IDF Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 Hey, What do you think the SS units were established for? For bloody cold blooded murder. I am also from Australia. Do you know why I was born here? Because my family was "eliminated" by the SS and my surviving grandparents after surviving concentration camp wanted to escape the destruction of Europe. If you are wondering yes I am Jewish and proud. I take great offence to praises of the SS. Most of them (99%) were all cold blooded sick murderers. For saying you want to recreate the massacre, mate you are sick in the head. You are continuing in the murderous brutal ways of your grandfather's SS!!! If you are proud and want to show off your murderous SS affiliation then don't do it so openly here on the forum. This forum is for people who enjoy military strategy not for facists or idiots like you!!! [This message has been edited by IDF (edited 07-27-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 IDF, No offence mate but you ARE tarring with one brush. The SS was a branch of the nazi state which took a great role in the massacring of Jews. The WAFFEN-SS was the military branch of that organisation. Certainly they may have had less tolerance of Jews than the Heer but it is a fallacy to rate them all as death camp guards etc etc. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that virtually no-one in the 1st SS or 12th SS had even seen a death camp from the outside. I find it a bit much to tar these guys who were soldiers ( albeit fanatical soldiers fighting for a rather repugnant cause) as nothing but thugs. Of course, you have sentiment involved since many of your family were killed by other arms of the German state but still, your position isn't entirely consistent with the facts. Jeff said " If US troops did the same thing the day before, then it was NOT right that they not be prosecuted. However, this has no bearing on the guilt of the Malmedy perpetrators." I agree. HOWEVER it does have a bearing on the moral right of the Allies to try Germans for Malmedy WHILST AT THE SAME TIME refusing to try their own men for similar offences. THAT is my point... I believe the trials were unwarranted since they weren't "fair" since different standards were applied to different services and nations. Admittedly that is inevitable but inevitability doesn't make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOCHEN PEIPER Posted July 27, 2000 Author Share Posted July 27, 2000 FOR CRYING OUT LOUD,,, I CANT BELIEVE HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE RESPONDED TO THIS... GEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZ! My Grandfather was in the 8th SS-Kavallerie Division "Florian Geyer" He was a Lawyer before the war... and I never really knew him... He died when i was young... I do have a few medals etc.. of his though... however i would never sell them... EVER! And in reply to that jewish guy, i have nothing against you or your RACE/RELIGION. However it $hits me when you brand all SS men as evil and cruel... My mother said he was in fact a very nice man and a great father to her... I can only say get your FRIGGEN facts strait before shooting across my bow buddy or there will be hell to pay... By the way, thanks to all those rational guys in here who commented fairly on this topic... CHEERS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mensch Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 so who's up for a bet of 100,- DM this thread gets a big padlock on it? (steve prob. won't do it just so as I loose a 100,- Marks hehe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre76 Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 Hmmm.. it seems that the general consencus on the topic of cruelty is "trial no-one, everybody does it in war (if it's not REALLY horrible (and hey, whats REALLY horrible?!?))". Well, why shouldn't we trial ALL? Yeah, I know, it's not realistic blabla, but isn't better to take a stand and TRY do do right? So, ok, lots of peolpe wouldn't get trialed but it's no execuse for not trying do get as many as possible trialed! What about ex-Jugoslavia? If we follow that line no body there either should get trialed? Does anybody really think so?!? André Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgivney Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 Screw you, and screw your Nazi bastard grandfather too. Cheers, McGivney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncounio Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 Wait a second a 100DM bet how much in EURO ? Think the key is not far from locking this one up !! ------------------ Nicolas "Deux intellectuels assis vont moins loin qu'une brute qui marche" Un Taxi Pour Tobrouk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 Just for a bit of balance. The Geneva convention was put together by people who knew war very well, and realized that there was too much unnecessary killing of soldiers and innocents. To trivialize war crimes by claiming that they are "necessary" is dangerous. It IS a fact that some war crimes were committed by Allies and generally remained unpunished (but it is ludicrous to claim that the crimes were equal for both sides, and to give equal credence to facts established in trials and anecdotal evidence for which no documented proof was ever found). This does not change the fact that the Axis criminals who were punished deserved their punishment (and most were never prosecuted). There was no UN at the time (and even if there had been...), and justice could only be meted out by the victors. An important was sent out by the Nuremburg trials. Yes, it would have been better if criminals from both sides had been prosecuted, but we live in an imprefect world. Not prosecuting the criminals would have led to the proliferation of actions such as those by the British secret service, who sent a squad of executioners into Germany after WW2 to execute Germans who had tortured and killed British agents during the war. There were no trials. I ask you, is this better than a fair trial? It is understandable that in the heat of battle, men will sometimes act out of control, based on their training, and trials will take that into account (cosider the Mai Lai trials). The criminal mentality, in the army or elsewhere that "I have the gun and I am the law" is no more acceptable in the military than in civilian life. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochen2 Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 Two days ago, i had a discussion with my girlfriend about Saving Private Ryan. The fact, that this german soldier, the guys wanted to kill, did come back to the battlefield to fight against the american heros, is a question, wich makes me agressiv. My girlfriend said, that the goal in the war is, to kill and destroy the enemy. I said, if somebody had thrown away his weapon and gives up his resistance, it is a CRIME to kill him. I don´t care about any orders, political instructions, time periods or anything else - it is a CRIME. Believe me, my family had lost nearly everything in this damned WWII (like most Germans - not only money, but familymembers and at the end ... their selfrespect). To murder people (to kill a POW is murder) is still a crime - if there is an order for it or not. I´m very interested in the military history of the german wehrmacht and the Waffen SS, but what went wrong, went wrong - without any discussion. the Germans today are very, very sensibel to everything, wich goes against democratic laws, sometimes, they are more democratic then democratic - and, we know why. WE KNOW WHY!!!! And we (the germans) have learned a lot!!! So, there is no banning of books about the holocaust, there is even now proud to our army, our history, our culture - cause those 12 damned years under the leadership of a damned idiot throws still today a very big shadow over all "good things" of Germany. Whhhhuuuuuups, ....., you know what i wanna say. Stop this stupid discussion about the guilty - you all know the answer. Thanks to the Allied armis for fighting down Germany - that the goal of Hitler never was reached. I play CM, cause i´m interested in the fighting - this BIG FIGHT called WWII. I´m not interested in crimes, crualties... even if they are a part of every war. Greetings to all Jochen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 Henri, I agree totally. I am trying very hard not to read into people's posts and take what they say at face value. However, legally, logically, or morally, I can not understand two things. One, the claim that two wrongs (let both allied and German war criminal's go free) would make a right because it would not be "fair" to only try and convict some of the guilty parties. Most war crimes trails of Germans and Japanese were regarding large-scale atrocities that were the direct result of official civilian and/or military policy. No one ever tried to convict every individual German solider that shot a prisoner, raped a civilian etc. Yet this happened. Did Allied soldiers do these things? Yes. All of these acts are inexcusable. Did allied governments and/or military leaders order systemic war crimes? If they did, they were obviously not tried for them. In of itself, how can this excuse the actions of others? Second, I think that some people are being guilty of historical relativism. The vast difference in scale between any German and Allied atrocities makes it incompressible draw parallels between them. To blithely suggest that we should call it even belittles the actions of a totally reprehensible (not rather reprehensible) regime, nearly unique in human history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: I agree. HOWEVER it does have a bearing on the moral right of the Allies to try Germans for Malmedy WHILST AT THE SAME TIME refusing to try their own men for similar offences. THAT is my point... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At this point, Fionn, I think it is a good time to take stock and start asking you for some references----on the alleged US massacre incident prior to the Malmedy crossroads, on the Ike/Bradley op orders, etc. This isn't requested under some tone of accusation or disbelief; rather, I am curious to check your references someday, and I appreciate any response you offer here. There is a "niggle" fallacy to your assertion, however, that the Malmedy incident was inspired solely as revenge against an earlier US action. For one thing, one Ardennes reference I reviewed several years ago pointed to MULTIPLE incidents happening up & down the routes of advance for the SS units of 6th Panzer Army on the first days of the battle. The Malmedy crossroads was NOT an isolated incident. Did all of these tie to your noted US massacre incident? Maybe, but I'll decide only after my own review. And what of the villagers of the Malmedy village itself? Many of these died as a result of US bombs & shelling, but a distinct group of them were herded together and gunned down by 1st SS. Your point is well taken that "history written by the victors will usually put the angels to one side." I still recall Steve's earlier mention to the recent discovery of a mass grave of Waffen SS (17th SS Div?) in Germany, where a mass execution was apparently conducted by invading US troops in '45. But if (?) I perceive an assertion on your part that the "standard" conduct of the SS in WW2 (even just the Waffen SS) was "standard" for ALL other nation's troops at ALL times of WW2, then you MIGHT be starting to build a foundation on sand. I'm not prepared to validate or invalidate this view now, but again, my own judgement will come from my own cross-referencing rather than to any assertions made here on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stop this stupid discussion about the guilty - you all know the answer. ... I play CM, cause i´m interested in the fighting - this BIG FIGHT called WWII. I´m not interested in crimes, crualties... even if they are a part of every war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jochen, if you didn't want this sort of discussion then perhaps you shouldn't have posted a message with the header ALL IN CAPS OF "I AM NOT A MURDERER". Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochen2: My girlfriend said, that the goal in the war is, to kill and destroy the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well no, according to a US General friend of mine who did two tours in Vietnam and is a retired professor at West point, the purpose of battle is to NEUTRALIZE the enemy (which does not always require killing him), I presume that is what is being taught to officers today, not only at West Point, but everywhere. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 Wrong "Jochen" Joe. "Jochen2" is not a loon. chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 OK, time to lock this one up. The great "Waffen SS deabte" ALWAYS ends in polarized, and illinformed, "debate". Most people arguing in this thread really have only a superficial understanding of one of the most complex aspects of the 20th Century (and perhaps human history in general). Even though I spent 4 years in college getting a degree that says I know more about history than others, I am no fool and understand that the 2 or 3 dozen books on the SS/Waffen SS I own (most written critically) still doesn't make me an expert. It is a MASSIVELY complicated topic that has NO EASY SOUND BITE ANSWERS. Time to lock it up... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts