The SS (separated from the Holocaust thread).

[August]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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.

[XabbaRus]

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]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

...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 .... But is not threatening someone on these forums unacceptable?

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

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You can bet on that.

Lurker!

[XabbaRus]

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]

Originally Posted by August

Lurker!

No, but true submarine tactics.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

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]

@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]

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]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@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.

So do the Iraqis have a right to resist and the US top then wipe them out (strange they don't use the same tactics as the Nazis). Your tactics are immoral and won't work. No country has ever been able to impose itself by force forever.

Finally let me indulge in an emotional outburst that might get me banned, ****edited, please refrain from threats of violence, mate. - Onkel Neal

[XabbaRus]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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!