Heyho, I should make something clear, at least I want to. I dissociate me from my former statements to this topic, which degenerate in a blind admiration of an complex organisation with a fixture in the NS-Ideology. I appologizes any entanglements and any as indignities misconceived utterances. I had to busy myself with this topic for my Skilled Work in school, now I´ve understand what´s behind this organisation, her job and how this organisation had execute the war in the east. Of course there were some good soldiers, humans who treated prisoners like humans, as we can see it in arnhem, but I can´t gainsay that it was a organisation, which were formed to execute the disgusting parts of the nazi-ideology. So.. I want to apologize my behaviour and my utterances ! Regards, Che.
well, what i recall from your sayings about the waffen-SS, was that you had respect for them, seeing from the military point of view. i don't think that there's nothing wrong with saying that the waffen-SS was an excellent military unit. they had great equipment and a excellent training (at least in the beginning of the war) and yes, there were even some good men who treated prisonners well. i don't think that i ever heared you say that you had respect for their actions like burning villages down, killing prisoners, mass murder women and children as revenge for a partisian action and all those sort of those things. so i don't see a reason for appologies, mayby just for making your point of view clear.
Indeed. I see no problem with condemning the actions of those who brutalized and murdered while respecting those who did not do these things but fought with ferocity and skill. If the actions of some individuals are imputed to all then no soldiers of any nation could be respected since all armies have instances of brutality and murder. For those individuals(or units) who regularly and repeatedly engaged in those activities they should be reviled no matter what nation they fought for.
Although it is possible for a unit to be both effective/ferocious soldiers and to be thoroughly reprehensible in terms of their ideology and how they apply that. It can be quite important to make the clear distinction, as Che is doing, between admiration of military prowess and admiration of attitude. To many people, saying 'the SS were a good unit' equates to 'I am a Nazi and I love Hitler and all he stood for, you sub-human freak'. :roll: Che - I agree with Quillin, I always took your statements as being based on their military abilities rather than anything else.
When it comes to the Waffen-SS it is hard to separate their moral convictions from their actions, since both their superb fighting skill and determination, and the atrocities they committed, were caused directly by those morals and beliefs. I don't think you have ever declared yourself an admirer of the Waffen-SS here, Che, so there really is no need for an apology, but I can see why you would feel almost obliged to write a disclaimer like this when arguing that the Waffen-SS was, indeed, an impressive fighting force. While the SS as soldiers performed admirably, and were often the betters of their enemies in combat, it is important to realize that this is because they had ideals they thought were worth dying for, and those ideals were not exactly admirable at all. When you realize this and make it clear to your audience that you do, I see no problem in defending the effectiveness of the SS in a debate, because it is undeniable.
Considering the large number of wehrmacht soldiers in SS units I'm not convinced that the well publicized atrocities committed by some of those units/individuals were representative of the majority of men in those units.
I agree with Greg do you think the French SS units were killing the French people? Unless someone has any information about French SS units killing their own people. But, if you were told if you didnt kill this person you would be executed in turn and that person would still die. What would you do? I am not trying to justify the atrocities they commited but try putting yourself in their shoes.
I'd say it is largely impossible to say either way... Be that as it may, it is still possible for a unit to fight well, but behave badly. Like Japanese units that fought with distinction but treated POWs (or Chinese people, or...) like sub-humans, because of their ideology.
SS When Che first published his opinions of the SS I PM'd him and gave him my opinions of the SS, in no uncertain terms, I also told him I wanted no more contact with him; after his apology if he wishes I will re-start our interesting conversations by PM. BUT, please do not change his apology into a 'White-Wash' of the SS. I have many friends in Germany and am returning to there again this Saturday, even after 60 years I still can find it hard to believe that these Germans were capable of such evil atrocities, but it all happened. No more from me on this thread.
Re: SS Since you don't wish to participate further I won't address this comment to you specifically however your remarks need to be addressed. What you may consider a "whitewash" is IMO an objective assessment of the issue. There is no denying that atocities occurred. The SS were involved in more than their fair share of what one would expect in a war. The Japanese force were probably worse and the Russians were no better. The US and British forces ranked considerably behind all those previously mentioned by just about any historical assessment of atrocities committed I think it is fair to say.( Unless of course, one considers bombing civilian targets as an atrocity in which case the ranking would be reversed since all participants engaged in that conduct but the US and Brits were far more efficient and effective.) That being said, atrocities like deliberate killing of prisoners occured in the Allied armies also just not as frequently and was not officially sanctioned.
Re: SS yes but it is easier to find information on the enemy because obviously you wouldn't want your country to be remembered in history for their brutality. For example when the Canadians tried Kirk (maybe Kurt) Meijer for war crimes that the 12th SS commited. Which was over 150 Canadian POW's. He was sentenced to death, than lessened to life in prison which he served under 10 years.
combat is dehumanizing for sure...fatique ,terror,deaths and maimings of very close freinds....i was appalled to read how now replacements in us inf divisions were given the most dangerous jobs and were shunned by the old salts..(I DONT WANT TO KNOW YOU ,YOU WILL BE DEAD WITHIN A WEEK ANYWAY...giveing new guys the jobs that were sure to kill them was practically murder..if they would be so cold as to do this...what would stop them from shooting inconvenient prisoners....read :the young lions: ....and audie murphys; to hell and back
Nothing new i'm afraid. Standard pratice in Roman legions and Greek phalanx was that first row was composed of new arrivals in the unit, veterans beeing behind them. Practical from the point of morale (one can run in only one direction + they were the most expandeble). It's also interesting how view of warfare has changed. If one reads Roman, medival (especialy on 100 year war), reneissance and later texts (on 30 year war) one can find that normal behaviour of troops was comaprable with SS (in anti partisan actions) or latest Balcan wars. Chivalery was only the ideal nobody adhered to. What is interesting is how our western history looks on this matters. Roman legions are still seen in the west as bringers of civilisation (Cartagena, Corintus, conquest of Dacia (Trakia)... are more or less conviniantly forgotten or pushed aside). On the other hand ancient Persians (conquest of middle east) or medival Arabic armies (crusades, conquest of Spain) that did uphold some kind of standard of treatment with conquered nations are still seen as "forces of darkness". When one considers waffen SS one has to take into account that most of their actions was on the eastern front where combat was more or less done on civilisational level of medival times (or 30 year war). For example Oradour sur Glanne was nothing compared to what the same troops did in SSSR, but is still seen by many as waffen SS at it's worst. This same waffen SS units that are seen as good combat troops were often employed in anti partisan operations in which most of the bloodiest warcrimes happened. Problem is that war in the east was realy war of anihilation and SS were in its forefront as Germanic race holy wariors that will crush and anihilate good for nothing Slavic population. From this institucionalised racism (which unfortunatly still exists in certain armies) one can expect nothing less. It's still claimed that Wehrmacht waged more or less clean war. This is not so. For example a lot of excutions and other warcrimes can be ascribed to Wehrmacht (including mass starvation of population in areas under Heer control). Wehermacht operated in same institucionalised racism enviroment, and acted more or less in same manner as SS.
Odd that Oradour-sur-Glane is a war crime preserved for all to see and remember yet within weeks of each other the aerial destruction of Caen was just one of those things and was rebuilt quickly after the war. I have always said that history is written by the winners who will make the vanquished evil and the victorious moral. Each side has there own crimes that they commited and some were deliberate whilst others were just due to neglect, but only one side lost and only one side got punished in history. Obviously the horrors on the eastern front make the western front pale into insignificance but again whilst the germans were no godly saviours, neither were the russians when the boot was on the other foot. But the fact that one side did it, either more or less than the other does not make either action justifyable. Furthermore, as people have said, a lot of attrocities committed by the germans were done by highly trainly veterans (read focused experienced killers) whilst undertaking anti partisan roles for which they were untrained and lacked moral guidence and control from senior officers. I am sure that any US marine or american can appriecate the stresses and decisions soldiers have to make when dealing with partisans in occupied countries and that things happen which when looked at in the cold light of history look real bad. I wonder is Iraq, Vietnam and Korea have preserved any of their villages that were destroyed by soldiers deployed within their country? FNG
PS Can I just add as I know of lot of people here are both sensitive and proud of their military and I am not bashing any side for mistakes that have been made. Horrable things happen in war and when large numbers of people are deployed a lot of very evil men get to carry out a lot of evil acts without any supervision. Whilst they slur the memories of the good men it has to be remembered that they are just a minority and should not be used to tarnish all involved. Neither do I justify the holocaust or specific attrocities carried out by any soldier against the civilian population for no other reason than a difference in race when there is no resistance movement to talk about. And I have to say that the SS whilst a damn hard military unit did lack control from the officers and were generally indoctrinated with race hatred. This hatred combined with their unshakable love for the Reich meant that they were often deployed and used for roles against civilians that common soldiers would have refused to do. But they still should not have done it. FNG
Indeed, it is important to note for example that Oradour-sur-Glane was a deliberate massacre of civilians whereas the bombardment of Caen served a tactical (battering down the German positions there) and strategical (destroying the road and rail network) purpose. TISO: the Romans and Greeks put their youngest in the front line not because they would die anyway but because they were more eager and flexible troops. Veterans would not be able to carry an assault like they would. As you are no doubt aware, "war is sweet to those who have never experienced it"...
And those who experiance it for the first time can run in only on direction: Forward I belive that guidance of men in SS units was good and in their anti partisan operations the preformed as they were ordered and expected to by their officers and higher-ups. One has to remember that in those times desired result of anti-partisan tactic was scaring population into inactivity. In other words killing of civilians was premediated and deliberate and not result of mistakes and "colateral damage".
My first post! Anyway, great site, been following it for a long time now. Good points, TISO. Ever hear of the Kaminski Brigade? Peoeple seem to be fond of using wikipedia as a source around here. Check out this link for anyone interested in how the SS sometimes subcontracted their anti-partisan work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaminski_Brigade http://www.kampfgruppe.us/forum.php
Ever hear about the Waffen-SS units fighting in arnhem ?! You can not represent an army of 900.000 by a unit of 1700*, neither postive nor negative, btw Kaminski was executed by german military court for his war crimes comitted during the Warsaw uprising. *[RONA,also called Kaminski brigade was a belorussian unit, which became part of the Waffen-SS in 1944 with 1700 members, as well as the Dirlewanger-Brigade (881 men + reinforcements of 2,500) soldiers, which was also used in the warsaw uprising] Regards, Che.
