The SS (separated from the Holocaust thread).

[Kissaki]

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!

[Bellman]

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]

Originally Posted by Bellman

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 -

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. 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]

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

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

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:

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

... 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.

Schlecht

[Kissaki]

Was ist schlecht?

[Dead Mans Hand]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

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.....

Well said.

He's not worth the effort.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

@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]

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.

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]

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

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Iceman

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.