when they harbor soldiers, they commit an act of war. War is hell, those who get involved cannot expect to be spared the blade.

Malmedy pisses me off too. Soldiers have no right to surrender, it makes no sense. Seriously look at it, before being surrounded or running out of food/ammo/whatever these men tried to kill as many of their enemies as they possibly could. So why the hell after taking life should they be spared?? Simply, they have no right to quarter. You can't start to fight then just quit. That applies to the Germans that the Allies tortured and killed (enmasse) as well as the Allies that recieved the same **** treatment. How much of the 6th Army left Russia?? Units like the HitlerJugend exemplafied the concept of fighting to the death. Yes they were young, you may argue they were brainwashed, but you cannot deny their honor and courage. Nor can you deny the 101st that served in Bastogne, or the 81st Airborne, which Montgomery dropped on the 2nd SS panzer divison... (Another Brit that was overly arrogant and cost many lifes)

IMHO: People demonize the SS today, because of the fear they instilled in their enemies. They took no quarter and most asked for none. They were model soldiers and to deny their bravery and ferocity is foolish. Even from the perspective that they commited crimes (aside from the Totenkopf SS which was at the camps, I'm not saying that the Holocaust didn't happen or wasn't bad.) I mean if you were to say soldiers that killed innocents were all bad you'd have to take into consideration things such as:

The fire bombing of Dresden that Winston Churchill ordered and destroyed a city, not a village.
With your rationale this makes Winston Churchill a bigger bastard than any SS commandant. This also discredits all Allied pilots, since they carried it out.
Two sources for Dresden: Note that the 2nd supports Churchill, but does not deny his ordering of the attack and infact only tries to excuse it avoiding any actual statistics of the people he'd ordered murdered in an attempt to make him look noble.
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...cfm?pageid=106

Also explain to me how you feel about the rest of the carpet bombing that took place in German cities devoid largely of troops, but housing civilians. How is it ok for the Allies too destroy entire cities so they don't produce "war goods" in your eyes, but to destroy a small village of 90 because of those villagers attacking and killing Germans is so horrible?? You have a horrible double standard there.

And what about what Eisenhower allowed to happen in Berlin by holding Patton back???? What about the rape, murder, looting, and torture that went on in Berlin??? You seem to mind that. War is hell, so don't think I'm whinning. What happened happened because the German people surrendered to soldiers (Just like the SS were soldiers) and soldiers kill.

You asked in the other thread about my perspective: I spoke with three men that had survived in Berlin, one lucky enough to be in west and two that ended up in Eastern Berlin - the Allies all are guilty of as many if not more deaths by knowningly allowing Stalin to do what he did. Ofcourse I do not include McArthur and Patton who both wished to tople the USSR as well. However Churchill, Mongomery, Eisenhower, etc all knew what happened and let it happen. So, maybe we should start a thread dedicated to allied war crimes?

[Dan D]

Dear Sir,
I would like to know what is the best way to become an expert on Nazi apologetics? I want to someday organize and give lectures around the country on the subject and bring neo-Nazis home. I am awestruck when you answer the questions thrown at you. Do I have to go to seminary to become an expert?
Thanks.

"Dresden Holocaust" by Rense.com,
LMAO

[mog]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

Also explain to me how you feel about the rest of the carpet bombing that took place in German cities devoid largely of troops, but housing civilians. How is it ok for the Allies too destroy entire cities so they don't produce "war goods" in your eyes, but to destroy a small village of 90 because of those villagers attacking and killing Germans is so horrible?? You have a horrible double standard there.

There is both a moral and a legal difference between the massacre of civilians as a reprisal and civilians deaths as collateral damage in an attack on military industries. One is deliberate, one is a side effect.

You asked in the other thread about my perspective: I spoke with three men that had survived in Berlin, one lucky enough to be in west and two that ended up in Eastern Berlin - the Allies all are guilty of as many if not more deaths by knowningly allowing Stalin to do what he did. Ofcourse I do not include McArthur and Patton who both wished to tople the USSR as well. However Churchill, Mongomery, Eisenhower, etc all knew what happened and let it happen. So, maybe we should start a thread dedicated to allied war crimes?

How could the Allies have stopped the Soviets, short of starting a war that would cost millions more lives?

[XabbaRus]

There is both a moral and a legal difference between the massacre of civilians as a reprisal and civilians deaths as collateral damage in an attack on military industries. One is deliberate, one is a side effect.

Actually not wanting to support Dead Man but having studied the allied bombing of Germany and the likes of Dresden, although I wouldn't call the deaths of the civilians there a reprisal but to call them collateral damage is pushing it. Night bombing of German cities used carpet bombing as the accuracy was nil...in fact the mass bombing of German cities was intended to break the will of the German people. Obviously they forgot Hitler tried the same in the London Blitz and that failed.

However the stuff he is writing about the SS...whoa...you a member of Combat 18?

[XabbaRus]

(Another Brit that was overly arrogant and cost many lifes)

Well Dead Man seems you have a chip on your shoulder about Brits.

Seriously though you can't justify what the SS did whether Waffen, Tokempoops or whatever branch...

Russian troops fought to the death too, why because they would be shot if they gave up. Also barbaric.

On the Eastern front there were many such cases on the German side. Fight or be shot for being a coward.

I give up you are full of it.

[Kissaki]

It seems the most popular catch-phrase these days is "apologist", which is fast replacing the previous "revisionist". Though they are both used with venom I vastly prefer the latter, as the former is usually inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to discredit another party. I've been called an apologist myself, when pointing out that the CCPs figures of Chinese WWII casualties are unreasonably high. People get all defensive when someone presents a case that maybe atrocities have been exaggerated in recorded history.

I've heard figures to the effect that Ghengis Khan supposedly slaughtered as many as 40 million, or that as many as 600 000 innocent people were murdered by the Inquisition. The numbers themselves are atrocious, as the available source material only indicate a fraction of those numbers. But for some reason, people have a need to view the objects of their hate as utterly rotten and evil as conceivable, and invariably believe the most horrible figures (even in the face of contrary evidence).

Also, many people tend to apply isolated incidents to a wide spectrum. For instance, there was an SS woman in one of the camps who collected tattoed pieces of skin from murdered Jews, and among other things made lamp shades out of some of them. I've often seen this sort of thing used as an example of "what the Nazies did". However, she didn't do these things because she was a Nazi (or we'd see countless such examples) - she did it because she was callous and psychotic. The Nazies carry the responsibility for placing such a person in such a position, and for turning a blind eye, but such revolting examples are not representative of "Nazi behaviour".

In addition to such isolated incidents, there are also other exaggerations if not outright fabrications. The myth that the Nazies made soap out of human fat, for example, was long believed by many. Besides having since been recanted, it's a ridiculous premise: is it really plausible that Germany was that desperate to wash that they had to resort to human fat? And how much fat would they get from their starved prisoners anyway? There were more important things to focus resources on. And sure, prisoners could've had a healthy storage of fat when they first arrived, but why waste perfectly good labour on soap?

When I've criticized the credibility of various horror-stories, I've been accused of "siding with the Nazies/whomever". That, of course, is a totally flawed conclusion. I could make up a story that the Nazies used to eat little babies. If you didn't believe that story, would that mean you were siding with the Nazies? No, you're simply siding with fact. And tweaking the facts, in ANY direction, is retrograde to that purpose. If fact is drowned in exaggerations/fabrications, it becomes unrecognizable. And if the facts become unrecognizable, how will we then be able to see the signs in our own time?

The sad fact of the matter is that we do not recognize the symptoms in our own time. Those who do, belong to a small minority. We simply seem incapable of learning from history, just like only few of us learn from our parents' mistakes. Persecutions are the result of fear and hate, and people fail to see that hate for the persecutor is the exact same kind of hate. Hate makes blind, even more so than love. For that reason, we do ourselves a disservice by hating anyone at all. Yes, it may take a Herculean effort not to hate the Nazies, but by refusing to understand and recognize their humanity (for better and worse), we make the same mistake they did.

If we believe only monsters could do what the Nazies did, then we have let our guard down.

[August]

Originally Posted by mog

There is both a moral and a legal difference between the massacre of civilians as a reprisal and civilians deaths as collateral damage in an attack on military industries. One is deliberate, one is a side effect.

Such distinctions are lost on a person who feels that the victims of his beloved nazi thugs just got what they deserved.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

Firstly I would like to say that the link posted before hand in reference to "attrocities" is almost 90% b.s.. Yes, yes blame the SS!! But the majority of those "attrocities" were commited in reprisal to attack, that's right they were provoked. Lets blame the ****s that attacked and then hid amongst civilians (partisans of all nationalities French, Russian, etc.) How is that to be delt with? When civilians carry weapons they become soldiers, when they harbor soldiers, they commit an act of war. War is hell, those who get involved cannot expect to be spared the blade.

I believe the Geneva convention had/has something to say about the legality of reprisal attacks. And while they may be tactically sound (provided your side is winning), morally they are not.

Malmedy pisses me off too. Soldiers have no right to surrender, it makes no sense. Seriously look at it, before being surrounded or running out of food/ammo/whatever these men tried to kill as many of their enemies as they possibly could. So why the hell after taking life should they be spared?? Simply, they have no right to quarter. You can't start to fight then just quit. That applies to the Germans that the Allies tortured and killed (enmasse) as well as the Allies that recieved the same poo poo treatment. How much of the 6th Army left Russia?? Units like the HitlerJugend exemplafied the concept of fighting to the death. Yes they were young, you may argue they were brainwashed, but you cannot deny their honor and courage. Nor can you deny the 101st that served in Bastogne, or the 81st Airborne, which Montgomery dropped on the 2nd SS panzer divison... (Another Brit that was overly arrogant and cost many lifes)

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your statement that a soldier has no right to surrender or is entitled to quarter. If I'm a soldier, and an enemy soldier surrenders, I take him prisoner. Why should I shoot him? He's a non-combattant now, and while he may have fired in anger at me or my friends, my friends and I have been no kinder to him or his friends. Besides, most soldiers did not kill - some did not fire their weapons at all. Many of those who did, intentionally missed. This is a well-known phenomenon which has been seen ever since firearms became a mainstay in conventional warfare. Being social animanls, people are simply uncomfortable with taking another person's life - generally speaking.

Sure, there were battlefields where the hatred for the enemy was so great that no quarter could be expected, and likely not given. But then you had commanders such as Erwin Rommel, to whom the proper treatment of POWs was of the greatest importance.

IMHO: People demonize the SS today, because of the fear they instilled in their enemies. They took no quarter and most asked for none. They were model soldiers and to deny their bravery and ferocity is foolish. Even from the perspective that they commited crimes (aside from the Totenkopf SS which was at the camps, I'm not saying that the Holocaust didn't happen or wasn't bad.)

I think the SS are demonized because people want to hate them. Because of what some of them did, people want to hate anyone who was part of the organization. This applies to the Nazies in general as well. Because of the atrocities that the Nazies were responsible for, people want to hate anyone who had anything to do with them. There may people even today who still hate Germans in general. This is because the men who committed the atrocities were (predominately) Nazies, and the Nazies were (predominately) German. If it wasn't for the fact that most Allied nations were European, I wouldn't be surprised if the hate would extend to all of Europe as well.

And what about what Eisenhower allowed to happen in Berlin by holding Patton back???? What about the rape, murder, looting, and torture that went on in Berlin??? You seem to mind that. War is hell, so don't think I'm whinning. What happened happened because the German people surrendered to soldiers (Just like the SS were soldiers) and soldiers kill.

I think the simplest way to say it is that what happened happened, because what goes around comes around. The Germans knew they were in for it after what they had done in Russia.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by August

Such distinctions are lost on a person who feels that the victims of his beloved nazi thugs just got what they deserved.

Dead Mans Hand has stated quite clearly that he does not deny that the Holocaust happened, nor does he have anything good to say about the Holocaust. From what I've read, my impression is that he feels it's hypocritical to keep pointing at everything "they" did, without also admitting what "we" did. There are things he says which I disagree with, but I find it neither amusing or appropriate to think in black and white: "If he's not WITH us, he's AGAINST us". On a scale of -100 to 100, you're not necessarily -100 just because you're not 100.

[Smaragdadler]

Originally Posted by Kissaki

... For instance, there was an SS woman in one of the camps who collected tattoed pieces of skin from murdered Jews, and among other things made lamp shades out of some of them. I've often seen this sort of thing used as an example of "what the Nazies did". However, she didn't do these things because she was a Nazi (or we'd see countless such examples) - she did it because she was callous and psychotic. ...

Check this:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=43277

[Bellman]

Homo homine lupus.

'The line dividing good and evil runs through the hearts of all men.'
Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

We do well to remember Bosnia, Rahwunda, Chetnia........

The close relationship between our nervous system and that of crocodiles is well known.

But stiil we are favoured with the description of 'Killer Apes'

[August]

Originally Posted by Kissaki

Dead Mans Hand has stated quite clearly that he does not deny that the Holocaust happened, nor does he have anything good to say about the Holocaust. From what I've read, my impression is that he feels it's hypocritical to keep pointing at everything "they" did, without also admitting what "we" did. There are things he says which I disagree with, but I find it neither amusing or appropriate to think in black and white: "If he's not WITH us, he's AGAINST us". On a scale of -100 to 100, you're not necessarily -100 just because you're not 100.

The original nazis didn't deny the holocaust happened either, they kept detailed records and even filmed their atrocities. You may see my opinion as black and white, but I believe anyone who would write this...

I despise all victims. To be victomized, you must allow yourself to be victomized. They allowed their weapons to be taken and lost their ability to fight. I am not saying any victim deserves what happens to them - but everyone has choices. Even if that choice is to be gunned down in the streets or die in a camp. I apply that to all "victims" it's easy to live as a man, harder to die as one. I view being a victim as being weak.

...when talking about the torture and murder of innocent civilians, women, children, even infants, and also describes the actions of the SS as "honorable" and "brave", is a nazi. He may not wear the regalia or goose step, but he is one nonetheless.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by August

The original nazis didn't deny the holocaust happened either, they kept detailed records and even filmed their atrocities. You may see my opinion as black and white, but I believe anyone who would write this...

...when talking about the torture and murder of innocent civilians, women, children, even infants, and also describes the actions of the SS as "honorable" and "brave", is a nazi. He may not wear the regalia or goose step, but he is one nonetheless.

Somehow I must have missed that paragraph, I do not remember reading it. Was it in this thread? I disagree with it profoundly, it's socio-Darwinistic in the extreme, but it doesn't make him a Nazi. That would mean agreeing with their ideology (purity of blood, police state and all that), and he hasn't shown that.

And I do not believe he meant that the torture and murder of innocent civilians was either honourable or brave. However, that is not the sum of what the SS did. In fact, that cannot be used as a general description of the SS, because they were first and foremost an elite. Even if that was a Nazi elite, that does not automatically make them evil, murdering savages. Even among those Waffen-SS who did commit atrocities, their bravery cannot be questioned as they proved themselves in battle time and time again. Their honour must be judged on an individual basis, as I do not think it fair to judge them collectively for things that only some of them did.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Smaragdadler

Check this:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=43277

That's most interesting, thanks!