[Dead Mans Hand]

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.