The SS (separated from the Holocaust thread).

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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]

I still have to answer Dead Mans Hand posting of last week as far as concerned with me.

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@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.

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

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?

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

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.

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

I also take note that you have nothing against infact almost celebrate nuclear weapons in your post,

Really? Please illustrate again...

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

... If I applied the same standards you apply to me, I would call you a Nazi.

Hmmm, interesting...

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

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.

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

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...

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@ 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.

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@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.

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@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.

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@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.

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

... 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...

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@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...

[Dead Mans Hand]

@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]

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

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

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]

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

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

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.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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]

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]

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.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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...

I'm off now!

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by August

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]

"Tolerance for the intolerant."

[August]

Originally Posted by Kissaki

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.

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?

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Kissaki

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.