The SS (separated from the Holocaust thread). [Archive]

Abraham

10-07-05, 04:42 AM

The Holocaust thread turns into a general discussion about the role of the SS.
I find that unfitting and decided to open a separate thread about the SS. Admired by some, loathed by others, the SS as a whole was ruled a criminal organisation by the Nuerenburg Tribunal.
Here follows a factual description of it's origins and structure.

Hitlers political party, the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party, or Nazi-party) had in the roaring period after WWI it's Sturm Abteilung or SA (Storm Section), the men in brown uniforms, to participate in street fights with other extremist political organisations and later used to beat up political opponents and Jews before Hitler took power. The SA grew quickly through the infusion of WWI veterans, criminals and unemployed (or any combination of these). More and more the leaders of the SA had political ambitions. The SA was often described as a steak tartar, brown on the outside but red on the inside.

Heinrich Himmler founded the Schutz Staffeln (Protection Squads), also known as "the Black Corps" after their black uniforms, in April 1925. The idea was to have a politically loyal para-military force to protect the NSDAP and it's leaders.
With very few exceptions the SS men were all Nazi's and got political indoctrination. They were stricktly loyal to Hitler. Originally the SS comprised of 200 men, but its numbers grew to 2.700 at the end of 1930 and to 30.000 by April 1932. Himmler divided the SS in 4 Groups, North, East, South and West and subdivided it in 18 sectors, to be covered by 55 SS-Standarten. On February 29th, 1932 twelve SS men were chosen as Hitlers personal bodyguard, called SS Begleit-Kommando 'Der Führer' (SS Escort Command 'Der Führer') and stood under his direct command. This unit then incorporated the SS-Sonderkommando Berlin (SS Special Berlin Command) and two other SS-Sonderkommando's, company sized units that had received trained from the Army and the police.
Hitler changed the name of the Escort Command on September 3rd, 1933 into 'Adolf Hitler-Standarte' and shortly afterwards, on November 9th, into Leibstandarte SS 'Adolf Hitler'.
It quickly grew to battalion seize and it was not just tasked with the protection of Hitler, but also of Himmler, Heidrich, the Chancellery and the three airports of Berlin as well. In this way Hitler controlled the security of Himmler, Heidrich and Berlin. It's commander was the Sepp ('Butcher') Dietrich.

After Hitler took absolute power, March 23rd, 1933, Himmler took over as 'Secretary of Police' and became SS- und Polizei Füher (SS and Police Leader). Part of the SS security services were incorporated into the police organisation, forming the Sicherheits Dienst or SD (Security Service) under Reinhard Heydrich, which ran a espionage and counter-espionage service, was now partly responsable for the security of Hitler, and formed the Gestapo (Secret State Police). These were all SS organisations.

In 1934 the Army was 'willing' to make heavy weapons, transport and training available for the SS and Himmler announced the creation of the SS-Verfügungstruppe or SS-VT (SS Special Purpose Troops).
Himmler wanted next to the - now - SS Leibstandarte two regiments, one in Münich SS Regiment 'Deutschland' and one in Hamburg, SS Regiment 'Germania'. However Hitler refused to incorporate the 'Leibstandarte' into the SS-VT and wanted to keep direct control of it.

Also in the summer of 1934 Theodor Eicke, the already infamous commander of the - first - Dachau Concentration Camp was named head of a new SS organisation, the SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS Death Head Units) to run the growing number of concentration camps.

Now the SS was called Allgemeine SS (General SS), with three specialized branches; the SD, the SS Verfügungstruppen and the SS Totenkopfverbände. So Himmler controlled the police, the secret and political police, the prison camp system and had an paramilitary political force available. Next to these main branches a myriad of supporting organisations was created.

In 1935 Hitler secretly decreted that the SS-VT would be made up of three Standarten (Regiments) with a signals and an engineers battalion.

Sepp Dietrich made a showpiece of the Leibstandarte. It was a volonteer force which could only be joined between age 17 and 22. One should have extreme physical fitness and a minimum lenght of 1.80 m. (5'11"), later 1.84 m. (6'1/2"). A Nordic appearence was preferrable and a pure Aryan anchestry had to be demonstrated all the way back to the year 1800, for officers even to 1750 (after Christ).

In May 1938 a fourth SS Regiment was founded in Vienna, SS Standarte 'Der Führer'.

In August 1938 Hitler issued a decree that in case of internal threats the SS-VT would be commanded by Himmler, in case of external threats it would be absorbed as a unit in the Army onder the Commander in Chief, but even then it would remain politically an arm of the Nazi party, giving Himmler at least some control. The Army resisted attempts to make the SS-VT a complete Division, with its own artillery.

In June 1939 Hitler overruled the objections of the Army and declared that the SS-VT would be organised as a division with its own artillery.
However, this was not completed before the start of the Polish Campaign and the Standarten were separatly placed under Army command.
The first year of war there were many complaints about the SS-VT, over-confident, poor infantry tactics, trigger happines and, especially in Poland, setting villages alight when passing through them without the slightest provocation. The Army considered the relatively high number of SS casualties an indication of the poor standard of training.
Initially there were also Army complaints over the ethnic cleansing actions of the SS Totenkopfverbände.

In November 1939 Hitler alowed Himmler to form SS Divisions.
The Standarten 'Deutschland', 'Germania' and 'Der Führer' formed the first SS Verfügungs Division. Then Eicke's Totenkopfverbände formed the SS Totenkopf Division. Finally Himmler formed an SS Police Division.

On July 26th 1940 the Leibstandarte 'Adolf Hitler' was granted Brigade strenght. In June 1941, just before Operation Barbarossa, the Leibstandarte was raised to Division strenght, although it took some time to implement this.
It became the 1. SS Panzer Division 'Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler'. The SS Verfügungs Division then became the 2. SS Panzer Division 'Das Reich' and the SS Totenkopf Division became the 3. SS Panzer Division 'Totenkopf'. The number of SS divisions quickly rose to a total of 39 at the end of the war.

My personal assesment:
As the war progressed the level of tactics of the SS troops became better. They usually had better equipment than average Army units. However, their level of quality started to drop in the last year of the war. They fought ruthless and with extreme tenacy, remained politically loyal almost till the very end and did not shrug away from extreme brutalities on the Eastern Front as well as in the West. However, there are also documented cases of courtious behaviour towards (Western military) opponents. Their leadership was good up till Regimental level, few officers of the rank of SS Gruppenführer (Major General) and up could match the intellectual capacities of their Army equals. After all, the 'old' guard came from the ranks of ordinary streetfighters. An example is Sepp Dietrich himself. He became one of the highest ranking and highest decorated SS officers, leading the Sixth Panzer Army during the Battle of the Bulge and an SS Panzer Army at the Hungarian front in the closing months of the war. However, his colleagues considered him hardly capable of the rank of division commander and he leaned heavily of Army staff whenever he could.

Some interesting books about the SS (including Waffen SS atrocities) that I've read:
'The SS: Alibi of a Nation 1922-1945' by Gerald Reitlinger;
'Hitler's Gladiator' by Charles Messenger;
'Das Reich' by Max Hastings;
'The story of the Malmédy Massacre and Trial' by James J. Weingartner.

Abraham

10-07-05, 05:35 AM

(In the Holocaust thread)... The Totenkopf, these were the murderers, comprised of both SS and Waffen SS soldiers. They were marked by a skull and crossbone on their collar. These are the soldiers that rotated between concentration camps and the front lines (because, believe it or not, the things the did at those camps caused more trauma to their psyche then the front did.) These men were comprised of psychopaths and murderers. For my sake, please do not discredit the entirity of the SS, which was comprised of some of the most brilliant commanders to ever walk this earth. Those who did what they did in the camps were a disgraces to the Fatherland, however the SS that served in the field of battle were feared by the Allies - generally the mere site of an SS unit would cause soldiers to loose their bowels. Never before or after in the modern world has an military force through it's prowess, cunning, and ruthlessness been both so deeply respected and widely feared.(cursivation by Abraham) :hmm:
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.
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.
As for the supremacy of the Waffen-SS, Allied special forces, such as the airborne divisions, were a match for comparable SS units. At Arnhem both the SS and the British 1st Airborne Div. fought a bitter fight that only ended when after 9 days the Airbornes ran completely out of supplies. SS troops - with superior equipment - were often stopped in the Ardennes by 'ordinary' US Combat Commands.
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...
As for Donitz, he was no Nazi, nor was the majority of the SS, Wermacht, Luftwaffe, or Kriegsmarine. 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.
You must understand at the time the German attitude and fierce nationalistic pride of the German people of the time. Also, as a side note - to anyone that's read Mein Kampf and looked into the history of the period, most politician's and lawer's were Jewish at this point, also after WWI the Jews who were uninvolved and were now taking over business from bankrupt Germany. Before Hitler it took nearly 3,000,000 marks to equal one US dollar. Before 1942 the Reichmark was worth abit more than the US dollar. He took a broken nation and gave her hope. Unfortunately he used the Jews as a scapegoat to do it.Where have I read this argumentation before...?
Before I'm called a Nazi sympathizer, I would like to point out that Hitler and his Nazi's were an embarassment and a blemish on the honor of the Fatherland's finest men.I do sincerely hope that you don't mean to say here that Hitler and his Nazi's were a blemish on the honor of the Waffen-SS...
The misguided point of this post: The Holocaust and what caused it is far deeper than one can get by reading a book soley about the Holocaust. You must look at the entire picture and perhaps gain a sad understanding for those who were helpless to stop it and thus turned a blind eye.Any good book about the Holocaust that I have read pays ample attention to the socio-political picture in Germany and the steady rise on virulent anti-Semitism, especially in right-wing, conservative political circles, from the late 19th century to the start of World War II.
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.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.

mog

10-07-05, 06:55 AM

Damo1977

10-07-05, 09:19 AM

While in their prime, the 'classic' Waffen SS divisions were certainly an elite and extremely successful fighting force. However, it is grossly inaccurate to extend this characterisation of the rest of the SS. At it's height the Waffen SS numbered some 950,000 men, of whom a large number were conscripts from both Germany and abroad; not volunteers, let alone 6 foot Aryan volunteers.

BAH!!!!!!!PFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!! 6 foot Aryan volunteers is what we read in Australia (whats that blonde haired blue eyed). That comment makes me so angry, and yet be quiet. I must say Abraham has found the information, but yet not all in my eyes. It is only one sentence, that needs to be said or read. And than ..............

*editor note*
The SS Oath...............That I decided against typing

Abraham

10-07-05, 12:13 PM

Damo1977

10-07-05, 10:32 PM

BAH!!!!!!!PFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!! 6 foot Aryan volunteers is what we read in Australia (whats that blonde haired blue eyed). That comment makes me so angry, and yet be quiet. I must say Abraham has found the information, but yet not all in my eyes. It is only one sentence, that needs to be said or read. And than ..............
*editor note*
The SS Oath...............That I decided against
'Meine Ehre heisst Treue'. My honor means loyalty. Their slogan and the core of their oath.
Loyalty towards a certifiable painter/corporal who seriously thought that he could rule Germany and conquer the world...
Loyalty to exclude any moral values, mercy, compassion and to follow orders blindly, whatever their content...
With their oath they really sold their soul to the Devil, or at least his henchman, and - sadly - they fully lived up to it...
:down:

Abraham, that little corporal or painter could be a hero in the working in the working class society or working man (person to be p.c.). He rose from being abused by a family member, to living on the streets, to regular soldiering, to a leading state politician. Now his political agenda might not have been right, but who could deny that he actually worked his way to that position, by hard work. And he liked dogs (sorry couldn't resist :lol: )

anyhow you stated 'they sold there soul to the Devil', doesn't every armed forces member sell their soul to the politics of their country at any time? By accepting orders or taking an oath? A normal person cant govern the politics of their country to their own liking, even in a democracy, so they put up with it and deal with it, in there own way.

Abraham

10-08-05, 05:03 AM

Abraham, that little corporal or painter could be a hero in the working in the working class society or working man (person to be p.c.). He rose from being abused by a family member, to living on the streets, to regular soldiering, to a leading state politician. Now his political agenda might not have been right, but who could deny that he actually worked his way to that position, by hard work.His political agenda was set out from the beginning in 'Mein Kampf'. Your: "his political agenda might not have been right" is an understatement that I did not expect from an Aussie! His policies were damn wrong: hatred & discrimination, suppression of the opposition, extreme nationalistic, German racial superiority & aggression, dictatorship, just to name a few items. He worked up his way allright by street terror; beating up the opposition in the weak Weimar democracy with his S.A. and of course by the underestimation of his opponents, who disappeared in concentration camps as soon as he reached power.
anyhow you stated 'they sold there soul to the Devil', doesn't every armed forces member sell their soul to the politics of their country at any time? By accepting orders or taking an oath?The Oath of armed forces in normal democracies is usually to the Constitution, or the whole country, the King or Queen or President as the nominal head of the democratic government. I find that normal. Armed forces have to obey the ruling civil authorities.
The situation in the Third Reich was completely different. There was no constituition; Hitler ruled by decree. Hitler was a dictator for life with no democratic review of his policies after 4,5 or 6 years. This Oath for life(!) was sworn to Hitler in person, with no restrictions, one of the things that often prevented the German Officer Corps to resist him, since both Hitler an they took that Oath extremely serious. After that Oath there was no way out for moral objections; that's why I say they sold their soul to the Devil. One man was thinking for Germany and in Germany, he made all the decisions and estimated their military, economic, social and moral values. And what a man he was!
"Der Führer befehlt, wir volgen!", shouted tens of thousands hysterically at Nazi rallies (The Führer orders, we'll follow!). Well, he did, they did and in the end they all got what they had been asking for...

I think it is very dangerous - and even offensive for servicemen and -women in the Armed Forces - not to make a clear distinction between the position of the Military in a democracy and the position of the Military towards Hitler in the Third Reich (and other dictatorships).

Abraham

10-08-05, 05:57 AM

As a reaction on the remarks of Dead Mans Hand there's something more I'ld like to say about the perceived differences in morality between the SS-Totenkopfverbände the Skull Head Squads, that mainly served as Einsatzgruppen (Action Squads) in the East and guarded concentration- and death camps on the one hand and the so called 'honorable' Waffen-SS on the other hand.
That difference was not as big as it is often perceived.
Sure, the SS-Totenkopfverbände did the dirty jobs and sure, the Waffen-SS fought fanatically. And yes, they were high quality and were feared and worthy opponents for Allied forces.

But to percieve the SS-Totenkopfverbände as the 'bad guys' and the Waffen-SS as the 'good guys' doesn't do justice to both!
In the thirties there wasn't a difference in mentality, just in tasks. The Totenkopfverbände had the task to guard political prisoners in concentration camps, the SS to guard the party leadership and as Waffen-SS to protect the country from internal(!) and external threats.

Later the Waffen-SS expanded greatly and participated under Army command in the war, often with bravery. At the same time the SS-Totenkopfverbände formed Eisatzgruppen to start the Final Solution. Before the death camps started to operate, mid 1942, the Einsatzgruppen, four, later five groups of about 3.000 men each, had already gathered and shot more then 1.000.000 Jews by hand, including women and children. This completely dehumanized them, many became extremely violant and alcoholics. The quality of these SS men went down, while their Waffen-SS colleagues could boast about military successes.
But the mentality of the Waffen-SS and the SS-Totenkopfverbände was exactly the same. The Waffen-SS also showed extremely ruthless at suitable occasions in the East and in the West. The proof is that the Waffen-SS had absolutely no moral problem incorporating a whole division of Totenkopfverbände.
And why should they? Morality did not count, they had all sworn the Oath towards this one man, Adolf Hitler and put their human conscious on permafrost.

If somebody dares to state that the Waffen-SS was 'honorable' because they did not participate in the Final Solution I have to object. It was not a matter of honor; they would have, if they had been tasked so. They were lucky, not honorable...

Question to all:
If any given Waffen-SS unit had been ordered to get into a local ghetto and shoot every Jew on sight, men, women and children, the sick and the elderly included, is there anybody on this forum who would seriously doubt that they would have blindly followed that order? Or would they have refused to do so on moral objections?
Asking these questions is answering them; all SS men had sworn loyalty towards Hitler, that's where all they went wrong...
'Meine Ehre heisst Treue' (My honor is called loyalty).

My personal opinion: (Waffen-)SS = disgusting lot of failed human beings...
:down:

Iceman

10-08-05, 03:04 PM

This whole topic sprang from the remark of someone commenting on the SS in my sig....It is again well worth noting the term SS does not only refer to Nazi Germany Thugs....just as the Swastika did not come from the Nazis...

The American public has come to regard the submarine force of the United States Navy as the "Silent Service." In some respects, this definition is accurate.
http://www.history.navy.mil/ac/wwii/abotsub/abotsub1.htm

Swastika = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

XabbaRus

10-08-05, 03:44 PM

Yea and I was being ironic.

Konovalov

10-08-05, 05:03 PM

all SS men all had sworn loyalty towards Hitler, that's where all they went wrong...
'Meine Ehre heisst Treue' (My honor is called loyalty).

I thought that the Wehrmacht had also sworn loyalty to Hitler personally by taking the oath when joining.

Damo1977

10-08-05, 06:17 PM

Jace11

10-09-05, 08:54 AM

Malmady, Wormhoudt etc.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html

Wasn't fully aware of these incidents until recently.

Lets face it these Nazi scum were a bunch of c***s. There isn't much else to say about them.

Abraham

10-09-05, 10:25 AM

@ Konovalov:
I thought that the Wehrmacht had also sworn loyalty to Hitler personally by taking the oath when joining.You're right, and I know, but I was just discussing the SS. I think though that the oath of the Wehrmacht was slightly differently worded - but I'm not sure, the Nazi-system not being my favorite object of study...
A difference between the loyalty of the Army and the SS though, was that Hitler (rightfully) never completely trusted the Army, oath or no oath. Indeed, there was opposition within the Arm from the moment he took power, sometimes resulting in coup attemps. The SS was basically a volonteer and (Nazi-)political force and as such fully trusted by him. Much more than the Army, the SS - including the Waffen-SS - was Hitler's tool of power.
It's difficult for me to imagine Hitler ruling Germany without the SS...

@ Damo1977:
... Your: "his political agenda might not have been right" is an understatement that I did not expect from an Aussie! I've done it again, just saying some people must have thought it was right otherwise he would not have gotten anywhere in politics.C'mon Damo1977, don't be so defensive! You always claim to be blunt and outspoken, so I found a funny remark fitting for your careful wording...
:D
As far as Hitler and Nazism is concerned, I prefer to make my position cristal clear.

@ Jace11:
Thanks for the link. Remarkable how often the Waffen-SS was involved in war atrocities, isn't it? Of course they were not doing the 'dirty jobs' in the concentration camps, but let there be no doubt: if ordered, they would have done those 'dirty jobs' as well.
The link also contains this info:
THE AMSTERDAM REPRISAL (October 24, 1944).
When S.D. officer Herbert Oelschagel was murdered by the Dutch resistance on October 23, 1944 in Amsterdam, the Nazi reprisal was swift and severe. Next day, 29 civilians were arrested and pedestrians on the Apollolaan were forced at gunpoint to witness their execution. At the same time, several buildings were deliberately set on fire.That's the place where I usually pay my respect on Remembrance Day (May 4th) since the mid fifties, the place being 400 meters from my home...

_________________

M.Mira

10-16-05, 09:29 AM

Thank you Abraham for giving some painful but objective information about the Waffen SS.
I think you are right when you say that the moral distinction between theWaffen SS and the rest of the SS is artificial.
In my eyes, they were all criminals.
:up:

Kissaki

10-19-05, 08:19 AM

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

10-19-05, 06:03 PM

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/pages/index.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

10-21-05, 05:12 AM

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.
:88)
"Dresden Holocaust" by Rense.com,
LMAO

mog

10-21-05, 06:35 AM

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

10-21-05, 07:34 AM

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

10-21-05, 07:40 AM

(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

10-21-05, 07:51 AM

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

10-21-05, 07:59 AM

Kissaki

10-21-05, 08:18 AM

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

10-21-05, 08:25 AM

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.

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

10-21-05, 09:10 AM

... 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

10-21-05, 09:19 AM

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

10-21-05, 09:23 AM

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

10-21-05, 09:45 AM

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.

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

10-21-05, 09:46 AM

Bellman

10-21-05, 10:32 AM

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.
:lol: As a student lover of music and the sword, I am sure you can instruct us here.

Kissaki

10-21-05, 10:37 AM

Just what is your problem, Bellmann?

Bellman

10-21-05, 10:48 AM

I would genuinely like you to address the questions.

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

Kissaki

10-21-05, 10:51 AM

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

10-21-05, 11:16 AM

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

10-21-05, 11:27 AM

As a WASP you could'nt insult me. ;)

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

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

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

Bellman

10-21-05, 11:44 AM

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

10-21-05, 12:31 PM

@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

10-21-05, 12:40 PM

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

10-21-05, 03:42 PM

@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.

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

10-21-05, 05:51 PM

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

10-21-05, 10:50 PM

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

10-21-05, 11:18 PM

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

10-22-05, 12:27 AM

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

10-22-05, 01:11 AM

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.

Kissaki

10-22-05, 01:37 AM

Here are the guidelines for personal conduct in Norway, as issued to the Wehrmacht:

Guidelines for conduct when in personal contact with the Norwegian population.
(Richtlinien für das Verhalten im persönlichen Verkehr mit der norwegischen Bevölkerung.)

Everyone belonging to the Wehrmacht needs to be conscious of the fact that he has not entered enemy territory, rather that the troops move into Norway to defend the country and to ensure the safety of its population. One should therefore keep readily in mind the following:
(Jeder Ungehörige der Wehrmacht muß sich bemußt sein, daß er nicht Feindesland betritt, sondern daß die Truppe zum Schutz des Landes und zur Sicherung seiner Bewohner in Norwegen einrückt. Daher ist folgendes zu beachten: )

1. The Norwegian has a good solid national awareness. Moreover, the Norwegian people feel in close connection with other Nordic people.
Therefore: Avoid anything that might hurt the national honour!
(1. Der Norweger hat ein ausgesprochenes Nationalbewußtsein. Darüber hinaus fühlt sich das norwegische Volk aufs engste verwandt mit den anderen nordischen Völkern.
Also: Alles vermelden, was die nationale Ehre verletzen kann!)

2. The Norwegian is extremely free spirited* and self-assured**. He rejects any form of coercion and subservience. He has no sense of military discipline and authority.
Therefore: Give orders as rarely as possible, don't yell at him! It will cause resentment and is without effect. Explain in a reasonable manner and try to convince! A good-humoured tone will get you farthest. Unnecessary strictness and authoritarianism hurts his self esteem.***
(2. Der Norweger ist äußerst freiheitsliebend und und selbstbewußt. Er lehnt jeden Zwang und jede Unterordnung ab. Er hat keinen Sinn für militärische Zucht und Autorität.
Also: Wenig befehlen, nicht anschreien! Das erfüllt ihn mit Widerwillen und ist wirkungslos. Sachlich aufklären und überzeugen! Humorvoller Ton erreicht am meisten. Unnötige Schärfe und Bevormündung verletzen sein Selbstgefühl.)

3. The Norwegian is by nature (like the Frisian farmer) reserved and backward, slow in thought and action, and also mistrusting of strangers.
Therefore: Don't rush him! Give him time!
(3. Der Norweger ist in seiner Wesenart (ähnlich dem frisischen Bauern) verschlossen und zurückhaltend, langsam im Denken und Handeln, dazu aber auch mißtrauisch gegen Fremdes.
Also: Kein Hetztempo! Zeit lassen!)

4. The Norwegian home is holy, through ancient Germannic custom. Hospitality is gladly given. Property is inviolable. The house remains unlocked. Theft is virtually unknown and is considered shameful.****
Therefore: Avoid any unwarranted seizure of property, even when there is ample opportunity. "Expropriation", "commandeering" etc. is thievery, and is under any circumstance forbidden.
(4. Das Haus des Norwegers ist nach altgermannischer Auffassung heilig. Gastfreundschaft wird gern geübt. Eigentum ist unverletzlich. Das Haus bleibt unverschlossen. Diebstahl ist fast unbekannt und gilt als Schande.
Also: Jeden unberechtigten Eingriff unterlassen, auch wenn Güter offen herumliegen. "Besorgen", "Organisieren" u.dgl. gelten als Diebstahl und sind unter allen Umständen verboten.)

5. The Norwegian has no understanding for the war. The seafaring and trading people sympathises with England. It fears Russia. It has no understanding, with very few exceptions, for the goals of national socialism.
Therefore: Avoid political discussions!
(5. Der Norweger hat kein Verständnis für den Krieg. Das seefahrende und handeltreibende Volk hat Neigung für Enlgand. Es fürchtet Rußland. Für die Ziele des Nationalsozialismus besteht mit geringen Ausnahmen kein Verständnis.
Also: Politische Auseinandersetzungen vermeiden!)

6. The Norwegian loves a homely, relaxed existence. He can be won over through friendliness, through little tokens of attention and compliments to his person.
Therefore: No rash behaviour, especially toward women!
(6. Der Norweger liebt ein häusliches, behagliches Dasein. Er ist zu gewinnen durch Freundlichkeit, durch kleine Aufmerksamkeiten und Anerkennung seiner Person.
Also: Kein aufdringliches Verhalten, besonders gegenüber Frauen!)

7. The German language is understood most everywhere. Condition: Speak slowly and clearly!
(7. Die deutsche Sprache wird fast überall verstanden. Vorausselzung: Langsam und deutlich sprechen!)

* freiheitsliebend - can you say freedom loving in English? Is free spirited the same? I'm not entirely sure.
** selbstbewußt - it is tempting here to translate it as "self conscious", a direct translation. I understand, however, that it does not mean quite the same as the German selbstbewußt or the Norwegian selvbevisst, which I would say rather means self-confident or -assured.
*** This is the third obstacle of the translation, and quite directly it should be "hurts his feelings", but that doesn't quite cut it either, I think.
**** This is totally contrary to #3, where Norwegians are said to be mistrusting of strangers. Hey, I didn't make the rules! :roll:

Bellman

10-22-05, 02:57 AM

Kissaki - Thank you for partialy answering my questions about the occupation of Norway.

I promise you I will do my best not to react humourously.

My remarks you quote were addressed to Dead Man so I am at a loss to underdstand why your Tourette's remark
was called for especialy in the light of your statement -Resorting to ad hominem attacks -
regardless of what one might think of a person - is immature, and injurious to one's own case. Sic.

Seems to me Dead Man is quite capable of speaking for himself (however offensive his revisionism) Your intervention reads as looking for a scrap.

You tread on others corns yet sensitively protest at 'Ad Hominem' attacks. Like calling you a student teacher,
interested in music and swords. (From your own profile ??)

Finaly knowing that will insist on the final word/s. (Feel free) I choose not to enter the debate as for me it is a **Dead Parrot**
Digging it up risks spreading a contagous disease.

I am not prepared to revisit your postings to quote chapter and verse as I fear my stomach is not strong enough.

Good Day.

Kissaki

10-22-05, 03:16 AM

Kissaki - Thank you for partialy answering my questions about the occupation of Norway.

You mean you asked those things in earnest? From the way you asked, you seemed more than a little sarcastic.

I promise you I will do my best not to react humourously.

Close friends can insult eachother in good humour, but we do not know eachother. Insults are therefore no more than insults. You have a long way to go in convincing me you were only playfully mocking me.

My remarks you quote were addressed to Dead Man so I am at a loss to underdstand why your Tourette's remark
was called for especialy in the light of your statement -Resorting to ad hominem attacks -
regardless of what one might think of a person - is immature, and injurious to one's own case. Sic.

Seems to me Dead Man is quite capable of speaking for himself (however offensive his revisionism) Your intervention reads as looking for a scrap.

You tread on others corns yet sensitively protest at 'Ad Hominem' attacks.

Point taken, but when I used your reply to Dead Mans Hand it was because your last post to me was too low to dignify a response. The Tourette's remark was because of your apparent compulsive urge to hurl insults. And the reason I finally attacked you is because quite frankly, I was getting fed up with you, and insults seem to be the language you speak.

Like calling you a student teacher,
interested in music and swords. (From your own profile ??)

Your first post to me was this:
Cant wait Mr Student Teacher. Yawns. :zzz: See other thread - ''THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!"

Please favour us with your critique - your theory of criticism. Homework ?

Since first you read my profile, you haven't let go of this "teacher/student" thingie, or that I actually bothered to list a few interest in the appropriate box. Tell me, if I had left my profile blank (like yours), would you have responded to me the way you have? I don't think so. For some reason you cling on to the fact that I'm a teacher, and use that as an attempt to discredit me. Not once have you actually addressed the contents of my posts. Feel free to disagree, but you could be civil about it.

Finaly knowing that will insist on the final word/s. (Feel free) I choose not to enter the debate as for me it is a **Dead Parrot**
Digging it up risks spreading a contagous disease.

I am not prepared to revisit your postings to quote chapter and verse as I fear my stomach is not strong enough.

Good Day.

That concludes our business, then? Excellent.

Abraham

10-22-05, 03:45 AM

I have not participated in this discussion for about a week, partly because I was very busy, partly because I was sick of the arguments and positions of Dead Mans Hand in this thread.

Dead Mans Hand "despises victims" of Nazi terror but whines about Allied carpet bombing (before precision bombing on a large scale was feasable, of course). And who were the first to carpet-bomb cities? Who bombed Warshaw, Rotterdam?
He speaks about a "balance" between quarters given and taken in battle but forgets about any balance as soon as he justifies SS reprisals. His remarks are not a justification, on the contrary, the very concept of Justice intends to limit retribution and restore peace. That can hardly be said of the SS retributions...
And Dead Mans Hand 'platitude' slogan "war is hell" is not a justification to behave like a Devil towards your fellow humans, not to mention that Germany had signed the Geneva Convention.

He states that Germany should have won the Second World war. Implicitly Dead Mans Hand justifies the attack on my country, Holland... a neutral "Germanic" country that had historically close ties with Germany.
Earlier in this thread I quoted Churchill who warned in 1940 that the world would then sink into a new Dark Age. It did, but was rescued in the nick of time by the Allies for which they deserve eternal gratitude.
After the Allied breakthrough from Normandy (August 1944) it was clear to all that Germany would lose the war. The best thing for Germany would have been to lose it as soon as possible. If the war would have been prolonged for a substantial period the 'Enola Gay' would have dropped 'Little Boy' or 'Fat Man' over Berlin - as was originally planned! So any German resistance after August 1944 was not helping Germany at all - on the contrary. All fighting after that date was only done to save the skin of the Painter...

As August pointed out, some of the finest German elite forces were the Fallschirmjaeger (para's). I would add the Luftwaffe.
The SS was a political elite, created by the Nazi party. I'm not talking about the last year and a half of the war, but basically all SS were volunteers and got political indoctrination buring their basic training. Whatever their motives, they bear responsability for the choice they made for an evil system. They choose to be the iron fist of the Nazi party.
Dead Mans Hand's opinion about the Parliamentary System is also noted.

I despise the SS (including the Waffen-SS) as the perpetrators of much misery for their victims as well as their own country. And as I have said before, you cannot claim honour without a conscience, honour when you are willing to do anything a mediocre painter demands you to do, honor when you are willing to kill women and children without hesistation on order (2. SS Panzerdivision "Das Reich" in France 1944). The SS 'honor' that Dead Mans Hand states so highly about is 'Ersatz Ehre' (fake honor) by lack of real one!

Yes, war is hell, but after you surrender war should be over! War is hell, but killing Jews and unwanted minorities has nothing to do with war, but with murder. The SS was an integral and essential part of the wicked and criminal Nazi system. Of course we can not judge individuals on a general basis. But only in a Nazi state all the perversities and atrocities of the SS could be condoned.
The fact of the matter is that we humans have a conscience, that we can do right or wrong and that there are higher commands than "Befehl ist Befehl"...

And why will I never agree with Dead Mans Hand about this? Because I feel that even a soldier - or perhaps I should say: especially a soldier - should maintain basic human values, values that were considered weaknesses by the Nazi's, like 'love thy neighbour'. Dead Mans Hand may or may not be a Nazi, but his thinking it thoroughly fascistoide - and I do not mean that as an insult but as a matter of fact.

I was amused though by his remark that A true Nazi is usually higher class and highly educated.This is the funniest remark in all his postings and gave me a good laugh.
As a matter of fact, the true Nazi's were usually lower class and poorly educated. There were no great thinkers in Germany during the Nazi era, because independant thinking was regarded a dangerous activity. The only intelligent Nazi thinker was Alfred Rosenberg. The whole Nazi 'philosophy' sucks and the Nazi's were unable to define a theoretical concept. Marx at least develloped a theoretical concept on which communism could be based. Nazism is based on nothing. Because Nazi's can therefor never win a theoretical discussion, they tend to counter valid arguments with violence, as history proved from day one, and Dead Mans Hand unwillingly confirms:... 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. :D

U-552Erich-Topp

10-23-05, 11:29 AM

:) Schlecht

Kissaki

10-23-05, 12:43 PM

Was ist schlecht?

Dead Mans Hand

10-24-05, 03:13 PM

Foreword: Another long one gents, I would like to thank those of you atleast being civil and contributing intellectually to the debate. Again to keep things brief I will only be responding to those individuals that are making a valid intellectual contribution. I segment these posts so you only need read as much of, or as little of, what you want to read. Thanks.

@Kissaki
Again, about surrendering. I do mean to imply that soldiers that go to war for their country should not want quarter. If it is not requested it does not, in my mind, need to be offered. I will say that it is more noble to fight to the death, but take prisoners, but I do not see it as ignoble to apply the same standards to both sides. Ergo, if the "red flag" of no quarter asked/none given is raised and known to both sides - another key factor. Than neither side can, or should, expect any mercy. So I guess that would be my biggest stipulation then? As long as ROE and consistent and the enemy knows, I see them as fair.

@Kissaki
The unspoken agreement, was a metaphor, there were instances of Japanese putting grenades under their armpits when surrendering only to drop them at the feet of their captors. A book you would be interested in is Deadly Brotherhood, it's a wealth of interviews with US WWII veterans. In which they talk about the fact many US units would should Japenese soldiers without 2nd thought.

@Kissaki
You neversaid thatmost European countries were Nazi's, you said they weren't which I argue. Poland, Norway, Austria, Belgium, France, and a few others willingly capitulated with the Nazi regime. Infact, I forget the names of the ships, but I do believe that two French destroyers were sunk of the coast of Normandy by British ships in/around 1940.

@Kassaki
The Holocaust was only part of what people accuse the Nazi's of. If that's the bulk of their crimes, than only a minority of the Nazi's actually took part. Either way such is my point - but when you look at their "crimes" in field many were reprisals. Which are, quite, justified regardless of their severity. If a village harbors combatants whether regulars or militia, they have committed an act of war and are thus, armed or not, are valid military targets.

@Xabba
El Alamein, he beat an enemy that had grossly over extended himself while chasing a fleeing coward. It's more accurate to say his men beat an enemy, you know the rest. Anyways, I say that not soley based on performance but because his egotism was responsable for Market Garden, he was told about the 2nd SS in and around drop zones, but because he wanted to be the first to Berlin refused to acknowledge. This total lack of concern for his men and his arrogance, not to mention his lack of actual success in the latter of the war are what lead me to say he was the worst (Allied) General of the war if not the worst General over all.

@Xabba
First of all, Churchill ordered one of the largest single attrocities of the war. How can you defend that with an attitude that seems like "well he was one of us?"
Also, as for the formation of the SS, this is again the division between the SchutzSchtaffel and the Waffen SS. The SS was Hitlers personal body guard, the Waffen SS were not. Bear in mind the SS wore black and was mostly in camps and stationed at home, where as the Waffen SS operated abroad.

@August
So, intent defines crime? It was ok for Churchill to order the destruction of a defenseless city operating as a hospital city, recognized in the Genevea convention as a non-military target and then actively cover it up, because he was doing it to break the German people - since they started the war? As Kissaki has pointed out you have a misconception on why the war was started. But please, explain to me how Allied war crimes, such as Dresden (which occured months before the end of the war, not durring) are any less appaling than the proposed Nazi crimes? (I am not refering to the Holocaust, I am refering only to "crimes" commited infield in response to attacks on German interests - I do not deny the Holocaust and am quite against it as well. Interestingly enough, Joseph Stalin was accountable for far more genocidal deaths than Hitler, yet the U.S. and the rest of the world did nothing - infact we're the ones who armed him and put him in power... funny how you all ignore this along with Churchill's disgraceful acts)

Also: As Kissaki mentioned the camps built early in the war were not part of the Holocaust, the Holocaust began much later and only applies to what happend to the Jews after Allied nations refused to accept any more deported refugees. Perhaps history books don't bother to mention that because certain nations have a sense of guilt? Have you seen Shindler's List? Perhaps at the end of the war the Allies realized they had let those millions die.

@August
I believe you refer to Pangermanism, the belief that Germans should rule the world. It's not an expressly Nazi belief and is the same by definition as the American Manifest Destiny.
@August
The white "slaves" you reference were usually political prisoners, not just thrown in for the hell of it. Is it right to take political prisoners, nope, but they were not just overbroad as you suggest.
@August
Communists in their early days were usually terroristic anyways. Explain perhaps the post war McCarthy era? Also, some may argue that the brutality and cruelty in those camps, since never actually ordered by Hitler would parallel with current issues with POW camps.
@August
Why do you think the SS is so hated by todays generation? Because fear breeds hate. If they were not feared they would simply be forgoten. Care to argue that point further?

@August
You realize that the Grossdeutschland had just as many politicaly influenced members and was, aside from name, practically an SS unit correct? Also that the paratroopers and Afrika Korp were lead by Nazi's and the only difference between them and the SS was that they had soldiers with braun heair and eyes correct? They were comprised of practically the same mentality. The SS had some ****ty units, but units like the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd scared Allies ****less from the start of the war, not to mention the Hitlerjugend. Hey let's talk about the Allied policy of executing SS men on sight at the end of the war! Same deal as Nazi reprisals, unarmed men, I do not complain about it, but I ask if you are going to demonize one side, view the other with equal contempt when it commited the self-same crimes.

@Bellman
I am not a revisionist, they disgust me as much as they do you. Nor I am not denying what happend in WWII in any way shape or form and many of you are taking my statements as broad sweeping about all Nazi action. I am refering only to that which happend in combat zones. If you cannot seperate that from the Holocaust, please refer to previous postings on the difference between the Totenkopf and regular SS (something you previously mocked)

@Abraham
First and foremost, I will not apologize for my beliefs. I will however say that I hope you do not think I am taking them only to offend and I would also ask you acknowledge, as I have stated previously, that I apply these standards to more than the Nazi's and WWII that infact I apply them to all countries. I also ask you acknowledge that I have never once denied or supported the Holocaust and have spoken against it as a disgrace to Germany.

I am not whinning about carpet bombing, I am illustrating the double standard in this thread. You whine about the Germans, particularly the SS, but say that it's ok for the Allies?? Also I illustrate how the SS were acting in reprisal to attacks, not attacking hospitals and churches at the very end of the war in totally unarmed cities.

I also take note that you have nothing against infact almost celebrate nuclear weapons in your post, weapons which have never once been turned on a military target. If I applied the same standards you apply to me, I would call you a Nazi. However I have yet to discuss political idealogy with you so I wouln't jump to conclusions as to your ethnicity and political beliefs. Also, Churchill helped walk down to the darkages, I again cite Eugenics that he actively supported the chemical castration of mentally handicaped as did FDR - the Nazi's infact learned their first methods of sterilization from the British and U.S.

In the German eyes your country was liberated, not attacked.

They choose to be the iron fist of the Nazi party.

That opinion, generalized at it is, is of the SS being the elite and feared unit(s) in the German military. Bear in mind I'm not refering to the Turkish SS regiment that was a joke and if I recal executed after a falled attempt at mutiny.

@Abraham
When you surrender, you give up fighting and throw yourself at your enemies feet. There is nothing stopping them from kicking you and by putting yourself in that position you are only a dog, not a man. Frankly I would die before I knelt before any man.

@Abraham
Actually, honor applies to acting in a fashion you would not normally act in the for the sake of country. Honor, is keeping your word, as a soldier, that means not questioning orders. You sacrifice yourself for the whole. You do not debate with your commanding officer whether it is right.

@Abraham
I am largely, in favor of totalitarian government. If that's what you mean by fasictoid. But that is not of much relevance to the current conversation. Also, quit involving the Holocaust with things I condone. I do not condone mass murder of innocents. Look at it this way, the Jews did not actively decide to be born where they were born. Thus making them innocent, if a soldier enters the field of battle he has actively decided to take up arms - and is not innocent. If a peasant village hides local partisans they actively decide to risk retribution - and are not innocent. Do you see the difference between active and passive? It is dishonorable in my eyes to kill someone that has not yet had the choice. But if they are given the choice and choose to risk death, they have no right to complain when they die.

@Abraham
No intellegent Nazi's? No upperclass Nazi's? I hate to tell you the Nazi party also appealed to the upper crust of society. But no "smart" Nazi's? Are you daft? Explain the U-Boats, V-1 rocket which was deployed with the first wire and radar guided systems, V-2 rocket which was the first vehicle to leave Earth's atmosphere, the Panther and Tiger series tanks, the various small arms developements, the accuracy of German artillery, and the various jet aircraft. Along with Germany's nuclear program which was ahead of ours but lacked resources. Infact, while not Nazi's, expatriated Germans in America were responsable for the atomic bomb. Get your history straight, except for the application of radar the Allies were behind the technological curve almost the entire time. I also credit them for better long range bombers, which were used extensively to kill only civilians, even in your country. Also, and I realize many of you will fly of the handle on this, Hitler is undeniably one of the greatest political minds to have existed - he was evil yes but he rose from peasent to dictator and to deny that shows your inabilty to objectively look at this subject and largely invaldiates your arguement, Heinz Guderian's Blitzkrieg is employed by all the major world armies today including the US, Erwin Rommel's armor tactics are employeed, and German U-boat inovations were the basis of the nuclear standoff we have today, not to mention that the V-2 was the grandfather of our space program, the RAM jet from the V-1 has been modified to produce various missles and aircraft in US employment and has recently evolved into the SCRAM jet, German engineers were bought up by many governments to improve their weaponry, heck even the M1942 helmet design is used almost universaly but hey - they had no great minds. A mind is not great upon your approval of its idealogy, a mind is proven to be great by the legacy it leaves.

**Though, to give credit where it's due, there is a cigar named after Winston Churchill.**

@Abraham
I would hope, that emotion does not rule your intellect and this could perhaps be continued. If not, I would extend the proposition that this should atleast not end on hostile terms. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree but there is enough hostility that hopefully can be kept from the online world.

@Kissaki
Schlecht = bad
It's irrelevant but I understand (and speak a limited amount) of high German and can understand almost all German dialects excepting Swebish... *shudder* they don't enunciate or seem to breathe when they talk... good for a lager though... I prefer darker beer, but eh.
**Edit: Now looking at the fact you ask: Was ist schlecht? - and your nationality is listed as Norweigan I'm going to assume you knew that.... Es tut mir leid, ich bin American aber ich glaube im deutsch sehr oft.
(I think that's proper, bear in mind I read and listen to more German than I have oppurtuninty to speak, I know several German immigrants that speak partial English and are kind enough to tolerate my lack of a German vocabulary, though they tell me that what I do know I speak very well.)

XabbaRus

10-25-05, 05:54 AM

Hmmm

Whatever....

The SS was the SS regardless of how it was divided, but that has already been explained enough here.

You can't compare the SS to special forces like the SAS, Commandos, etc...

They were setup for commando missions, purely military not ideological.

Oh and btw I didn't defend Churchill or the bombing of Dresden, but then read what you want.

You might deny it but you seem to be a Nazi revisionist or at least sympathetic given your defense of the SS.

go take your drivel somewhere else.....

August

10-25-05, 08:04 AM

Kissaki

10-25-05, 12:28 PM

@Kissaki
Again, about surrendering. I do mean to imply that soldiers that go to war for their country should not want quarter. If it is not requested it does not, in my mind, need to be offered. I will say that it is more noble to fight to the death, but take prisoners, but I do not see it as ignoble to apply the same standards to both sides. Ergo, if the "red flag" of no quarter asked/none given is raised and known to both sides - another key factor. Than neither side can, or should, expect any mercy. So I guess that would be my biggest stipulation then? As long as ROE and consistent and the enemy knows, I see them as fair.

I think I'm beginning to see your point. However, it's every man's prerogative to decide that he can't take any more. Also bear in mind that in a war you have draftees as well, who don't necessarily want to be there at all. In any case, I don't believe in "no quarter" warfare, and neither did Rommel as you know. He entitled his memoirs "Krieg ohne Hass", or "War without Hate". Rommel is my personal favourite too, because he was truly an amazing military man. He was never more than tolerant toward Nazi ideology, though he did idolize Hitler at first. The reason for that, however, is because Hitler promised martial glory - and that's what Rommel lived for. He did love the war, and in a similar way he loved his enemy. He lauded martial valour, though he lamented the losses. He loved his men, but his final comment to Major General Johannes Streich, as he sent him home from the Afrikakorps was, "You cared about your men too much". I suppose you can draw many parallells to Patton.

Anyway, a no quarter struggle will only leave bitterness and resentment in the aftermath of the war. Evil begets evil, as evident in how the Russian theatre developed.

@Kissaki
The unspoken agreement, was a metaphor, there were instances of Japanese putting grenades under their armpits when surrendering only to drop them at the feet of their captors. A book you would be interested in is Deadly Brotherhood, it's a wealth of interviews with US WWII veterans. In which they talk about the fact many US units would should Japenese soldiers without 2nd thought.

Which is understandable, based on the ferocious reputation of the Japanese. There was a lot of propaganda which added to this image, just as the Japanese were fed propaganda to make them despise Americans. It was hate and fear that made them kill. The Pacific theatre is another fine example of how evil begets evil.

@Kissaki
You neversaid thatmost European countries were Nazi's, you said they weren't which I argue. Poland, Norway, Austria, Belgium, France, and a few others willingly capitulated with the Nazi regime. Infact, I forget the names of the ships, but I do believe that two French destroyers were sunk of the coast of Normandy by British ships in/around 1940.

Willingly capitulated? Now, them's fightin' words! I assure you that we didn't capitulate until we had no other choice, when thousands of Norwegian and British soldiers had been killed, plus a few thousand foreign legioneers as well. Norway presented Germany with her first defeats, as the Battle of Narvik testifies. Nor did Poland, France or the Low Countries willingly capitulate. They - and we - were defeated and subdued. Or are you saying that anything less than fighting to the last man, woman or child is a willing surrender?

True, Quisling did sell us out by personally inviting Hitler to annex Norway and in preparation downgrading our military to next to nothing. Plus ordering the remaining soldiers to stand down to the Wehrmacht - under no circumstances were they to offer resistance. Still, they fought - we fought - tooth and nail. There was nothing willing about the occupation, but rather making the best out of a bad situation. Throughout the war the resistance remained active, and most of us fought in the way we could - by wearing red to symbolize good, old independent Norway, and to show that they had not broken our spirit, by tuning in to English radio, by not trading with the Germans etc. And the Germans never got the King.

Compared with Poland, though, the other countries you mentioned had a swell time. To say that they willingly surrendered, I would think particularly offensive. Now, Austria you could make a case for, and Denmark as well. But the others you mention, not on your life.

@Kassaki
The Holocaust was only part of what people accuse the Nazi's of. If that's the bulk of their crimes, than only a minority of the Nazi's actually took part.

Yes, but my point was that even if only a minority took part of it, all of Germany has been blamed for it. I don't remember who said it, but it went something like this: The only thing needed for bad men to succeed is for good men to do nothing. That's why after the war many people hated all Germans for the Holocaust, the very symbol of the Nazi regime. A few bitter people might do so still.

Either way such is my point - but when you look at their "crimes" in field many were reprisals. Which are, quite, justified regardless of their severity. If a village harbors combatants whether regulars or militia, they have committed an act of war and are thus, armed or not, are valid military targets.

Actually, the Geneva convention decides what are and what are not valid military targets. It's a matter of definition, and that definition lies squarely in the Geneva convention - regardless of what individual people might feel.

Besides, what if armed men force unarmed civilians to hide them, as is often the case? Have the unwilling civilians then committed an act of war? What about the infant children of said civilians, who probably don't even know? Have they committed an act of war? Nothing is black and white, but there is one thing that is frowned upon by any ethical standards I'm aware of: taking the lives of unarmed civilians in cold blood.

Also: As Kissaki mentioned the camps built early in the war were not part of the Holocaust, the Holocaust began much later and only applies to what happend to the Jews after Allied nations refused to accept any more deported refugees. Perhaps history books don't bother to mention that because certain nations have a sense of guilt? Have you seen Shindler's List? Perhaps at the end of the war the Allies realized they had let those millions die.

This is an important point, and very true. Allied countries had the opportunity to take in a lot more Jews than they did. But they refused to, just like the same countries hate taking on hordes of refugees today. There is enough responsibility for the Holocaust to go around to Great Britain, USA and others as well, even if most of it must rest on the Nazies. But many Allied nations could've taken on so many more than they did, and they had no good excuse not to.

You realize that the Grossdeutschland had just as many politicaly influenced members and was, aside from name, practically an SS unit correct? Also that the paratroopers and Afrika Korp were lead by Nazi's and the only difference between them and the SS was that they had soldiers with braun heair and eyes correct?

The Afrikakorps was led by Erwin Rommel, and Rommel was no Nazi.

Also, Churchill helped walk down to the darkages, I again cite Eugenics that he actively supported the chemical castration of mentally handicaped as did FDR - the Nazi's infact learned their first methods of sterilization from the British and U.S.

That's right, forced sterilization was not peculiar to the Nazies, and I do believe some countries continued the practice until the '60s. But don't quote me on that.

When you surrender, you give up fighting and throw yourself at your enemies feet. There is nothing stopping them from kicking you and by putting yourself in that position you are only a dog, not a man. Frankly I would die before I knelt before any man.

Brave words, easily said. I'm not saying that you would waver from your principles when push comes to shove, but I am saying that no one knows how one would react in certain situations - until they are in that situation. Even the bravest man might succumb to panic in a pinch. Furthermore, I can think of no animal more loyal, devoted and brave than the dog.

@Abraham
Actually, honor applies to acting in a fashion you would not normally act in the for the sake of country. Honor, is keeping your word, as a soldier, that means not questioning orders. You sacrifice yourself for the whole. You do not debate with your commanding officer whether it is right.

On this I do agree. To do one's duty, even if it is extremely unpleasant and traumatizing, can be seen as honourable. However, then it is also a matter of perspective. Which is more important? One's duty as a soldier, or one's duty to one's beliefs? From a military point of view, one's duty as a soldier should come first. From a humanitarian point of view, though, one's beliefs should come first. If one might call a dutiful soldier a coward because he's afraid to stand up for his beliefs, then one might also call a dutiful humanitarian a coward because he's afraid to do his duty as a soldier. Ultimately, only the soldier/humanitarian in question knows whether he's being true to his principles.

Thus making them innocent, if a soldier enters the field of battle he has actively decided to take up arms - and is not innocent. If a peasant village hides local partisans they actively decide to risk retribution - and are not innocent. Do you see the difference between active and passive? It is dishonorable in my eyes to kill someone that has not yet had the choice. But if they are given the choice and choose to risk death, they have no right to complain when they die.

Here is where I cannot agree. What if a soldier did not have a choice? What if by refusing to take up arms, he risks not only his own life but his family's lives as well? You may argue that he should be true to his principles and die rather than take up arms for a cause he doesn't believe in (to which I disagree, because you can't expect everyone to have such an unbreakable iron will), but does he have the right to risk the lives of his family for his beliefs? If by taking up arms, he is saving his family, does that make him guilty? Most likely he is not personally going to kill anyone, even if given ample opportunity.

Or, what if one is taking up arms to defend against an invading horde? If one has the choice between kill or be killed? Does one still have no right to complain? Poland, Norway, France... we didn't ask to be invaded, it wasn't our choice.

And as for the civilians harbouring military equipment/personell... who said they have a choice? Look to the Vietcong for some prime examples of civilians being forced between a rock and a hard place.

@Kissaki
Schlecht = bad
It's irrelevant but I understand (and speak a limited amount) of high German and can understand almost all German dialects excepting Swebish... *shudder* they don't enunciate or seem to breathe when they talk... good for a lager though... I prefer darker beer, but eh.
**Edit: Now looking at the fact you ask: Was ist schlecht? - and your nationality is listed as Norweigan I'm going to assume you knew that.... Es tut mir leid, ich bin American aber ich glaube im deutsch sehr oft.
(I think that's proper, bear in mind I read and listen to more German than I have oppurtuninty to speak, I know several German immigrants that speak partial English and are kind enough to tolerate my lack of a German vocabulary, though they tell me that what I do know I speak very well.)

Ja, ich weiss, dass mein Deutsch schlecht ist, doch weiss ich aber was "schlecht" bedeutet. I just didn't know exactly what was schlecht. :P

Kissaki

10-25-05, 12:35 PM

Well said.

He's not worth the effort.

He's being civil and courteous toward you - there is no reason why you should treat him less so, simply because your opinions differ (no matter how much).

Dead Mans Hand

10-25-05, 01:01 PM

@Xabba
You're closing arguements of "Hmmm.... whatever" have thus been duely noted. However, I will respond to your final statements such as:

The SS is the SS:
Well inherently, yes it is. However that means the US Army is just the US Army - the same for every other branch of every other countries armed forces. This is clearly inaccurate. Even a branch of a military has it's own branches, for instance in the American army Infantry is it's own branch of the Army, while motorized divisions are another, armor is another, air support another, artillery yet another, and so on. To say "SS was the SS!" is to say every man to the last in the SS was to blame, however only one of three branches served in the camps, the Totenkopf, while the Schutzschtafel served as a police force and homeland guard, and the Waffen SS represented the SS in the field. I am not defending the Totenkopf, but you do not listen. I am defending the Waffen SS who was largely uninvolved in any war crimes. Infact alot of the field crimes were Totenkopf troops, including Malmendy. You call me a revisionist, I'm not revising anything. I am merely stating it from an unemotional and logical basis.

Oh, by the way, a fair amount of crimes by humanitarian standards can be drummed up against any elite unit, including the SAS. Also given your standards of "The SS is the SS" do you blame the entire British and American armies for the occurances in Abughraib?? Something even I'm, who you call so horrible, against? If an individual has information, it should be extracted, but those events transpired with no cause whatsoever? I also have heard a returning soldier bragging about terrorizing an Iraqi civilian at gun point - take that as you will. I do not support terrorizing of innocents, as Kissaki has pointed an invaded country does not choose to be invaded. Their people are innocent until they choose to fight. Am I saying they should not fight? Hell no, any honorable man would fight an invasion. However I am saying that when they decide to fight they actively choose to do so - and are not innocent.

If that is where you and August leave the debate with "Hmm... whatever" far be it from me to stop you. Thank you for the contribution you did make to it and find it unfortunate that you feel I am arguing from a political or idealogical standpoint. I however will not apologize for my views in any way.

I'm short on time, so Kissaki I will respond to your post shortly.

joea

10-25-05, 01:23 PM

Dead Man, you are at least a hypocrite:
Either way such is my point - but when you look at their "crimes" in field many were reprisals. Which are, quite, justified regardless of their severity. If a village harbors combatants whether regulars or militia, they have committed an act of war and are thus, armed or not, are valid military targets.

If things like that happen it's because the people DON'T WANT FOREIGN INVADERS ON THEIR SOIL, GET IT? So in your view even children are guilty? Well, makes me feel good about carpet bombing as the German kids were guilty that their parents worked on or just let the Nazis come to power. :shifty:

What do you propose to do wipe every villiage in a country off the map?? That people collaborate with their aggressors against their fellow countrymen? What gets up my craw is your speaking of Abu Ghrabi (I was against the Iraq war BTW) yet justifying putative actions in Eastern Europe or the Balkans in WWII.

Iceman

10-25-05, 01:50 PM

It's Skybird re-born sounds like...

Konovalov

10-25-05, 02:19 PM

It's Skybird re-born sounds like...

Only in the length of the post. I extremely doubt that Skybird would take the same sort of position as Dead Mans Hand.

August

10-25-05, 02:51 PM

XabbaRus

10-25-05, 05:33 PM

Oh dear Dead Hand, do you really think that I don't think any military unit other than the SS can commit war crimes.

Sure I bet members of the SAS and other forces have committed atrocities, and it is indefensible. But it's not endemic or indoctrinated into their training.

I see you are still falling back onto the defense that there were 3 branches of the SS and only one branch worked the camps and the other two didn't so that's OK. You obviously are deliberately missing the point that indoctrination on the nazi theory of a master race and thus assured of their racial superiority.

also on the eastern front, though I am sure the wermacht did their fair share of rape and pillage it was the SS groups who wholesale shot villages in respons to partisan attacks.

Oh you talk about honour etc. Well to me an honourable man is someone who does the right thing in the face of evil.

I fully expect an SAS or British army soldier to carry out his duty/orders, but I also expect him to turn round and tell his CO to f!uck off if such orders were to result in committing war crimes.

Maybe there were a few in the SS who did that, though I expect we don't hear from them as they ended up with mr 9mm in the back of the head. You are obviously seeing what you want to see.

Personally I think you are a hypocrite as someone else has pointed out, I also think that it is just aswell this discussion is taking place on the forum rather than face to face as I think I would have done something akin to a war crime with your head....

Pigfish

10-25-05, 06:24 PM

...I also think that it is just aswell this discussion is taking place on the forum rather than face to face as I think I would have done something akin to a war crime with your head....

OK I know I should probally mind my own buisness (especially this topic) but im on beer # 5 :roll: .... But is not threatening someone on these forums unacceptable?

Seems not like you XabbaRus, even if your right. :yep: But you gotta try to be nice I think.

Kissaki

10-25-05, 07:08 PM

Sure I bet members of the SAS and other forces have committed atrocities, and it is indefensible. But it's not endemic or indoctrinated into their training.

I fully expect an SAS or British army soldier to carry out his duty/orders, but I also expect him to turn round and tell his CO to f!uck off if such orders were to result in committing war crimes.

That’s where you’re dead wrong. When I was in the Navy I was stationed at Ramsund, where the Marines are also stationed. A right bunch of psychoes that is. The SAS and SEALs I’ve met have been no better. They take a certain pride in being cold-blooded killers, not thinking twice about causing death and destruction. It’s their bread and butter. Sure, I’ve met a couple retired gents, formerly SAS, and they seemed perfectly alright and sociable. But then again, so’s a good friend of mine, a former sniper in the Foreign Legion. And he believes absolutely in checking morality at the door, and simply doing as one is told. He has no tolerance or sympathy for disobediance. Not indoctrinated? I beg to differ.

I see you are still falling back onto the defense that there were 3 branches of the SS and only one branch worked the camps and the other two didn't so that's OK. You obviously are deliberately missing the point that indoctrination on the nazi theory of a master race and thus assured of their racial superiority.

Yes, they were instructed on racial superiority and that stuff, but they weren’t brainwashed in that direction. The indoctrination was along more practical lines, such as the good old “our’s is not to reason why, our’s is but to do or die”. For example, Norwegians who joined the SS very often couldn’t care less about racial ideology - they joined to help the Fins fight the Russians.

also on the eastern front, though I am sure the wermacht did their fair share of rape and pillage it was the SS groups who wholesale shot villages in respons to partisan attacks.

Not just the SS, and not just the Germans. It’s what soldiers do when fighting on foreign soil. That’s not an excuse, but an explanation.

Oh you talk about honour etc. Well to me an honourable man is someone who does the right thing in the face of evil.

Evil is subjective. No one believes to be on the side of evil – everyone likes to believe their fighting for a good cause. That includes the SS. They often made honourable decisions, but based on wrong information, with invariably bad results. Had they had the right information, though, they would’ve made honourable decisions with good results. In my eyes they are not less honourable for being wrong, or misled. It’s not their fault for being wrong, though the responsibility falls on them – and conscience must ultimately burden them. Given only the information they had, and none of our smug 20/20 hindsight, how can any one of us claim we’d have acted differently?

Personally I think you are a hypocrite as someone else has pointed out, I also think that it is just aswell this discussion is taking place on the forum rather than face to face as I think I would have done something akin to a war crime with your head....

Of course, that would make you a hypocrite. And as there seems to be some confusion:

hypocrite
n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold

I don’t see how Dead Mans Hand fits that description.

Skybird

10-25-05, 07:48 PM

August

10-25-05, 11:53 PM

XabbaRus

10-26-05, 04:41 AM

Pigfish you are right, it is unlike me and I do take it back.

However at Kissaki I do know what a hypocrite is and the beliefs I profess I do hold, so I guess that makes me not one as per that definition.

This debate is becoming circular....

esli nado to nado.....

Skybird

10-26-05, 06:56 AM

Kissaki

10-26-05, 09:01 AM

However at Kissaki I do know what a hypocrite is and the beliefs I profess I do hold, so I guess that makes me not one as per that definition.

What I meant was that you think (as do we all) that the Nazies were wrong in committing atrocities to whomever they felt deserved it, and then you were sort of threatening to commit atrocities to Dead Mans Hand because you felt he deserved it. I find it a paradox that those who claim so fervently to be on the side of right and good, are the most eager to commit violent acts in defense of their views. Sort of like a pro-life activist who kills a doctor who performs abortions.

Another fine example would be atheists who see religion as the cause of much calamity, and who complain about their preaching the tenets of their religions. But from what I have observed - myself being an atheist - it's actually the atheists who are the most passionate preachers. They, who think freedom of thought and speech to be so important, actually become upset when other people choose to believe in something totally contrary from what they do.

I apologize, it's not my intention to hijack the thread or anything, but I think the above should explain my previous post pretty well. It's everybody's right to think whatever they want. I have seen no hint that Dead Mans Hand is a Nazi, but even if he was, that would be his prerogative. And as long as he is able to debate in a civil manner, I don't see why the rest of us shouldn't be able to do the same.

Dead Mans Hand

10-26-05, 06:10 PM

@JoeA
And how is that statement hypocritical? I suppose you do realize that hypocrite is a negative denomination for someone, but I suggest if you further plan to invoke the term that you first grasp the scope of what it entails.

To further expound on my previous statement:
In an invaded nation, the citizens have not chosen to be born into the nation which is being invaded, thus are innocent. They have three options, to interfere, grudgingly accept, or accomodate.

-Those who interfere actively choose to oppose the invasion and are fair game, in my opinion. Yes that includes entire villages, if children have been used to further that goal in anyway whatsoever their parents/guardians have actively chosen to put them in a position in which they are targets themselves - if not, well euthanasia is more humanitarian than abandoning them.
-If the citizens don't like it, but actively choose to remain passive durring the invasion, they are not acceptable targets.
-If the citizens actively choose to support and aid the invasion, then they are allies. But given you're aghastness to killing, I would expect you to look down on the killing of traitors after an invasion has been repelled. As that is only balanced.

Finaly, punative actions are punishment for actions - therefore whether extreme or not are logicaly justifiable.

@Iceman
I assure you I am not Skybird. Sorry again for the length, I just feel given the diversity of view points on this topic that everyone deserves a response. That and I'm verbose.

@Xabba
So you're arguement has changed from "hmm... whatever" to "I'll hurt you if you don't agree." On to the historical corrections.
I didn't say you don't think any units have never commited war crimes, but I said it would only be far for you to judge every unit by the actions of a few. You've said nothing about the SS Divisions that had absolutely no charges against them after the war, have you? So I assume that you judge every member of the Royal Navy for what happend in Argentina.

As for the political indoctrination, isn't every soldier tought his country is supreme, his cause is the most just, and he and his brethren are the supreme warriors of their time? If you think otherwise, than I hate to inform you that basic training in all armies includes such teachings.

Mhmmmm... and the US and British frequency of prostitution was disturbing in WWII but I don't go throwing that around, so what, soldiers are soldiers - comparing them to civilians is unjust. Also, the "wholesale" massacres of villages in the Russian stepps was left to the Einsatzgruppen, which were reqruited from all SS branches as well as other military units. They did not operate under the military, rather, they worked for the Gestapo.

To you an honorable man is someone that does the right thing in the face of evil, however right and evil are both totally subjective terms which is to say right to you is wrong to others.

Any solider that tells his CO to F* off is a traitor and should be prompty executed infront of the platoon. That is, grabbed by the back of the shirt collar, forced to his knees, shot once behind the left ear, left dead face down.

As for hypocracy, I again encourage you to enrich your definition of that word as you are using it inappropriately. I have yet to say anything that is contradictory, infact, you applying vastly different standards to Allied units and leaders than Nazi units and leaders - making you the hypocrite.

@Kisaki
Marines and Spec Ops units are supposed to be psychotic. All soldiers are inherently weapons themselves that are little more than point and click. A military full of enlisted scholars would be a wreck. As for your friend that's a former sniper, kudos to his take on a soldiers place.

@Xabba
This is circular because you are refusing to seperate military unit, SS, from Waffen SS, from Totenkopf, from Nazi.

Iceman

10-26-05, 08:17 PM

I stand corrected ...did'nt mean to offend either with the Skybird comment.....kinda like having your bell rung with some of Sky's posts. Musta created some kind delayed "post-thread-syndrome" when reading the length and detail of your replies.

joea

10-27-05, 04:55 AM

XabbaRus

10-27-05, 05:29 AM

Dead Man, I see you have 24 posts to your name...

Which has led me to wonder. You see most people if not all comae to this forum to discuss submarine and naval sims and issues.

Yea we have a general topics forum but I don't think people come here for that. So I am wondering what brought you here. Whether you did a search and joined in order to argue this point?

Regardless of the few SS units not charged (and I am wondering if that is cos they weren't posted anywhere near any action, not through lack of want) to defend them throught pretty much everything shows where your sentiments lay. I think you should go and find a more appropriate board to discuss this.

Dead Mans Hand

10-27-05, 06:38 AM

JoeA: In Iraq, we shoot insurgents, but leave dissentors alone until they become violent, and we leave those who support us perfectly alone if not protected.

-How is the Coalition in Iraq acting outside of my principals? (Btw, you don't consider armor divisions in cities to maintain peace use of force?)
-As for the threat of violence, I'm not sure exactly what you're angry about or what makes me a Nazi. Another term I strongly suggest you research before throwing around like confetti at everyone you don't like.

@Xabba
Indifference, to violence, to trying to descredit me by my post count, to asking me to leave. Look, if you're tired of the thread don't watch it. As for me joining the board I met a member in person while purchasing SHIII, that sparked a nostalgic talk Aces of the Deep and SHII. I love simulators of many types for that manor, my favorite being WWII Armor. As for my credentials? Nothing professional, hobbyist historian and preping for WWII reinactment. The only reason this exists is because of the misinformationin the Holocaust thread (No, I do not deny the Holocaust and probably have more against it than you would think.) My thoughts are that you are all into military history and exalt specific units, however no one seems to know much at all about the History of German units in WWII. Ok, the AfrikaKorps was mentioned. The fact that was not one unit and was comprised of various divisions, seemed lost. Another point of this board is history, I think, and some of you atleast have a very limited grasp of the SS's history. If you find it acceptable to pass such definitive and sweeping judgement from such a small basis of information, that is unfortunate. The only thing that upsets me is you laud the Uboot crews while insulting the SS, not realizing that as many in the SS were in service for reasons other than Hitler, and that there were as many hard core Nazi's in the sea and air as on the land. But, what I find truely suprising, is that now that apparently run out of constructive contribution to debate, you are resorting to threats of violence, insulting my person, then attempting to pressure me to leave. All of this on a forum, where you can edit your posts - I would hate to see how easily you made to debase your own arguements in person.

Abraham

10-29-05, 07:43 AM

It's Skybird re-born sounds like...

Only in the length of the post. I extremely doubt that Skybird would take the same sort of position as Dead Mans Hand.

I have to agree there. I never liked Skybird much but I doubt he'd ever stoop to defending nazis.

You can bet on that.
Dean Mans Hand's opinion about the SS is something Skybird and I would have fought side by side as long as he had not mentioned the U.S. Army in Iraq...
:rotfl:

By the way: good to see your avatar again!

Abraham

10-29-05, 07:53 AM

It's Skybird re-born sounds like...
Only in the length of the post...
Well, you really do need many words to counter crticism on the Waffen SS or to justify its sorry record of atrocities, regardless Gestapo or SD interrogations, Waffen-SS reprisals, or those of concentration camp guards, no doubt the bravest and most honorable of them all. (= sarcasm)

Abraham

10-29-05, 11:19 AM

I still have to answer Dead Mans Hand posting of last week as far as concerned with me.
@Abraham
First and foremost, I will not apologize for my beliefs. I will however say that I hope you do not think I am taking them only to offend and I would also ask you acknowledge, as I have stated previously, that I apply these standards to more than the Nazi's and WWII that infact I apply them to all countries. I also ask you acknowledge that I have never once denied or supported the Holocaust and have spoken against it as a disgrace to Germany.Yes, that's true. But my problem with you is clear for all to see, it is about human values and morality. I consider arresting citizens of one's own or occupied countries for no valid reason (just because they happened to be Jewish according to Nazi standards), confiscating their belongings, deporting them and shooting them en masse, using them for slave labour till they die or gassing them completely immoral and unexcusable. At the same time it is the logical consequence of the Nazi-ideology.
I am not whinning about carpet bombing, I am illustrating the double standard in this thread.No double standards here. I am very much against carpet bombing cities and consider it - although they were fiercely defended - at least a possible war crime (and a waste). I also noted that the Germans started carpet bombing. Remember Warshaw, Rotterdam, Coventry?Also I illustrate how the SS were acting in reprisal to attacks, not attacking hospitals and churches at the very end of the war in totally unarmed cities.Please illustrate and take as an example the 2. SS-Panzerdivision "Das Reich" at Oradour-sur-Glane (June 1944). The whole population was locked in the church which was consequently burned and machine-gunned.
Or take as an example the 9. SS-Panzerdivision "Hohenstaufen" which fought British paratroopers from the St. Elisabeth hospital in Arnhem.I also take note that you have nothing against infact almost celebrate nuclear weapons in your post, Really? Please illustrate again...
... If I applied the same standards you apply to me, I would call you a Nazi.Hmmm, interesting...
Also, Churchill helped walk down to the darkages, I again cite Eugenics that he actively supported the chemical castration of mentally handicaped as did FDR - the Nazi's infact learned their first methods of sterilization from the British and U.S. I see a difference between chemical sterilisation of mental patients, abortion of unborn babies with life threatening handicaps - as is practized nowadays in many countries and the "perverted science" Churchill so rightfully mentioned, like sterilisation and sometimes even castration of Jews in order to destroy their 'race'. If you can't see that difference, one of us has a problems with human values.
In the German eyes your country was liberated, not attacked.Yep, that's what the Nazi propaganda kept telling us for years but they never identified who occupied us in the first place...
Boy, were we happy to be re-occupied by the Yanks, the Tommies, the Canadians, Polish and French after five years of Nazi liberation. We're still celebrating it every year...
Since most Germans have glasses or contact lenses nowadays we can be friends again with the current German generation...
@ Abraham.
When you surrender, you give up fighting and throw yourself at your enemies feet. There is nothing stopping them from kicking you and by putting yourself in that position you are only a dog, not a man.That does not sound like a professional soldiers opinion to me. There is no obligation to fight till death under every circumstance. Soldier have a long tradition of respecting capitulation, a tradition that is anchored in the Geneva Convention. P.O.W.'s have a right to be treated fair and humane.
@Abraham
Actually, honor applies to acting in a fashion you would not normally act in the for the sake of country.Dead wrong. Honor applies to acting within moral boundaries. That could mean loyalty to your country or Painter, but also the opposite. Loyalty to one's own inner moral values is the ultimate loyalty. Nazi's redefined honor als loyalty to Hitler. That was Ersatz Ehre, fake honor.
@Abraham
I am largely, in favor of totalitarian government. If that's what you mean by fasictoid. But that is not of much relevance to the current conversation. Also, quit involving the Holocaust with things I condone. I do not condone mass murder of innocents. Look at it this way, the Jews did not actively decide to be born where they were born. Thus making them innocent, if a soldier enters the field of battle he has actively decided to take up arms - and is not innocent. If a peasant village hides local partisans they actively decide to risk retribution - and are not innocent. Do you see the difference between active and passive? It is dishonorable in my eyes to kill someone that has not yet had the choice. But if they are given the choice and choose to risk death, they have no right to complain when they die.
Your point of view is noted and I am not surprised.
@Abraham
No intellegent Nazi's? No upperclass Nazi's? I hate to tell you the Nazi party also appealed to the upper crust of society. But no "smart" Nazi's? Are you daft? Explain the U-Boats, V-1 rocket which was deployed with the first wire and radar guided systems, V-2 rocket which was the first vehicle to leave Earth's atmosphere, the Panther and Tiger series tanks, the various small arms developements, the accuracy of German artillery, and the various jet aircraft. Along with Germany's nuclear program which was ahead of ours but lacked resources. Infact, while not Nazi's, expatriated Germans in America were responsable for the atomic bomb. Get your history straight, except for the application of radar the Allies were behind the technological curve almost the entire time. I also credit them for better long range bombers, which were used extensively to kill only civilians, even in your country.(...) Heinz Guderian's Blitzkrieg is employed by all the major world armies today including the US, Erwin Rommel's armor tactics are employeed, and German U-boat inovations were the basis of the nuclear standoff we have today, not to mention that the V-2 was the grandfather of our space program, the RAM jet from the V-1 has been modified to produce various missles and aircraft in US employment and has recently evolved into the SCRAM jet, German engineers were bought up by many governments to improve their weaponry, heck even the M1942 helmet design is used almost universaly but hey - they had no great minds. A mind is not great upon your approval of its idealogy, a mind is proven to be great by the legacy it leaves.
You completely misunderstand me here, Dead Mans Hand.
I fully agree that Germany, having started its war production in the early '30's, was in many fields advanced in the mid '40's. And Germany can rightfully claim some of the American industrial progress, especially the contribution of the German Jews that escaped Nazism. America, being an open society and a democracy, and almost caught up with the German technological advance in half the time.
Guderians 'Blitzkrieg' was putting into practice on a large scale the theories of Gen. Fuller and the articles of Little Hart about mobility exercises of the British Army on Salisbury Plain in the late '20's.
And yes, when the Nazi's finally reached power they became 'Salonfähig' and were 'accepted' in certain upper classes.
But the original Nazi's were scum and looked like it, as their pictures prove. Inflated ego's for sure, but their mouth cavity was much bigger then their brain cavity. Nazism is an ideology without a philosofic fundament. Therefor its theoretical basis is very shaky.
Let's take as an exemple the 'Jewish question'.
The Jews were 'Untermenschen' (subhumans) in Nazi eyes, themselves being 'Uebermenschen' (superhumans), not surprisingly. There were much more Germans then Jews in Europe. Still, the Jews had to be persecuted for being a deadly threat to Germany. Which leads me to the conclusion that the Jews must be superhumans and the Nazi's subhumans or am I missing something here...
Also the Nazi concept of 'benign' dictatorship as a political option for a 20th century European state shows the lack of basic political theoretic insight and is nothing but amateurish daydreaming. Not one man can rule a modern state and checks and balances are needed to guarantee political continuity...
Or how about Hitlers biggest mistake, only based on ideological reasons, to attack the Soviet Union and risk the future of Western culture. Hitler attacked while Stalin was sending him raw materials to fight his war. In fact, after the invasion of the Soviet Union Nazi Germany was never able to extract the same amount of raw materials per month as it received from Stalin before the attack. I call that political and strategic stupidity of the highest order...
Stupidity ruled and probably prevented Germany from winning the war.
Quite obvious, there is not one great German philosopher or intellectual legacy from the Third Reich period.
... Also, and I realize many of you will fly of the handle on this, Hitler is undeniably one of the greatest political minds to have existed - he was evil yes but he rose from peasent to dictator and to deny that shows your inabilty to objectively look at this subject and largely invaldiates your arguement...A great politician is somebody who can claime results for himself and - preferrably - his country at the end of his carreer. De Gaulle, Churchill and Roosevelt can look History in the face without blinking. To paraphraze your own words: a politician is great by the legacy he leaves...
Hitler does not even come close to being a great politician. He utterly ruined his country within twelve years. Not even his climb to the top makes him unique or proves him to be a great politician, just an great opportunist. His only record is making the biggest amount of political blunders in the shortest period.
I already named some. Here's another smart move. How about Germany declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbour, while Japan refused to declare war on the Soviet Union after the German attack...

Anyway, looking at Germany today I guess it is much better off without your choice of great politicians...
@Abraham
I would hope, that emotion does not rule your intellect and this could perhaps be continued. If not, I would extend the proposition that this should atleast not end on hostile terms. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree but there is enough hostility that hopefully can be kept from the online world.
I am very much for open discussions instead of settling arguments by violence or on order.
So, to quote Winston Churchill, I shall go on till the end with growing confidence and growing strengh, I shall fight your opinion on this forum and I shall fight it on this site; I shall never surrender...
:D

Dead Mans Hand

10-31-05, 04:27 PM

@Abraham
I consider arresting citizens of one's own or occupied countries for no valid reason (just because they happened to be Jewish according to Nazi standard)

I've clearly and repeatedly stated that I am not refering to Nazi actions against the Jews. I am refering to that which occured on the field of battle. Also, it is more accurate to say enemy of the state, by Nazi definition, rather than Jew - as far more than the Jews were peresecuted. Infact I think an equal number of non-Jews, if not greater, were killed in cold blood - anyways.

As for belogings, erm, if you're conquered you nolonger really own anything at all, as for slave labor - every nation in this world has done it, which does not make it right, but the historicaly speaking the strong take from the weak - because the weak allow them to do so by being weak.

No double standards here. I am very much against carpet bombing cities and consider it - although they were fiercely defended - at least a possible war crime (and a waste). I also noted that the Germans started carpet bombing. Remember Warshaw, Rotterdam, Coventry?

No double standard? Some Nazi's were put to death for ordering the deaths of thirty or less "civilians" Churchill orders the deaths of some 400,000 and that is a "possible" war crime? Atleast I got "possible" out of you, but clearly there is a double standard.

Oradour-sur-Glane was an overly harsh reprisal. War crime, "possibly" but did you ever look into the German side of this action?
http://www.dasreich.ca/ger_oradour.html
Am I saying that is the truth of the matter? No, I am not, however in war both sides have drasticaly different tales and the truth usually lies between. Given the high frequency of terrorists, "Marquis" and the "Free French", hiding in small towns in France - I do not find it hard to believe there was an armed presence there.

As for the second example - wounded soldiers who fought back, they deserve death as well. Would they have died anyways? Probably, but they were soldiers - such is their fate. Brave and honorable men died there, I do not intend or mean to slander that. But they knew what was comming for them. If you want the true cowards of that instance take for example their "comrades" that left them there.

***Please rectify your misqoute of my previous statements.
So you see a difference between forcible chemical castration - and forcible chemical castration? You see a difference in murdering babies and murdering babies. This is again a double standard, in that when done under your prefered circumstances it's ok, but outside of them it is not. Churchill was at the head of the British Eugenics movement for a long time, if you want to talk about perveted science I'm sure he's well versed.

@Abe
No obligation to fith till death. No there isn't, however there's never any gurantee that you wouln't be killed anyways. Since when have soldiers had a long standing respect of capitulation? Can you provide examples aside from perhaps the American Civil War where capitualtion was not responded to with death or slavery? Soldiers have a long standing repuation of "Kill or be killed" only recently has the Geneva Convetion tried (vainly) to change that. Trust me, if you think world powers follow it - your nuts. Why do you think America, Britian, and the rest of the coalition turn major prisoners over to Israel, Egypt and other sympathetic nations that are not beholdent to it??? Or, do you seriously think America does not have the power to erase your existence? Honestly? Because I hate to inform you otherwise, but people disappear every day (figure of speech.) Look at our own spooks, they don't even exist.

Your definiton of honor and mine conflict. This is not debatable as there is no "truth." However I am inclined to think your sense of honor is increadibly selfish - as it puts the person before the whole. No army full of soldiers who act only on their own moral compass could - or has - ever won.

No great philosopher? Perhaps, but do you honestly find anyone that believes so strongly in their own self importance to be great? Tell me what has philosophy ever truely brought us? Most of the philosophers this world remembers were great inventors and that is why they are remembered. Though, I will give you Ghandi - one hell of man he was.

No intellectual legacy? Erm, rocket science, the jet engine, etc. I wouln't debate Hitler's military prowess, he was an idiot. But politicaly he was a genious. As for checks and balances and no "dictatorships" in the 21st Century - China, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq (pre-US ass kicking), shall I continue to debunk you? Trust me, it is still very possible in unarmed countries for a (relatively small) force to rule a country aboslutely. Hell the 1st Armored Calvary could run most of Europe with a depleted-uranium fist.

You just refered to De Gaulle and FDR as great politicians - FDR is one of the least popular presidents in American history, you realize this? He brought solicism and nearly destroyed our check and balance system. Get history strait, a great politician is a man who lies brazenly to accumulate wealth and power and is loved for it. So I agree with Churchill, in that he lied brazenly. Also, I hope from this you can derive my opinion of politicians in general.

As for Germany declaring on the US, erm, you realize the US was commiting acts of war against Japan and Germany long before that time (seizing property, funds, and providing weapons to their enemies) and was itching for a reason to enter the European theatre - tell me would you think it smarter to allow your enemy to build up before attacking then? The US was entering regardless, better to get it over with. The blunder was the lack of interest in a long range bomber (that Germany had designs for) lack of succesful black ops, and the Hitler ignoring the American Bund after they failed to put a Nazi in office (The American Bund did run for presidential.) also a large portion of the American bund was arrested or put into camps with other German Americans.

Tchus

Abraham

10-31-05, 05:13 PM

Dead Mans Hand, I'll love to smash the arguments you bring against my opinion, but time forces me to do so tomorrow, because it's going to be a long and thorough one. I beg for your understanding.
This This is not debatable as there is no "truth." will be the cornerstone of my argumentation.
I also found some honorable acts of the Waffen-SS you'll be happy to comment upon...

Dead Mans Hand

11-01-05, 04:17 PM

Waiting for Abe.
*edit: Only stated so the thread is not thought to be dead

Konovalov

11-01-05, 04:33 PM

Kissaki

11-01-05, 04:52 PM

Waiting for Abe.
*edit: Only stated so the thread is not thought to be dead

I very much doubt that would have happened. It is an interesting debate but quite frankly I'm not sure why on earth there is a debate about the SS in the first place. My views largely echo those of Abraham which I guess saves me having to write long Skybird style posts on this subject. :)

I guess that's what makes it so important with a debate on the subject. It's never healthy to be too sure of an opinion. For a hypothesis to be confirmed, it must be able to withstand anti-thesis. History must never go unquestioned.

Dead Mans Hand

11-01-05, 05:14 PM

True enough. Perhaps this lull would be a good time for all parties to clarify exactly where they stand? My original stance, which remains my current stance, is that the SS were an elite military unit that cannot be discredited by the actions of some. My key points are as follows:

*The SS consisted of three branches, to understand my arguement is important to differentiate between the duties of each branch. I am defending the Waffen SS only in this current discussion - not the Totenkopf (that is another debate completely) or the plain ol' SS (yet another debate.) I find that Waffen SS, most were good men and elite soldiers. However the Totenkopf very few men had any semblance of honor - or humanity for that matter - at all. I admit not really caring about the SS itself, as it was stationed at home, as much as either the Totenkopf or Waffen SS.

**I believe that reprisal attacks as well as "no quarter asked, none given" are fully justifiable on the field of battle

***I believe that the actions of men can make women and children valid military targets. If you want to argue that please research the events that took place in Mogadishu ("Blackhawk Down".) What I wish to convey is that when men allow women and children to be involved, or involve themselves, in the war effort those self same women and children have become a part of the war. (Something they have every right to do, I do not whish to imply sexism.) Do I agree with killing children for no reason, no. Would I shoot a child to save my life, I would probably hesitate and wind up dead. However as a commanding officer if I believed, sincerely, that laying waist to an entire village would save but one of my men's lives I would see it as my responsability to my men and my duty to my country to whipe that village of the face of the earth - children or no.

****In regards to reprisals, yes the Waffen SS was brutal and acted as judge, jury, and exocutioner. No they did not leave many alive in their wake. But speaking for myself, were I to find one of my comrades (whether I knew him or not) left stripped and mutilated after being vigourusly tortured at the hands of Partisans I would be instilled with enough hate and anger to repay the crimes ten fold. If you wish to argue that you would never kill for revenge, keep in mind the hate some of you have expressed for towards the entirity of the SS based on the actions of only parts of it.

*****In short, in my humble opinion, there are no war crimes. War is inherently evil and a machine fueled by hatred and death. There is no beauty, no glory, no honor in war. The rules a war is judged by are laid down after the war by the victors, thus I do not believe one can truely break rules as there generally are none in war. Does this mean horrible things are ok? Ofcourse not. Durring war, things happen which are unforgiveable - but only the victor can pursue this. The vanquished must accept retribution - ergo Dresden. Churchill never had to answer for the dead there, but he vehemently denounced German officers who were responsable often less than a percent of the blood on his hands. (Some German officers hung for maybe 20 or less civilians dead. Churchill ordered the death of thousands.)
Please note: I am not gripping about what the Allies did, in regards to the fact I do view them as unjustified. I however do denounce the double standard in that the only justification for some of the events was hatred, such as Dresden. I think that if one is going to punish his oponent for doing the same thing that he himself has done, he be willing to hang along side his enemy as they are the same.

What I'm getting at and I do admit I am overly verbose, is that you cannot judge men by what they do in war. It is an oxymoron in and of itself to call anything a crime when commited in such circumstances. (Again to specify, when I refer to war, I refer to the battlefield - the moment partisans stay in a village for even a minute they have made it part of the battle field. Commiting genocide against an unarmed population that is already in your control is morally aprehensable to me. Were they armed and able to choose to fight, then via fighting happens on a battlefield. But to kill helpless women and children because they are communist, marxist, gypsy, black, handicapped, insane, or Jewish, is to most sane men unforgiveable - yet who among men is fit to judge? Only with full knowledge of individual circumstance can one possibly begin to scratch that iceburg.)

*~*Sorry for post lenght(s) but I feel given the apparent and understandable sensitivity of some individuals in regards to this topic it is important to be very clear on intent, which perhaps I may over compensate for knowing that English is not a first language of everyone here. I also feel that given the topic it is important to respond to each person individualy.

August

11-01-05, 11:08 PM

Abraham

11-02-05, 02:41 AM

Waiting for Abe.
*edit: Only stated so the thread is not thought to be dead

I very much doubt that would have happened. It is an interesting debate but quite frankly I'm not sure why on earth there is a debate about the SS in the first place. My views largely echo those of Abraham which I guess saves me having to write long Skybird style posts on this subject. :)Konovalov, Dead Mans Hand is just joking (or gaining postings. He knows I'll not let him get away without a fight...
And yes, since his postings are getting longer and longer, I'm forced to write some long ones too...
Alas, another day of hard work ahead, a 220 km drive to a meeting and Ajax is playing tonight...
:D
I'm off now!

Kissaki

11-02-05, 04:13 AM

My position is that those members of the SS, regardless of flavor, who survived leading the world to the brink of destruction were darned lucky to have been allowed to keep their worthless lives.

I do not regret this decision, but I have no patience for whose who would mitigate, excuse or justify their wartime actions.

I am always sorry to hear such stubborn statements. It seems you do not care about the individual - you want to punish them collectively, even those who did not murder in cold blood or "lead the world to the brink of destruction" (didn't know Churchillian propaganda was still acceptable in our time). No one here is mitigating the war-time actions committed, but fair is fair: not everyone in the SS had anything to do with war crimes, and you can't generalize simply because they had two letters in common. I'm not defending the SS who did commit these crimes, but I'll stand up for anyone wrongly accused, regardless of what side he fought on. Judging them all as one is a great misjustice, and you cannot give any rationale for doing so other than sheer hatred.

joea

11-02-05, 08:11 AM

"Tolerance for the intolerant." :shifty:

August

11-02-05, 08:19 AM

Kissaki

11-02-05, 08:42 AM

August

11-02-05, 09:03 AM

I said quite clearly that i do not regret the decision. Where do you get that i'm in favor of collective punishment from that?

Because you said "worthless lives", making a broad judgement, and thereby giving the impression that you would not have protested their execution either.

There are many people in this world whose lives i think are worthless, but that doesn't mean i necessarily advocate putting a noose around all their necks. That is the tactic of the SS, not me.

Dead Mans Hand

11-02-05, 09:35 AM

August

11-02-05, 11:53 AM

@August
In regards to your last wide and sweeping statement, you do realize that you wanting to kill all of them, or just stand by and let them die (same moral action) is a wonderful example of my arguement that prisoners are a joke.

Any soldier harboring your opinion on the field of battle, has lost their right to quarter. Whether they have the power to act on it or not, they would not be willing to take - therfore have no right to be taken as - a prisoner.

Strawman argument. I neither advocated or recommended that surrendering enemy soldiers or anyone else be killed, including your beloved SS members. Stop trying to say that i am.

Oh and by the way, your arguement is they killed indiscrimenantly, yet you state wanting to kill, or wanting them to be killed, indiscrimenantly. That is hypocracy. :up:

Even if that was my argument, which it is not, your version of honor would mean extending retribution to the parents, wives, children and hometown of the offender. If anyone is hypocritical it is you, not I.

Kissaki

11-02-05, 11:54 AM

August

11-02-05, 12:10 PM

Kissaki

11-02-05, 12:54 PM

I'm glad to hear it, and I apologize if I leapt to conclusions. It shouldn't surprise you that I'm a staunch opposer of capital punishment for any reason :)

I also oppose capital punishment but my reasons for doing so are fairly specific.

First it's rare that a persons guilt can be determined with absolute certainty. Once a prisoner is executed there is no way to commute the sentence or issue a pardon.

Second, the death penalty, imo, is an easier fate than life imprisonment without possibility of parole. I want a murderer to sit in jail for years and decades and ponder what he has done to put him in that cell.

My philosophy on crime and punishment can be summed up thus:

I want the punishment to be a lesson for the offender. If you kill him, what will he have learned? He will go to his grave with the same mind. I find it much more rewarding when people realize the severity of what they've done, and are genuinely remorseful. Then I can forgive.

For a punishment to be of any value, it must meet one or more of the following requirements (listed in order of priority):

1. The punishment makes the crime undone.
2. The punishment rehabilitates the criminal.
3. The punishment acts as a deterrent for potential criminals.
4. The punishment prevents repetition of the crime by the offender.

Of these four, there is really only the fourth one where you can make a case for hard punishments. Harsh punishment, even capital punishment, has little if any deterring effect, and I see punishment for revenge as barbaric.

I have a friend whose father is a judge, and he likes to quote that in England, back in the days when theft was a hanging offense, executions were public for all to enjoy. They strung up bunches at a time, and it was common to catch pickpockets in the crowd. These would then be among the next bunch to be hung immediately afterwards.

I can bring up another example from Sweden. In the 17th and 18th centuries over 700 people were executed for carnal activities with animals. This number is unprecedented by any other country in the world for this particular crime. The punishment was to be beheaded, then burnt (it was also the executioner's job to administer the same punishment to the animal involved).

The curious thing about it, though, is that most of the 700 people executed turned themselves in. In fact, so many people turned themselves in for buggery with animals, that the courts eventually dismissed confessions not backed up by any evidence or other witnesses, and charged them with perjury instead. Many a man had to be forcibly removed from court, while protesting his guilt. I'm not going to speculate why so many confessed out of their own free will, though. You guys make up your own minds.

No one was executed for this crime after 1778, and the death penalty for it was lifted in 1864. The activity was legalized in 1944 (wonder how they came to decide that one :P ).

Anyway, in spite of this peculiar example from Sweden, I believe that the most effective deterrent is that people worry about their good name and reputation. In some communities, eg. among gangs, prison terms may add to their status. Then what's the point? When there's shame associated with the crime, however, they do not wish to be arrested. Consequently, they try not to commit the crime, either.

The deterring factors are, in my opinion, as follows (and in the following order):

1. Fear of being frozen out from society
2. Fear of getting caught
3. Fear of puishment

For the record, the maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years. Very few people get that much. Crime rate is low.

August

11-02-05, 01:03 PM

I'm glad to hear it, and I apologize if I leapt to conclusions. It shouldn't surprise you that I'm a staunch opposer of capital punishment for any reason :)

I also oppose capital punishment but my reasons for doing so are fairly specific.

First it's rare that a persons guilt can be determined with absolute certainty. Once a prisoner is executed there is no way to commute the sentence or issue a pardon.

Second, the death penalty, imo, is an easier fate than life imprisonment without possibility of parole. I want a murderer to sit in jail for years and decades and ponder what he has done to put him in that cell.

My philosophy on crime and punishment can be summed up thus:

I want the punishment to be a lesson for the offender. If you kill him, what will he have learned? He will go to his grave with the same mind. I find it much more rewarding when people realize the severity of what they've done, and are genuinely remorseful. Then I can forgive.

For a punishment to be of any value, it must meet one or more of the following requirements (listed in order of priority):

1. The punishment makes the crime undone.
2. The punishment rehabilitates the criminal.
3. The punishment acts as a deterrent for potential criminals.
4. The punishment prevents repetition of the crime by the offender.

Of these four, there is really only the fourth one where you can make a case for hard punishments. Harsh punishment, even capital punishment, has little if any deterring effect, and I see punishment for revenge as barbaric.

I have a friend whose father is a judge, and he likes to quote that in England, back in the days when theft was a hanging offense, executions were public for all to enjoy. They strung up bunches at a time, and it was common to catch pickpockets in the crowd. These would then be among the next bunch to be hung immediately afterwards.

I can bring up another example from Sweden. In the 17th and 18th centuries over 700 people were executed for carnal activities with animals. This number is unpresidented by any other country in the world for this particular crime. The punishment was to be beheaded, then burnt (it was also the executioner's job to administer the same punishment to the animal involved).

The curious thing about it, though, is that most of the 700 people executed turned themselves in. In fact, so many people turned themselves in for buggery with animals, that the courts eventually dismissed confessions not backed up by any evidence or other witnesses, and charged them with perjury instead. Many a man had to be forcibly removed from court, while protesting his guilt. I'm not going to speculate why so many confessed out of their own free will, though. You guys make up your own minds.

No one was executed for this crime after 1778, and the death penalty for it was lifted in 1864. The activity was legalized in 1944 (wonder how they came to decide that one :P ).

Anyway, in spite of this peculiar example from Sweden, I believe that the most effective deterrent is that people worry about their good name and reputation. In some communities, eg. among gangs, prison terms may add to their status. Then what's the point? When there's shame associated with the crime, however, they do not wish to be arrested. Consequently, they try not to commit the crime, either.

The deterring factors are, in my opinion, as follows (and in the following order):

1. Fear of being frozen out from society
2. Fear of getting caught
3. Fear of puishment

For the record, the maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years. Very few people get that much. Crime rate is low.

As you have just pointed out the crime rate has little to do with fear of punishment.

As far as i'm concerned deliberately murdering another human being permanently eliminates ones right to ever be a member of society again. There is no penalty, execution included, which will "undo" such a crime.

Kissaki

11-02-05, 01:26 PM

As far as i'm concerned deliberately murdering another human being permanently eliminates ones right to ever be a member of society again. There is no penalty, execution included, which will "undo" such a crime.

Indeed not. That one only really applies to cases such as someone putting your groceries in their own shopping bags by mistake, or something.

But I believe everybody can change. I grant you, they have to want to change, but it is possible. And if someone has truly changed, and genuinely regrets his past deeds - why should he still be punished for them? A different person committed them.

Think about all the mischief you did as a child. Should you still be punished for those things even now? Of course not, you were a child and didn't know any better. Now you do, however, and those childhood pranks are no more than anecdotes in history. You are in fact not the same person now that you were then.

August

11-02-05, 03:13 PM

Think about all the mischief you did as a child. Should you still be punished for those things even now? Of course not, you were a child and didn't know any better. Now you do, however, and those childhood pranks are no more than anecdotes in history. You are in fact not the same person now that you were then.

Well i might argue that those childhood peccadillos do more to shape who we are as adults than what you're implying but it's sort of besides the point. We're talking about serious violent crimes, not childhood pranks.

But I believe everybody can change. I grant you, they have to want to change, but it is possible. And if someone has truly changed, and genuinely regrets his past deeds - why should he still be punished for them? A different person committed them.

Why? Because they committed a crime, that's why they should continue to be punished. I strongly disagree with the school of thought that says "Oh, he's sorry for what he did so lets let him off the hook".

The reason is that while i agree that people have the potential to change their ways there is no real way of determining this with any degree of certainty. How can we truely know what is in someones heart of hearts?

When society pronounces a criminal to be "rehabilitated" and lets him go free, what we are in effect doing is guessing and hoping that our assessment of this person is correct. When the crime is a violent one the consequences of being wrong can be very, very severe.

kiwi_2005

11-03-05, 01:50 AM

Ahh Abraham i wondered where you got too. i started to miss your wisdom from the holocaust thread and was wondering what the hell happened. But here you are...Keep up the good work. :up:

Dead Mans Hand

11-03-05, 03:22 PM

@August
Sorry for the delay, however a few things to respond to. My rationale for retribution is that justice is balance. Correct? Therefore if something, lets say an attack has been made, retribution should retain the same - no more or less - inent as the original attack.

Let's say I'm in command of a divison of men for instance. Let's say there is a platoon a kilometer ahead of the body of the division investigating a village before divisional HQ arives. That platoon is amubshed en route all but a handful of men are found mutilated where as the remainder are missing. When the bulk of the division arrives at the village, I would order a full out search while demanding the population of the to enter the center and be accounted for. If I found so much as one person without proper papers, one shred of evidence any of my men had been taken here, or any sign of weaponry that could've been used and still could be used against my men I would take the toll from the village. That is I would not assume their guilt in assisting who had done this until there was one - and I do me one - sign that they had or were harboring enemies. At that point, since those they had harbored were intent on destroying a platoon in entirity - I would destroy the village that harbored them in entirity. Burning alive, I'm against. Hanging, however, I am not. An invading army cannot have mercy or pity and a village left with it's population hanging from the trees speaks far louder than any terrorist proposing attacks against me for freedom. It's unfortunate but part of war. There is no guilt on my part.

Why? Because the terrorists involved this village in the war. I did not decide to kill them - they acted in a manor requiring their deaths. Through this balance has been achieved and justice has been served. Resistance in this area would lessen increadibly and my people could repopulate the area. Chattle should know when they are chattle, it's that simple.

As for capital punishment. I believe it is supremely just. It is final. Should it be used willy-nilly? Ofcourse not, I to hold that a man must first befond beyond any doubt guilty of a crime. Less the executioner be guilty of murder himself. Why do I believe this? Because no man can forgive sins. Only God, through Jesus Christ, can accomplish that. Also man cannot forgive men for crimes the commit against others, only the victim can do that. Hence execution sends them to meet their Lord and their victim. That is the only way their soul will ever be at ease. I do not believe it's possible to rehabilitate an individual and do not believe it a fitting punishment to put someone somewhere they will live stress free with no worries of income, shelter, or substance. Rape, murder, and treason should all carry a mandatory death sentance upon conviction.
My priority for punishment:
It ensures beyond any doubt that society will be safe from this individual if ever released. This individual, by commiting their crime(s) has forgone any and or all of their previous rights.

As for Kisaki's four standards:
1. There is no way for crime to be undone, the theft of innocence through rape, the theft of life through murder, the theft of security through buglary. All are irrepreable, so this point is null.
2. Several child molestors will admit to being unrehabilitable, also, this is not a concern, the criminal is secondary to the concerns of the law abiding masses.
3. Sure and swift death, in it's totality is a wonderful deturent. The drawn out process and ease of avoidance of capital punishment in America does not work. However, look at countries that maintain public executions shortly after a trial, their crime rates are far lower. The law should let the people know it exists and public executions show it's vigor and vengence. Such is the way of controlling those incapable of controling themselves. (People are sheep, they must be lead.)
4. Death prevents the offender from ever offending again, except perhaps via strong odor. :huh:

Or - to avoid death, make prison hell on earth. One big ugly commune. Remove guards from all but the entrances and any sort of service area (i.e. cafeteria) let the hardened criminals humiliate, via rape and beatings (as are common in prison) the new blood. Let the new blood eventually resent and kill their tormentors before becomming hardened themselves. Thereby removing yourself from guilt as you are not responsable for their actions but are only allowing the natural cycle of the these animals to progress ending in their destruction.

- in close, those who do not live according to the law do not deserve to be protected by it and have given up their rights as a human being (ofcourse I am not talking about jay-walkers or whatever, I'm talking about crimes that result in detainment in mid to high security facilities (violent crimes)
*Side note: After a fourteen year old friend of mine was raped last year, I saw what a victim of that crime goes through. Frankly? The world is way to lenient on rapists. They, along with other violent criminals who through their acts steal an individuals innocence, should be drug out into the street kicking and screaming and hung, shot, beat, or whatever you would like until death. Then their broken bodies should be left to rot or fed to livestock.

Col7777

11-03-05, 04:09 PM

August

11-03-05, 05:26 PM

If I found so much as one person without proper papers, one shred of evidence any of my men had been taken here, or any sign of weaponry that could've been used and still could be used against my men I would take the toll from the village. That is I would not assume their guilt in assisting who had done this until there was one - and I do me one - sign that they had or were harboring enemies. At that point, since those they had harbored were intent on destroying a platoon in entirity - I would destroy the village that harbored them in entirity. Burning alive, I'm against. Hanging, however, I am not. An invading army cannot have mercy or pity and a village left with it's population hanging from the trees speaks far louder than any terrorist proposing attacks against me for freedom. It's unfortunate but part of war. There is no guilt on my part.

And if you were in the United States Army you would be relieved of your command and court martialed, along with any of your officers and men who participated in such an atrocity.

In my country soldiers give an oath to obey all lawful orders. The deliberate massacre of civilians in a wanton act of retribution woud obviously NOT be lawful and therefore it would be the duty of any US soldier not only to disobey such an order but to do his utmost to prevent it from being carried out.

Kissaki

11-03-05, 08:26 PM

As for Kisaki's four standards:
1. There is no way for crime to be undone, the theft of innocence through rape, the theft of life through murder, the theft of security through buglary. All are irrepreable, so this point is null.

Like I said in another reply, this first ideal only really applies to very minor crimes, which typically do not include malicious intent.

2. Several child molestors will admit to being unrehabilitable, also, this is not a concern, the criminal is secondary to the concerns of the law abiding masses.

Even if a person admits to being un-rehabilitable, does that make it so? Throughout life, people change whether they know it or not - whether they want to or not. The difference in hormone levels at various ages is quite significant, and impact our lives more than many of us would like to think.

3. Sure and swift death, in it's totality is a wonderful deturent. The drawn out process and ease of avoidance of capital punishment in America does not work. However, look at countries that maintain public executions shortly after a trial, their crime rates are far lower.

Can you provide examples to your argument here? Because all the research I've read point to the exact opposite. In the Middle Ages the law was swift and brutal, yet the crime rates back then dwarfs anything in the West today. There seems to be a clear correlation between brutal government and brutal population, and also between mild government and mild population.

It's a chicken and egg question I suppose, and a sudden change is not good in any case. If you suddenly apply mild law to a lawless society I don't think the results will be good. Conversely, if you apply harsh laws to a peaceful society, the people will adapt and harden to said laws.

The law should let the people know it exists and public executions show it's vigor and vengence. Such is the way of controlling those incapable of controling themselves.
In a lawless society you may have to wear iron boots, but people respond favourably to understanding and kindness - even hardened criminals. If you don't treat them as human beings, how can you expect them to behave as such?

People are sheep, they must be lead.

With this I agree.

4. Death prevents the offender from ever offending again, except perhaps via strong odor. :huh:

Beyond the moral issues, there's also the practical issues of capital punishment. What if you got the wrong guy? By executing the wrong guy, not only will you have killed an innocent person in the worst way possible (by destroying not only his life but his name as well), but the real perpetrator will still be at large. And no one's looking for him, because they think they got the right man the first time around. This is why a cornerstone principle of modern law is that it's far better that ten guilty people go free, than one innocent person be falsely convicted.

Or - to avoid death, make prison hell on earth. One big ugly commune. Remove guards from all but the entrances and any sort of service area (i.e. cafeteria) let the hardened criminals humiliate, via rape and beatings (as are common in prison) the new blood. Let the new blood eventually resent and kill their tormentors before becomming hardened themselves. Thereby removing yourself from guilt as you are not responsable for their actions but are only allowing the natural cycle of the these animals to progress ending in their destruction.

How do you defend this scenario in a civilized society, other than to slake your thirst for blood?

- in close, those who do not live according to the law do not deserve to be protected by it and have given up their rights as a human being (ofcourse I am not talking about jay-walkers or whatever, I'm talking about crimes that result in detainment in mid to high security facilities (violent crimes)
*Side note: After a fourteen year old friend of mine was raped last year, I saw what a victim of that crime goes through. Frankly? The world is way to lenient on rapists. They, along with other violent criminals who through their acts steal an individuals innocence, should be drug out into the street kicking and screaming and hung, shot, beat, or whatever you would like until death. Then their broken bodies should be left to rot or fed to livestock.[/quote]

You know, both my last two girlfriends were rape victims. The first of the two was raped at the age of 13, and she was a virgin at the time. Her rapist was hospitalized by friends of hers, but she didn't think - then or now - that he deserved that. Both girls feel pity rather than hate toward their assailants, and have long since forgiven them.

The rape was one event. The primary goal for the victim is to stop viewing herself as a "victim" and move on. If she allows her rapist to repeat the rape over and over again in her mind, that's not the rapist's fault. This may sound harsh (and especially coming from me, I guess), but it is the first step toward healing.

Another thing, if you apply capital punishment to rape, why would a rapist stop at rape? The punishment for the rapist is not in the sentencing, but in the fact that he is forever disgraced. Criminals of vice are not popular anywhere, and their punishment is not over simply because they're released from prison. Once out, what future prospects do they have?

I also take exception at your suggestion that a rapist can take away anyone's innocense. If society allows guilt or shame to be transmitted from the rapist to the victim, we have a problem. And the sad part is, I think we do.

Kissaki

11-03-05, 08:34 PM

I would like to add to this side of the topic about crimes and punishment.
I think the law has gone soft, it annoys me when a murderer or rapist etc gets caught and they plead some kind of insanity that made them commit the crimes, like hearing voices or things of that nature.
Then they are put in prison where they are kept in some cases isolation so they can't be harmed by other prisoners and fed well, allowed TV, books and even take collage degrees, all paid for by the tax payer.
Think of it like this, some of those tax payers are the families of the victims.

Think of it like this: taxes should be used for altruistic purposes anyway.

And you think isolation is a piece of cake? Humans are social animals, and no amount of luxury can compensate for being locked up in a box. And I can see no reason why not to feed or treat prisoners well anyway. No one was ever rehabilitated by use of the whip (and rehabilitation is supposed to be the purpose of prison institutions today), and punishment is not a matter of revenge. Brutal punishment and revenge are things of the past, and are throwbacks to less civilized times. Smacks of medievalism to me.

I hear people say they are against capital punishment and a person can change and may be released, we hear of child molesters being released and they commit the crime again.
I wonder if they would think like that if something terrible happened to a close family member, imagine this:
"You know that guy who got life for killing your son/daughter, well they are thinking of letting him out, he reckons he's very sorry and he's changed."

The penal system is far from perfect, and we still have a long way to go. But most countries are moving forward, and crime rates are lower in countries with less severe punishments.

Col7777

11-04-05, 03:38 AM

Kissaki,

I realise isolation isn't a piece of cake as you say, I was demonstrating what someone else said when they said other prisoners sometimes take it out this type of criminals, but while they are in isolation they are kept better than some old age pensioners who have done nothing wrong.

I notice you didn't answer what you would feel if something terrible happened to a close member of the family, would you still feel the same?

If a thief stole your car, I can imagine you saying to the police, "If you catch them don't press charges, they are probably very nice people, just give them a bit of a telling off"

Kissaki

11-04-05, 07:23 AM

I notice you didn't answer what you would feel if something terrible happened to a close member of the family, would you still feel the same?

Of course, if I was personally involved I can't say I'd be able to follow my own principles. But then my judgement would be clouded precicely because I was personally involved.

If a thief stole your car, I can imagine you saying to the police, "If you catch them don't press charges, they are probably very nice people, just give them a bit of a telling off"

When it comes to material possessions I'm happy so long as I get my stuff back, undamaged. Or if insurance will cover the damages. If someone stole my car I highly doubt it would be because he had it in for me personally.

August

11-04-05, 12:23 PM

People are sheep, they must be lead.

With this I agree.

I disagree. That is a typical elitist attitude. Maybe some people need to be led but not everyone, not even the majority of people.

Kissaki

11-04-05, 04:14 PM

People are sheep, they must be lead.

With this I agree.

I disagree. That is a typical elitist attitude. Maybe some people need to be led but not everyone, not even the majority of people.

When it comes to matters in which people are either uninterested or uneducated, they are perfectly willing to sit back and let more qualified people make the decisions. Most people are not sufficciently interested or schooled in politics to think for themselves, and so they need - even want - to be led.

Well, that's my take on it anyway.

kanderstag

11-04-05, 10:07 PM

I wasn't impressed with how this thread started, but reading through all five pages was good stuff. Kudos to Kissaki and Dead Man's Hand for agreeing to disagree without resorting to immature internet threats. Man, I'd like to add more, but I have to go...

Abraham

11-07-05, 10:25 AM

I still have to react to Dead Mans Hand remarks about the SS and his political opinion.
I'll split my answer in three seperate parts.
First, I'm gonna make some remarks about the SS, it might be my final ones since I have read enough about the subject, which does not even trigger my historic curiosity.
In part two I'll answer Dead Mans Hand remarks and i'll try to clear some misunderstandings, if that's what they are.
My third and final postinmg will be a theoretical analyzis of the philosophical backgrounds of early 20th century fascism/national-socialism, how it influenced Hitler and - in my view - even today influences people like Dead Mans Hand. It will make clear the fundamental difference between his and my opinion.

Here we go with part 1, the SS.

I won't repeat all that I have already said about the SS and it's organisation. I stand for what I've written and have not found any criticism that forces me to change my basic point of view on the subject.

I want to make clear that the SS was condemmed during the Nürnburg War Trials as a criminal organisation, rightfully in my opinion. Even during war moral and legal rules are appliccable, most important of them the Geneva Convention, of which Nazi-Germany was a participant. The SS violated all these rules as a matter of course.
While this implies that all who joined - basically all volunteers - made a wrong choise in their lives, it does not mean that there are no shades of grey within the black. I certainly don't want to generalize each and every SS soldier. However, they all shared a single flaw, a completely uncritical devotion to Adolf Hitler...
I have described some humane and honorable behaviour - as well as the opposite - in my thread:"Meine Ehre heisst Treue" (My honor is Loyalty).
Link: http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=44884
However, that behaviour made the SS men concerned break their code of honor towards their commander and ultimately Hitler.
Much of the responsability for the typical SS behaviour lies in my opinion with the Officers and NCO's, final responsability with Himmler, the system that produced the concept of an unscrupulous political army with poor principles; the National Socialist party and its founder and leader, Adolf Hitler.
So I see a shared responsability for the atrocities. The mere order from an officer is never an excuse to perform acts against any code of human decency. The argument "Befehl ist Befehl" does not excuse the criminal, nor the crime.

I found a good characterisation of the Waffen-SS by Max Hastings. I will give you a lengthy quote, because it also answers or clarifies some of the misunderstandings that have been raised about the 'Waffen-SS' having supposedly higher standards of honor and moral then the 'SS-Einsatzgruppen', the professional fighting abilities of the 'Waffen-SS' and the intellectual level of its commanders in the high echelons, all points I have discussed with Dead Mans Hand.

The young leaders of the SS had been educated and trained to belief that only one principle matterd - the interests of Germany as they themselves and their commanders saw fit to interpret them. They did not spurn morality, or justice, or process of law - these were simply forgotten or unknown concepts to them.
If the Einzatsgruppen - the SS extermination squads - or the concentration camps ever passed through their consciousness, they never allowed these mildly distastfull matter to linger. Thet were part of the natural machinery of the state, and no concern of theirs.

The greatest fear of an SS officer was that he might be considered guilty of weakness or cowardice. He could never be wrong if he adopted or accepted the most drastic solution to a problem. From the first appearance of the Waffen SS in the war, it had been made apparent that superior officers would always pardon an excess of zeal in the right direction. In September 1939, a member of an SS artillery regiment in Poland herded 50 Jews in a synagogue and shot them. The prosecuting officer at his court marshall appealed for the death sentence, and the man was indeed sentenced to a term of imprisonment. But then Berlin intervened. An appeal hearing was held, at which the presiding judge said that the accused '... was in a state of irritation as a result of the many atrocities committed by Poles against ethnic Germans. As an SS man, he was also particulary sensitive of the sight of Jews and the hostile attitude of Jewry to Germans; and thus acted quite unpremeditatedly in a spirit of youthful enthousiasm.' The sentence was quashed.
The SS never looked back Throughout the next four years of conquest and struggle, above all on the Eastern Front, the Waffen SS shot whomever they wished, whenever they wished. Within two weeks of the invasion of Russia, the SS Wiking Division had killed 600 Galician Jews 'as a reprisal for Soviet cruelties'. The Leibstandarte Division found six of its men brutally killed by Russian troops, and shot every prisoner for three days, a total of 4,000 men. In September 1941, a support unit of the Das Reich Division assisted an SS extermination squad to kill 920 Jews near Minsk. Mass killings in pursuit of state policy were never the professional business of the Waffen SS - the Einzatsgruppen looked after that sort of thing. But there can have been few experienced officers and men in the Waffen SS by June 1944 who did not regard it as a perfectly legitimate exercise to carry out mass reprisals and wholesale killings if the situation seemed to justify them.

The qualities that the SS most signally failed to foster were intelligence and imagination, probably because these characteristics would have rendered their possessors unfit for service in its ranks. Throughout its history, the Waffen SS produced an extraordinary corps of soldiers and regimental officers, but failed to throw up a single outstanding higher commander. At dividional level and above, the Waffen SS was lamentably directed. Only Paul Hausser, the venerable Panzer commander who once led the Verfügungstruppen from whom Das Reich derived, has any claim to military brilliance, and he was a product of the old German Army.
The SS fought and died bravely. often fanatically. They can expect no higher etitaph.
Max Hastings: "Das Reich" ISBN 0-330-48389-7

I wanted to do justice to the SS by giving this lengthy quote by a great historian, and at the same time I wanted to burst Dead Mans Hand's bubble that these men were Super Soldiers without par, that were not involved in killing Jews and innocents, and were led by the most brilliant commanders that ever walked the face of earth...

As a rude general rule I dare to state that a good SS soldier makes for a poor human being...
They voluntarily chose the wrong side... fought for a wicked system... and lost the war.
Not a record to be proud of!

joea

11-07-05, 03:15 PM

Abraham

11-07-05, 03:50 PM

Great post Abraham, excellent quote by Max Hastgins, read his book a long time ago...should have argued in your style rather than fly off the handle. Course I find this subject very emotional so have to avoid taking part in these threads.Thanks joea, is there any special reason why you find the subject too emotional, and if so, can you share it with us?
I know some other regular participants are following the thread but abstain from participating for personal reasons...

Dead Mans Hand

11-07-05, 06:45 PM

@August
Actually my good sir, if I were in the American army and I wanted to accomplish the same thing I would make sure no witnesses were left and no reporters were around, or I would have a special force/black op unit move in, if you think this doesn't happen you're dillusional. An individual I worked under was ex-Coast Guard and durring a drug sting in South America shot a prisoner - to make a long story short durring recon this man was witnessed raping a 10yr old girl. The CO told him "I saw nothing" and all that happend to him was he spent 6mo in the psychward - he had the papers to prove that much of it atleast.

Also, as is the habit with large countries that signed the Geneva Con. America has a habit of letting smaller allies take key areas with American support - however since they are not obligated to take prisoners and are allowed to torture the hell out of them, we're "innocent" of any war crimes commited.

Remember: It's only a crime if someone's left to be the victim. If you think we don't kill when it suits us - well I guess you havent heard of the CIA - Remember, it's not what you know it's what you can prove.

*NOTE: I am not saying this is a "bad" thing.
**NOTE: To relieve an officer of command, you'd best have support from the rest of the platoon (which is to say if they wish to avenge a fallen brother and you say "No! I'll have you all courtmartialed!" -what stops the unit from shooting you and filling a report of you going crazy and pulling a gun on your CO??
***NOTE: It was previously mentioned that the Geneva Con. put guildlines on retribution attacks.
****Final Note: If you think killing civies is "wrong" then you'd be SOL in many countries, in Mogadeshu unarmed women and children were being used to ferry ammunition to Samali strong points - in short they had to die for our men's survival. If you've watched Full Metal Jacket "How do you shoot women and children?" "Easy, you just don't lead them as far."

@Kissaki
Well I'll agree with your ideal for minor crimes, if you mean by not having malacious intent to convey accidental crimes, sure - I think manslaughter is bull**** too.

As for rehabilitating child molestors and other sex offenders, they deserve death for what they do. Mercy and/or tolerance is not my strong point. Do some research into what happens to these children sometimes, what these devils do, and I think you will change your opinion too.

As for lower crime rates under Draconian law, in the Middle Ages you were facing a far less efficent government with (actually equivalent taxes as are currently in America if not worse) taxation and poverty through the roof, they stole to eat. I would site many areas in the middle east, cut someone's hands off for theft and they will not repeat the offense. That and law abidding citizens tired of being terrorized will support it vehmently. Imagine if KKK memebers where sumarly shoot for the **** they pull? Or if those involved in the riot in Toledeo, Ohio were executed for what they did? Those who live in fear of the trash that breaks laws will gladly accept the government's unflinching fist.

As for criminals being treated as human, Joseph Stalin's qoute of "No man, no problem" fits that well.

I'll agree that is a horrible thing to kill an innocent man - and even worse to destroy his reputation. Capital punishment should never be taken lightly, but, when guilt is undeniable (DNA evidence, computer files, anything concrete) the death penalty should be applied without hesitation.

As for the scenario of a hell on earth for prisoners, in a civilized society this area would be a complete mystery to those outside the walls. It is not to be watched, death is nothing to celebrate. It is however a necessity in life. If your punishment for these animals is to be cast into abit with their brethern than I think many would hesitate before commiting any sort of crime. If they decided to make something of it, to reform themselves, they could live in a nice area - but still cut out of society. Those tossed in that did not comply would be dealt with eternaly and those who tried to escape would - well, I think you can guess.

As for rape:
Yeah, I can believe that she didn't think that was right. My girlfriend was molested at 9yrs of age by two of her friends brothers at a sleep over - she will not let me know who and I have since come to understand that standpoint, but I do not believe forgivness removes consequences. Justice is blind, it should not have emotion (this is why I do not view retribution as a crime in war, to do so I would have to have sympathy for those who harbor soldiers.) So forgiveness, can let the victim walk away, he/she need never deal with it again. However that offender is a risk to others, how many child rapists are repeat offenders? How many eventually kill a child?? They have no right to life.

I'll be honest with you, while I understand your point of view and respect it, it could in some scenarios be considered "fighting words" in my area. I have seen to much of this - and when I refer to theft of innocence, I do not mean any shame born by the victim. By innocence (in this case) I refer to an individuals ability to be blind to the truths of our world, in essence? Innocence is lost when one learns to hate, when they become part of the darkness of our world. This is done in many fasions, but none more brutal than rape - especially from a Christian view. I've got far to many examples to want to go to far (my posts are long enough :huh:) into detail. But I have seen how innocence is stolen from the victim. I have seen how it reverberates through their lives - some become exceedingly sexually active to try and say they have control, or that they are wanted, some drink like fish, and some loose abit of their capacity for trust - and through that their capacity for love. No sir, rapists are below any other form of criminal and a life of shame that grants them the oppurunity to offend again.
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

*Note those: rape within families should always carry a death sentance IMHO and as for "forever disgraced" leave their filthy carcass in a birdcage, eh?

@Abraham
even today influences people like Dead Mans Hand. It will make clear the fundamental difference between his and my opinion.

Ever hear the quote about assumptions? I could claim your arguement is based on a deep seated fear, expressed by hatred, for Germans. But I would not wish to put words in your mouth.

As for Mr. Hastings, I read a few of his articles and his anti-Israeli-pro-Palestinian bend is disgusting btw. But as for the example of the 50 Jews in that article, the account I read was that took place durring a battle, does that excuse it? Nope. But that applies different rules and if they resisted then they may have provoked it. Dislike my opinion as much as you'd like. But you have yet to burst my bubble.

I never said the SS had the most brilliant commanders in the world, I cited General Heinz Guderian and Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, but even this article lauded their troops up to the regimental level, otherwise how do you explain the length of time it took to beat this, what you apparently consider to be, rabble?

The SS fought and died bravely. often fanatically. They can expect no higher etitaph.

For a soldier, there is no higher epitah.

Also, to keep this short, occupied countries lost their individual wars with Germany - they were freed after being recaptured by Americans. The only army which was never either pushed half way across Russia or into the sea by the German armies was, yep, America, the ships that kept Britain alive were American. So really, unless you want to insult the troops of all the nations that Germany kicked the **** out of, I suggest you rethink your "they were in reality horrible soldiers" approach. Because that means those they defeated were even worse (And yes, that is Yank arrogance.)

Also, I never said they were super soldiers, they were feared for their battle prowess, brutality, and fanacticism. You can argue equipment, but there were SS Tiger II's captured with over 70+ shell impacts on them - that is why it took on average five Allied tanks to take out just one German. Better equipment and beyond a doubt in the beginning years of the war vastly superior training and thus more competent men. Unless you find American forces training in trucks with "TANK" painted on them to be adequate or the Russian "Here's a rifle, fight or die" method of training to be sufficient. The Rangers and 81st Airborn were two excellent units, as well as the British Commandos, however the Commandos never entered the field of battle so I do not consider them to be infantry in anyway, so while they were top notch - they are not comperable.

**Also: Apparently this man ain't all "that" the Enstatz-gruppen were under command of the Gestapo, not the SS.
***Side note: Yeah about competent military leaders, do you wish to argue that Market Garden (which was tactically an utter failure) was a stroke of genious by Montgomery? I mean seriously, that was not near the level of airborne deployment that the German's used in the beginning of the war. Though they did have this funny thing about not dropping unarmed men on armored divisions... silly Germans :doh:

As a rude general rule I dare to state that a good SS soldier makes for a poor human being...
They voluntarily chose the wrong side... fought for a wicked system... and lost the war.
Not a record to be proud of!

The current Pope was a member of the Hitlerjugend, forced by his parents. So your volunteer bit is not 100% true in all cases(keep in mind, they voted in Iraq before this, but if you voted the wrong way you were shot.) and the term wrong side is objective - as well as it simply implies that they lost. Had they won and you were tought history through their eyes you'd hail them as hero's.

@Joea
Too emotional? Out of curiosity I would ask howso, but out of respect if you wish to keep that to yourself that's fine. However I will say that emotion only weakens rationale debate. Passion can fuel a revolution. I'm not trying to sound like a prick, eh? This forum allows for no tone, but if something does invoke emotional response, take a moment to control your impulses - but let the passion of the emotion resonate through you an your arguement. I realize you probably could careless for my opinion, but I am truly sorry if I've deeply offended you. Please realize my arguements here have absolutely no political conentation to them. I am in no way anti-semitic and have repeatedly denounced the killing of innocents, but I do dispute the meaning of innocent.

August

11-08-05, 01:18 AM

Abraham

11-08-05, 03:21 AM

@Abraham
...even today influences people like Dead Mans Hand. It will make clear the fundamental difference between his and my opinion.Ever hear the quote about assumptions? I could claim your arguement is based on a deep seated fear, expressed by hatred, for Germans. But I would not wish to put words in your mouth.You're mistaken and I'll show that to you tomorrow. Both your and mine thinking stands in an European philosophal and political tradition. I'll point out the roots of Fascism/National-Socialism and I see clear traces of those roots in your posting. Honestly, I won't put words in your mouth; just wait and see.

As for Mr. Hastings, I read a few of his articles and his anti-Israeli-pro-Palestinian bend is disgusting btw. But as for the example of the 50 Jews in that article, the account I read was that took place durring a battle, does that excuse it? Nope. But that applies different rules and if they resisted then they may have provoked it.I have read a lot from Hastings, especially his excellent and balanced book "Overlord". You'll have to come with good sources to discredit his account, but you come with none. "It happened during battle", "They resisted being shot so we had to shoot them", "We had to shoot them because they ran away", who has not heard the lies of frightened SS-men when they faced war crime tribunals. Don't be so naive, Dead Mans Hand!

Dislike my opinion as much as you'd like. But you have yet to burst my bubble.Perhaps you are a True Believer than. Fine with me. I may not have burst your bubble but I burst your glorification of the Waffen-SS on this forum. I find that much more important...

I never said the SS had the most brilliant commanders in the world,I cited General Heinz Guderian and Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, but even this article lauded their troops up to the regimental level, otherwise how do you explain the length of time it took to beat this, what you apparently consider to be, rabble?I did not say "rabble" and you did indeed say that the SS had the most brilliant cammanders:For my sake, please do not discredit the entirity of the SS, which was comprised of some of the most brilliant commanders to ever walk this earth. Those who did what they did in the camps were a disgraces to the Fatherland, however the SS that served in the field of battle were feared by the Allies - generally the mere site of an SS unit would cause soldiers to loose their bowels. Never before or after in the modern world has an military force through it's prowess, cunning, and ruthlessness been both so deeply respected and widely feared.It just is not true. Not true, you get it!
Of course SS units, especially the elite Panzerdivisionen, were feared. Why, of course because of their fanatism, but also because of more mundain reasons: their establishment was almost double (ca. 20.000 men) of that of the average Wehrmacht Panzer Division and their material was the most modern.
The elite SS-Panzerdivisionen can be compared with the US 1st and 2nd Armoured Divisions, also far above average strengh, feared by the Germans and unstoppable in the field.

The SS fought and died bravely. often fanatically. They can expect no higher etitaph.
For a soldier, there is no higher epitah.Oh yes, how about qualities like honorable, intelligent, smart, efficient. How about succesful!
Also, I never said they were super soldiers... Better equipment and beyond a doubt in the beginning years of the war vastly superior training and thus more competent men. Unless you find American forces training in trucks with "TANK" painted on them to be adequate or the Russian "Here's a rifle, fight or die" method of training to be sufficient. The Rangers and 81st Airborn were two excellent units, as well as the British Commandos, however the Commandos never entered the field of battle so I do not consider them to be infantry in anyway, so while they were top notch - they are not comperable.I see you lack factual historic knowledge. Too bad...
Let me just say that the US Army was at the beginning of the war smaller than the army of Poland. Five years later it was fighting a succesful war at two fronts (by the way, who promised to do so but failed?) and was the most powerful fighting force in the world.
**Also: Apparently this man ain't all "that" the Enstatz-gruppen were under command of the Gestapo, not the SS.I don't know exactly what you mean, but the Gestapo was part of the SS. It was the secret Nazi police and commanded by - ultimately - Himmler, just as the SS-Einzatsgruppen (Dead squads),
As a rude general rule I dare to state that a good SS soldier makes for a poor human being...
They voluntarily chose the wrong side... fought for a wicked system... and lost the war.
Not a record to be proud of!
The current Pope was a member of the Hitlerjugend, forced by his parents. So your volunteer bit is not 100% true in all cases(keep in mind, they voted in Iraq before this, but if you voted the wrong way you were shot.) and the term wrong side is objective - as well as it simply implies that they lost. Had they won and you were tought history through their eyes you'd hail them as hero's. "Again you are completely missing the point. Membership of the Hitlerjugend was more or less compulsary but had nothing to do with the SS. Nor has the Pope. The only connection is that out of the huge Hitlerjugend an SS Division was drawn. Membership of the SS was voluntary ( I say this for the fourth time on this thread) and I have never seen records of anybody being shot for not joining.

joea

11-09-05, 04:26 PM

Sorry guys been away.

Why my reaction? With all due respect to Dead Man I don't need to say it, again, it should be fairly logical. None of my family were directly killed in WWII though they could have been, I'll leave it at that. Thanks to Abraham and August for showing me how to argue.

Dead Mans Hand

11-10-05, 08:17 PM

@August

*sigh* Army General? No, couldn't do it - too many eyes. NCO? Platoon level? Hell yes it could happen. Want to talk about Vietnam???

Believing that we've never commited attrocites, such as the destruction of a village, is laughable at best. Racism and hate run rather strong in this country and our soldiers are no better than anyothers when it comes to dealing with the stress of war. But believe what you will.

Also, since you did not name your special forces unit, I assume you are ashamed of it. Even Delta reference their previous unit (Ranger, SEAL, Green Berett, etc) you however just went with "Oh I was in the Special Forces" I'd like to say a friend of mine was an infantry men, thus a specialist. However, that does not count as special forces.

Oh and let me guess, you're going to tell me the first hand accounts of rapes and trains ran on enlisted and civilian women on base State side is crap too? I mean, honestly after speaking with infantry men, I would never allow any daughter of mine to go anywhere near an enlisted man. If you argue this sir, I will conclude you did not serve in the Navy nor have you ever heard about what the whores that enlist in that do for money on those ships either.

As for you believing my accounts, I could careless. All I have to say is that I have the utmost respect for any soldier, I would ask you to have the decency to conceed the point our's, like all others, is far from lilly white rather than drag in information that I feel is less than honorable.

As for a comic book imagination, thank you sir but the veterans I know seem to differ very much from yourself. Perhaps you served state side? All Special Ops groups have people that just don't make it and do desk work. Is that what you did? Otherwise, since you're throwing around this "prove me wrong" crap, fine. Toss at branch and unit designation Mr. Special Forces. PVSFC doesn't count btw. I also find it highly amusing that this only came out now.

Oh and this is not entirely damning, but serves a good enough point (which is we train and train with war criminals in several nations.)
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/199806/980604.html

@Abe

Firstly: About hastings, if you actually read the recent articles he's published against Israel in his paper, I think you might change opinion. I'm not so much attacking his historical accuracy as I am commenting that I find someone who would support Palestine to be rather... distasteful, as I am vehemently pro-Israel.

In a war zone, a prisoner is obligated to attempt to escape, however if that is seen as a risk (he who lives today fights tommorow) than I find it acceptable to shoot a prisoner. Do I find the locking of people in a church and burning it to the ground to be acceptable? Only in reprisal. Which in the given case cannot be truely proven. So it's up in the air. Again it comes to my definition of innocence. If a village has wholesale supported a terroristic organization of whatever allegiance it has populace has become combatents.

Also I'm not so much trying to glorify the Waffen-SS as vindicate those you would damn for the actions of the few. Also, you cannot (well ok you can, but I don't see how) argue that it was the finest fighting unit of it's time, until the American Rangers and Airborne showed up. Marines fought damn hard are beyond reproach, however they were in a different theatre against a less than comperable enemy.

Even your article praised the SS NCOs and Officers up to the divisional level. In combat, the division commander is not who is calling shots. The 2nd Armour was not unstopable, cite the battle of the bulge, also I find it important to note the lateness with which they entered the war and the increadible lack of effectivness when it came to the Sherman tank (outside of being a utility vehicle.)

As for ".. qualities like honorable, intelligent, smart, efficient..." that article does not disclude them. Honor has many forms as does success. I think, for one country to be engaged by the rest of the modern world (because no one country could have possibly resisted them) is one hell of a badge of honor. Loss or no, they have the honor of it taking a world to stop them.

I lack factual historic knowledge. At the beginning of the war, our army was smaller - and we were uninvolved. Tell me, how big was the army of Poland in 1944? Oh and please don't compare our men to idiots that would charge tanks on horse back. Brave? No. Stupid. Yes. Though I do credit the Warsaw Ghetto for holding out longer than France. I do not see how my previous statement was inaccurate in anyway. Our training in the US was crap compared to German training, largely due to lack of equipment. I realize English is not your first language, so perhaps something was lost in translation??

The Gestapo was under the leadership of Himmler, but was not the SS. Nor were the Einzatsgruppen. They were specialized units. That is like saying the Delta are special forces - yes they are, but no they do not obey traditional conventions of the US military (they only fall under command of precious few individuals and from what I've read and heard they like to remind NCO's and officers below the 4 star rank of that)

Also: Membership of the Hitlerjugend was '"compulsary" yes, however due to benifits for the family and presure from the Getsapu I would hardly say it's safe to assume all that joined did it for anyhting as glamorous as national pride. Another of the points, I have done poorly at expressing, is just this - although volunteer (by theory) the reprecusions for not volunteering made membership in this organizations often less than optional. How many men do you think joined to keep their loved ones safe?? No not all, but you cannot condemn those that did the same as you would the sociopaths that joined to quench their blood lust. But hey that might just be my take on it.

@JoeA
*shrug* I potentially have Jewish heritage, my family came to the colonies in the 1600's though. So it's hard to say, Jewish last name but absolutely no practicing Jews in the family, most likely (IMHO) our patriach was disowned for something or disowned his family, perhaps for a woman. So it's very possible I lost distant, all be it, relatives in Germany. At anyrate, I hope you realize I am far from anit-semetic and I still do not believe all of the SS was either.

joea

11-10-05, 08:38 PM

Huumph gotta get an afterword in, I am not, nor did I ever say I was Jewish. If you saw my other posts you would know that. :roll: They were not the only ones to suffer from Nazis.

Dead Mans Hand

11-10-05, 08:47 PM

Sorry, poor assumption I suppose. I otherwise do not reason for intense emotional response then. Largely due to the fact racial minorities generaly inflict heavier casualties on themselves.

August

11-11-05, 03:52 AM

Damo1977

11-11-05, 05:13 AM

C'mon Damo1977, don't be so defensive! You always claim to be blunt and outspoken, so I found a funny remark fitting for your careful wording...
:D
As far as Hitler and Nazism is concerned, I prefer to make my position cristal clear

LOL I have been so frigging busy I have about 5 mins aday to look on the comp including start up. Know its been along time in between innings, but alas because Germany lost the war I can't own a slave, so unfair :cry: .

Plus like I have said now I am earning a 'true' crust happier with world except those jap fishings boats tht just set out. But Abraham no one truely knows what went on with the SS, me finish at that :|\ . War is over.

joea

11-11-05, 05:32 AM

Sorry, poor assumption I suppose. I otherwise do not reason for intense emotional response then. Largely due to the fact racial minorities generaly inflict heavier casualties on themselves.

I am white, Canadian, (parents are immigrants).... :nope:

Only casualties by my own ethnic groups were by commies, otherwise by foreign facists (German or Italian) earlier by Turks. (Persians tried and failed :|\ )

Dumb@ss. :down:

Dead Mans Hand

11-11-05, 09:03 AM

@August
A book I'd like you to pick up is "Deadly Brother Hood" it gives a good impression of what other special forces think of PJ training.... heh....

Also denying American attrocities? Again do you nothing of Vietnam?? Or do you consider the napalming of small villages and exceution of "civilians" that were summarily tried as members of the VC to be ok? Also, do you consider the treatment of Somalians by our SpecOps in Mogadeshu (Pre-Blackhawk down) to be befitting?? I'm refering to terroizing the market square with low flying helecopters, in a desert that kicks up one hell of alot of dust, go figure. Further more you're denying that our forces do not colaborate and/or train as well as equip units that are known for their poor human rights records. To keep going, you deny that "we'll turn you over to country X" (when X is a non-Geneva compliant nation) is not a standard method of interigation? You also deny that our Airforce's involvement in wars of attrition, via carpet bombing, is perfectly ok.

Oh yeah - and since you've forced my hand, you're willing to state that the large amount of troops involved in the Abu Ghraib crap is a mock op, you're also going to tell me what goes on in Guentanemo is AOK, and I'm willing to bet that you'll say the ignorant treatment of Iraqi citizens that I have heard of from returning soldiers - one of which was Airforce btw - is just peachy. Only a few bad apples! Oh yeah and you're going to tell me that the gang banging that goes on at our bases to the extent where "getting rodded" is common place is alright to? You'll go even further to tell me that the AirForce isn't having problems with it's female officers being harassed and assaulted - because our troops are just so moraly ahead of everyone else. Or hey, since the only comics I read are in the news paper, you're going to tell me not to believe everything I hear from veterans and read in papers - right??

Look I love our troops, the infantry I've met are nuts. I've never found better men to drink with - but to say they are incapable of war crimes and to bull**** me that our military has a high moral standard is a waste. Maybe some will by the glorification of military, that's fine and a dandy.

*note I looked into the 10th, you picked a good unit to rep yourself with. Though, to accept you were in it, I would have to take it at face value - so since you find it impossible to do, I shall return the curtosey and assume you merely made that up, to bolster your arguement and I find the impersenation of an American soldier to be absolutely disgusting. Good day.

M.Mira

11-11-05, 01:54 PM

I am eagerly waiting for the promised posts of Abraham...
In my opinion Dead Mans Hand has been glorifying the SS and the whole Nazi-regime in Germany.

August

11-11-05, 02:19 PM

I am eagerly waiting for the promised posts of Abraham...
In my opinion Dead Mans Hand has been glorifying the SS and the whole Nazi-regime in Germany.

Of course he is. Like many others who have never served their country he can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

M.Mira

11-13-05, 11:06 AM

.....as I am vehemently pro-Israel.
The feeling is totally one-sided

Abraham

11-13-05, 01:05 PM

.....as I am vehemently pro-Israel.
The feeling is totally one-sidedI noticed that remark too.
Reminded me of a line from a song written by Macy Gray: "If thís is love, it's a good thang you don't hate me..."
:D

Dead Mans Hand

11-15-05, 02:32 PM

@M.Mira
I am eagerly waiting for the promised posts of Abraham...
In my opinion Dead Mans Hand has been glorifying the SS and the whole Nazi-regime in Germany.

I'm glad you came up with (presumably) your own opinion on this topic, but find it sad that you cannot support it with your own ideas. As for glorifying the Nazi's, when have I supported the Nazi party?? There is a difference between a Nazi and a member of the SS, in that, one did not have to believe in the Nazi cause to be a member of the SS. Also, since I believe in being thorough, I again point to the fact that many members of the Kriegsmarine - especially those in elevated positions, were infact members of the Nazi party and I could say that your playing any game in which you assume the role of a member of the Reich's armed forces is your glorifying the Nazi cause - could I not? (To hopefuly quiet the protest on that, please remember in the SH and other series you assume command of Nazi war material and proceed to use it to further the Nazi war effort.)

Sidenote: All naval ships flew under the Nazi flag btw, were their crews entirely comprised of Nazi's? Given Abrahams concept of compulsary enlistment, which is one that does not consider the reprocusions of not enlisting in the Third Reich, that means all the sailors chose to sail under the Nazi flag, making the Nazi's - because anyone who was German and fought in WWII was apparently a Nazi (as this is what you are saying about the SS)

Also: If your comment about my being pro-Israel is to say you're against (it) and support the Palestinian cause - please clarify.

@August
More juvenille comments? C'mon. Some things for you to think about:

1.) You have not responded to the documented history of American war crimes, in many instances this is considered concession.
2.) You have not responded, realisticaly, to the concept of American troops being willing and/or eager to kill in the name of country or for their own motivations - except for saying (and this is paraphrased) "Well, ge wilikers, they wouldn't do that."
3.) Everytime I bring up something you do not have a response to, you try and find something to insult me with, in hopes to discredit my arguement by discrediting me in your and/or your peers eyes - or atleast that is what I gather from your behavior thus far.
4.) I don't acknowledge the existence of war crimes for many reasons, including the only judges are the victors themselves, so don't think I'm saying our armed forces are bad - I support them 100% and as for Vietnam - if a village supported VC and nullifying it (by any means) was deemed neccesary I'm fully behind it - however by your definition that is a heinous act. So in that scenario it would be you against our troops. Not me. That is assuming you apply the standards which you are applying to the SS universaly, which if not invalidates your argument on the grounds of bias.

@Abraham
Bear in mind you know nothing about who I am. I am not getting defensive merely pointing out that my motives, geneology, and other details relevent to why I support Israel are not and most likely will not be disclosed on this forum - as personal information is utterly irrelevant to this debate. I am not, nor have I, nor will I, support the Nazi idealogy in anyway. I will say Hitler was a political genius and was a master writer/speaker. I will say that Himmler was an aboslute nutcase and was probably more depremental than anything. I will say, that the SS was comprised of some of the fiercest military units of our time. But I do not base this on their idealogy, I base it on what they did on the field of battle and how they did it. Their reprisals were harsh yes, but they responded with unflinching totallity. I for one respect the fact that in many cases they asked nothing of who the people where, why? Because justice does not care. Many militaries under many flags have acted the same way and present the same basic attitudes. It may be hard to understand, but I respect honesty and totallity more than whimsical and unsure methods. I support Israel's bulldozing of Palestinian "houses" that are used by Palestinians intent commiting acts against Israel more than I suppor the U.S. chastizing Israel and turning a blind eye to Palestine.

*Note: If you're insuating my support of the SS bears any anti-semitism, I resent that. If you cannot be objective - that is unfortunate, but to not hold me to your emotional standards.