Oskar Dirlewanger and SS-Sturmbrigade "Dirlewanger"

But one example...these guys were not soldiers. They were expected to return to civilian duties when not operating.

http://www.warlinks.com/pages/auxiliary.html

 

Fortunately, it will never be known how effective the Auxiliary Units would have been in practice, but it is possible to speculate, based on the knowledge gained from the experiences of the European Resistance Movement. Certainly, Auxunits had a head start on these, they were well organised, well trained and well supplied with the necessities for underground activities. It is generally considered that their effectiveness would have been high in comparison with their numbers, although the patrols themselves thought that their active life would not last longer than a few weeks. Whilst casualties would have been serious and inevitable, there is no doubt that some members would have survived the initial actions and that these would either have gone to ground or returned unobtrusively to their homes, during the confusion of the early occupation. These men could have formed the nucleus of any National Resistance, acting as leaders to recruit and train the population as the harshness of the occupation became felt. Once the hidden stores of arms had been used up, patrols would have depended upon captured weapons. Like their European counterparts, any movement would have suffered from the activities of collaborators and informers, and all Auxiliaries were aware of the possible effect that their actions would have had on their families, friends and neighbours if reprisals were inflicted. Hopefully, resistance would have continued, even although occupied Britain became part of Greater Germany. As Steinbeck wrote of the Norwegian Resistance: 'Can the flies conquer the flypaper?'

None of the auxilleries were ever enrolled as soldiers in the British army, to furhter enhance their guerilla efforts and to try and protect their family members.

 

One last one before thread turns into Britain at war, which was not my intention and apolgies if seems that way.

http://www.btinternet.com/~david.waller/

This is an interesting site on the auxilleries, pretty big when drilling into it.

Explains in detail how Britian was only nation to set up a resistance movement ahead of any occupation.

The clandestine signals units are interseting in their recruiting poicies...Vicars, barmaids, you name it these civilians were recruited in advance.

Make no mistake, thise units would not have defeated an invasion, that was not their purpose, althoug many were clandestinly associated with the home guard, they were not home guard. Their mission was to initially operate behind enemy lines and once the war lost, were to form guerilla movements and a national resistance movement.

Many were to move on in later years to sas and soe duties, which begs one question...the OSS and soe sas operatives parachuted into occupied France, Vichy France, and to Titos forces, to assist in resistance and guerilla movements, in which many of them were to be killed, are we saying here their missions should be classed as illegal and not worhty of our fight againt the enemy? Many brave British and USA soldiers male and female, and soe and oss operatives worked with and for these resistance orginisations, they fought and died with them. Are they to be looked on as assisiting in crinimal activity? Assisting the occupied to resist in any way possible?

I had a friend of a friends family member who served with Titos forces, and together with OSS was regularly flying into Titos forces to assist and resuply on liason missions. I certainly do not look on Titos forces as anythig but an ally in ww2.

 

***stupid Friedrich... ***

[ 07. May 2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]

 

Well, Stefan. I actually meant that we understand why did soldiers and partisans killed each other's men, like partisans doing the things Carl described or the military bomibg civil towns, deporting families and shooting POWs. That is understandable, still no justification. But raping a woman or killing children isn't understandable, why? because it is an animal act. When you do that you stop being a man and become an animal. One thing is that you are an SS security soldier, go to a town, kill the young adult males and arrest the other suspicious people(still very bad) and then you withdraw and another very different is to go to that town, kill the males, set the whole town on fire, rape the women and children and then rape them...

They became animals when they did the latter, because officer's didn't order: "Rape that girl or kill that 3-year-old child" (unless the officer we're speaking of is Dirlewanger or Mohnke), because it's unhuman and it helps 0% to the war effort.

I also agree with you, Stefan about the Soviet men and their situation. I think that resistance was an option, a good one. I support Urgh's idea on the British resisting to the German invasion. But I object his statement:

Wars have no legal legitimacy. Invading Poland in 1939 or Britain in 1940 are not legal actions. Invading India or Ireland are not legal either. Invading Morocco or Iraq or any SOVEREIGN and FREE country is not legal. However, Nature provides legitimacy with the selfish escence of man kind and the Darwinist law of the strongest surviving...

And I would say about Stefan and Carl's statements about the laws of war: THERE ARE NO LAWS AT WAR. The war lews are always made in peace times and carried out or punished in peace times, after the war is over. But at the heath of battle there are not such things. The only law is to whether kill or being killed.

 

Well Friedrich, I dont see where we disagree, because that is indeed my point, I dont agree there is any legality either.

And as such, it is the right for all and any member of an invaded country to fight on be he military or civilian.

India, nope Agree too. Britain should not have been there as neither it should have colonised many other nations, youll get no argument from me there, however I was not around to voice my dissent at the time....

Ireland, is probably for another threae, and im not dismissint it at all, I have been there in uniform, I can even understand the other side, the terrorist side in their long held beliefs, agree I don not, but does not stop me understandiing the reasons.

However, it might seem simplistic, but while the majority view in that province is that they need and want protection, and do have the troops acting as a police force then there is no choice.

Ask most mainland British folk if they want troops in Northern Ireland....Ask any youngster in Southern Ireland Eire... if they would prefer to be part of Europe and its new to them opportunities or have a united Ireland under a Marxist Sinnfein orginisation that they have no taste for themselves anymore...Different generations...Hence the late peace plans we now have. But please help us by all means, someone come and take the role off us...

If it was Palestine and the majority of population were not in fact British as they class themselves rather than Irish..we would have sailed away many years ago..

Think you will find the problem will be sorted shortly due to population growths..make love not war..in this case a genuinely needed statement

 

Urgh--be serious will ya? Nobody said anything about a German officer walking down some street with camera in hand taking pics of great British landmarks. ((You knew what I meant))

 

Then sorry, Urgh. We completely agree. I agree in everything you wrote. I am glad we agree.

Too many agrees, right?

 

Sorry Carl I did indeed know the gist of your postings..But even saying that..

From your post..

Examples:

A grenade thrown into a Geman staff car.

A group of German officers sitting at some cafe drinking cognac-when a car drives by and machineguns them.

A soldier walking out of his billot, or walking down the street sightseeing--but being attacked by a mob.

No--I do NOT condone mob action or criminal action.

I still disagree...in Britain 1940, they would have been targets sitting in that cafe, or walking down that street doing the tourist bit.

Think we will have to agree to disagree here...on one hand I know what you say whereby a war comes to what can be called a legitimate end...

On my part, I would see no legitimate end of war to an enemy force occupying my country.

The illegalites are inconsequential. The illegality to my mind is someone occupying my country by force.

Which in a round about way brings us back to the topic and back on thread..Now I find myself looking at Individual actions of both partisans, resistance and as with this thread German troops on the eastern front...No legalites in war. War is violent and nasty.

The German troops responsile and Im only using them as an example here, we all were guilty of something or other in ww2, the german troops were doing what they believed necessary at the tip of the sword..no one who was not in their shoes can say there but for the grace of god..go I..

I dont though find myself disagreeing with Friedrich, on his statement referring to the evil within if I can call it that.

 

Well I disagree....blimey, that it ive got a headache...

 

Well said. I still don't get the bit of including German soldiers on mainland British soil?

I'm talking about places theay actually were like: France, Belgium, Finland, Holland, the Soviet Union, Norway, North Africa, Czecholslovakia, Poland and etc as examples.

With agree to disagree respect of course

 

Was using the analogy of a German invasion of Britian in 1940 Carl and how the British may well react to an occupying force..indeed had made plans for guerilla forces to fight on even after defeat.

I cant see the Brits at that time (not now but 1940 Brits) accepting defeat and not carrying the fight on in resistance movements.

 

Just some remarks:

GB declared war on Germany in 1939 (not vice versa), so of course a hypothetical invasion of GB would have been "legal", at least according to international law (and one can argue that it was in fact also morally justified).

Second, I think it's absolutely fair that an unarmed, outlawed population being targeted by armed military forces (bombing raids, mass shootings, starvation or deportation etc.) has the moral right to fight back according to their rules (that is, assassing enemy soldiers, sabotage, civil and violent disobience, or in current terms: terrorism). We didn't seem to have a problem to target the enemy civilan population under the pretext of "total war", so why shouldn't this population be allowed to fight back under the same pretext?

Restoring security and justice and taking care of the population in the occupied area as it would be the own population is the duty of the invading country. The Germans failed miserably in that, to the contrary, they often imposed a termination programme on those people, so any civil resistance is morally justified, if not a moral duty.

The idea that the German Commanding General in Serbia, Gen. Franz Böhme and his sucessors are in any way less criminal than Tito's "terrorists" is, IMHO, absurd.

I would agree that Partisan activities would have been wrong if the German occupiers would have behaved according to the rules of war. But you cannot expect a population to obey and walk peacefully to the extermination ditch to receive their neckshot for nothing but being suspected Communist or Jewish.

Cheers,

[ 08. May 2003, 03:30 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

Agree again Andy, but GT Britain declared war on Germany to hounour its international pact with Poland who had been ILLEGALLY invaded by Germany,,how far do we want to go with this?

And again, at risk of getting agreeing sickness, agree with most of rest of post..

Tito etc, as we have discussed before with war crimes etc, ended up on winning side therefor at end of war had nothing to answer for...The allies of the time certainly were not immediately after the war going to do anything about it, a few raised eyebrows and the hefty word or threat...but come on why would we want to do anythig or blame one of our allies, one we had supported, armed and supplied and provided liason forces too to assist him in helping us...Even gave him a nice RN boat to transport him around...not quite a royal yacht but one he could depend on to be there if he got in a fix...He was on winning side. We helped him, and he helped us.
Forgive me for being cynical.

One thing I will still disagree on...partisans being wrong if rule of law followed is gist of one of your statements...Again sorry, even if no atrocities, im of the feeling an invader should be resisted by all means.

Then again and im possibly going against my own preaching here...The Germans on invasion of their country by allies fought militarilly but no resistance movement after defeat etc, whereas I mainly think of a German invasion of other lands, and the German regime attracted resistance so maybe your right, depends on the invader as to how or if resistance is necessary after a militiary defeat on the field of battle.

Certainly any Invasion of Britian by Germany would have met with resistane well after a militiary defeat had been forced on it.

I note also we did not resist too much the military invasion of our islands at that time by another nation....Mind you we needed the gum and nylons.