Fionn Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Once again Steve says what I was trying to say more eloquently than I could manage . Waffen-SS definitely tainted by association and joint memberships but definitely not quite as "evil" as some would have you believe (not that I'd much have liked being a civie in Belgium with them around *shudder* ). FWIW though I do think that comparison of what each side does lends a certain equanimity to evaluations and is a valid process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Hey! I feel sorry for the guy...Imagine Adolf Hitler going all the way to Italy just to burn down his mother´s house! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howitzer Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Hakku Ichiu wrote: quote: ...no matter how bravely or nobly individual Waffen-SS units fought, or how nice individual members of the SS were to dogs and little children, the entire organization is tainted at its root. The SS was the armed wing of the National Socialist German Workers' Party; they were thoroughly implicated in the Holocaust; any judgement as to the nature of the SS as an organization starts there. Anyone who doesn't believe that the NSDAP was all that bad, or that the Holocaust wasn't such a big deal has their own issues to face. Hakku: First, I agree the organization is tainted, but organizations are made up of people. It is just not possible to stick the a label on the SS and for all time ignore the fact the many of the men and indeed UNITS in the fighting arm of the SS served with valor and honor; not for a philosophy, but for their country. People join organizations for many reasons. Some join because they agree with the organization's philosophy, some join to be on the "winning" side at the time, some join because they feel it is their civic duty to serve in their country's "elite" or best fighting force, some join because their friends did, etc, etc. When it comes to organizations (as opposed to individuals) you CANNOT apply an all encompassing label. You can try, but it will fall off eventually. [bTW, regarding the goverment's "right" to censor license plates...the government is US. They have no rights we do not permit through law.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Funny how after April, 1945 you couldn't find a Nazi ANYWHERE in Germany. Not even in the Waffen SS! Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 That's cause they were all busy running to South America . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakko Ichiu Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Howitzer: Hakku: First, I agree the organization is tainted, but organizations are made up of people. It is just not possible to stick the a label on the SS and for all time ignore the fact the many of the men and indeed UNITS in the fighting arm of the SS served with valor and honor; not for a philosophy, but for their country.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I respectfully disagree. Sure organizations are made up of people, but they are by definition[\i] more than the simple aggregation of their members. They have doctrines, policies, systems, myths, shared values, etc., etc. It is entirely possible and entirely appropriate to label the SS as, as the Germans would say, das Ding an sich. And that thing is, as you say, tainted. Lets take another, less contentious, example. Imagine IBM in the early 70s. It was a bureaucratic, hierarchical, inflexible institution. Does the fact that several, even many, of the people working for IBM at the time were in fact entrepreneurial and dynamic change the nature of IBM at all -- especially in the way IBM was perceived by the outside world? As for the nature of individual members of the SS, that is practically beside the point. Furthermore, if they wanted to fight, as you say, "not for a philosophy, but for their country", what was to prevent any would be soldier from joining the Wehrmacht? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>People join organizations for many reasons. Some join because they agree with the organization's philosophy, some join to be on the "winning" side at the time, some join because they feel it is their civic duty to serve in their country's "elite" or best fighting force, some join because their friends did, etc, etc. When it comes to organizations (as opposed to individuals) you CANNOT apply an all encompassing label. You can try, but it will fall off eventually.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would submit that anyone who joined the SS had to subscribe to its organizational philosophy, because that philosophy, based as it was on Nazi conceptions of race, blood, and pseudo-pagan theology , was so beyond the bounds of the generally held Christian beliefs of most Germans. The SS was a quasi-religious army like the Ottoman Janissaries or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Sure, some joined the SS to facilitate their rise in the Nazi party ranks; but I wouldn't expect too much from a close examination of such persons' moral character. And some joined because their buddies did, but that just reminds me of the old saw about jumping off the Empire State Building because Jimmy Jones did it -- someone who is so easily led into something like the SS lacks moral fiber. Again, anyone wanting to fight for his country and qualified to join an elite unit could have found plenty in the Wehrmacht without all the pseudo-religious baggage of the SS. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[bTW, regarding the goverment's "right" to censor license plates...the government is US. They have no rights we do not permit through law.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, but the right to a vanity license plate is not enumerated in the Constitution. A driver's license was, is, and always will be a privilege (like serving in the armed forces), rather than a right (like the right to bear arms). It can be given and taken away at the discretion of government which, however much it may be representative, must operate day to day as an independent body governed by rules and procedures -- otherwise, there would have to be a referendum for every license plate issued. Furthermore, government has the long established and supported duty to uphold community standards, whatever they may be. You have no more right to an "offensive" vanity plate than the Unabomber has a right to have his manifesto published as a Chamber of Commerce pamphlet. Actually, your last sentence is quite inaccurate. The rights and powers accorded to the government are determined by the Constitution, not by some ephemeral opinion of a majority of voters. We, the people, can change the Constitution, but it takes a long time and a super-majority. Ethan ------------------ Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Ethan, have to say you are wrong about the reasons why guys joined up with the Waffen SS. I did a paper on this very topic I'll skip all the details, but in the end very few of the Waffen SS soldiers that fought in the last 2-3 years of the war were of the "Aryan blood" type, either in fact or in philosophy. It might surprise you to hear that the Waffen SS training largely ignored the philosophical racial stuff the more and more the war went on. The officers saw it as nonsense that didn't do squat to keep their soldiers alive and therefore it got lower priority as losses mounted. There simply wasn't time for such BS for a serious military formation. Also... much of the Waffen SS by the war's end were CONSCRIPTS, so they didn't choose jack squat In fact, the bulk of the 17th SS PzGrenadier divisions' refitting in late 1944 was made up of ex-Luftwaffe ground crews. They were transfered without any choice. So again I say that this is a VERY complex organization with lots of very contradictory elements within. Trying to make strong statements either in support or against the Waffen SS on moral issues is not constructive becaues it overlooks too many important issues. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 From my understanding, a lot of people thought that the SS uniforms were cool, and I think that they pay was much better too? Little stuff like prestige, honour, etc. drew individuals into the Waffen SS. It was comparable to being a part of the French Imperial Guard. Perks galore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Just scrolling through here again... Hakko Ichiu: On the first page you didn't comment about the Red Army. AHEM! KATYN FOREST ANYONE? Sorry about that. Just had to get it out of my system. ------------------ Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn. Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Hmm, I am bored and feel like opening another can of worms Someone earlier on mentioned that the Wehrmacht was untainted. There is actually quite a stir going on about this very topic in Germany now. Throughout the last year, two or three, an exhibition about Wehrmacht involvement in the Endlösung, and the systematic slaughter of civilians in Russia has toured Germany. It has done a lot to create a debate about the role of the Wehrmacht and its part in the NS state in Germany, as far as I could observe from abroad. FWIW, I guess the Waffen SS will forever (and should be) tainted by what happened in Oradour-sur-Glarne. http://www.ualberta.ca/~dreinbol/oradourindex.html I can not remember ever hearing of Western allies committing something similar. And I don't think that 'war is bad, **** happens' should be stretched to cover things like this. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Germanboy, I just read a book about that titled "War For an Afternoon". I am with you 100%. War is hell...don't take it out on civilians...especially doing that to them. ------------------ Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn. Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Oh boy Oradour sur Glane... A great little piece of propaganda. What about the German soldiers who were butchered by partisans in that area that day? The mutilations and torture after capture were conveniently avoided by the author of the piece here eh? Frankly, any village which supports partisans makes itself a target for reprisals. A village can't expect to allow partisan activity to occur unreported in its midst and then be seen as an innocent entity when reprisals are taken. FWIW it was considered quite normal and part of war to take and execute a representative sample of a civilian population which was suspected of helping the enemy or guerillas. All sides did it in WW I and all sides who fought for long periods in enemy territory did it during WW2 also. People who go on and on about "war crimes" should get a grip and look a little deeper into the CONTEXT within which those crimes occured. Very often highlighted warcrimes occured because of unusual stresses impacting the soldiers just prior to the warcrime being committed. US soldiers found their comrades MGed by Peiper and basically didn't take prisoners for a long time. What is often not mentioned is that the Germans found some of THEIR OWN MEN shot dead by Americans after they had surrendered earlier in the day and so were ill-disposed towards prisoners at that time. But the US reaction is often seen as understandable while the context of the German reaction is conveniently not mentioned. The statement that it is war and **** happens on all sides IS, in my opinion, central to the argument... I react badly to any singling out of a specific organisation because all too often it is accompanied by a bland blindness to the reality of all-encompassing nature of similar actions. Hell, if a village was sheltering guerillas who shot and/or tortured to death and mutilated some of my men I'd take out all the menfolk and ensure no male partisan group could EVER operate from that village again. "Oradour sur Glane" wasn't an entirely innocent community. It suits them to paint themselves as such but I'm quite sure they knew a fair bit about partisans in the area and either openly or tacitly supported them. By the rules of war, as I understand them, this could be argued to make them a viable target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heibis Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Hell, almost any branch of German state were part of the final solution. An example: Deutsche Reichsbahn, the mighty german railways which transported the CC victims to their destinations was a major part of this, even if they did not directly participate in the killings. They did a major job by moving the prisoners to their camps. I think one has to see the difference between organizations and individuals. An individual is merely doing his or hers job, and see nothing wrong with that. As a member of W-SS, you would only do what was expected of you. If this turns out to be a crime against humanity you would not know, only hindsight can prove that. For a soldier to obey an order is much more easy than to refuse it, and only after the war the argument of "just following orders" proved to be not valid. It is now generally established (in some armies anyway) that you have the right to refuse orders if you find them to be criminal. For a soldier or an officer of the third reich to disobey orders was unthinkable (not counting the moustached corporal's scorched earth policy late in the war). We shall never forget those who died in the camps, but to put the blame on W-SS is no way to understand WHY it happened. Jens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Oh boy Oradour sur Glane... A great little piece of propaganda. What about the German soldiers who were butchered by partisans in that area that day? The mutilations and torture after capture were conveniently avoided by the author of the piece here eh? Frankly, any village which supports partisans makes itself a target for reprisals. A village can't expect to allow partisan activity to occur unreported in its midst and then be seen as an innocent entity when reprisals are taken. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fionn, you can not be serious! Men, maybe as reprisals. Women and children? Those pesky French six-year olds, a real threat to the Wehrmacht? I am not even going to argue with you if you think that is acceptable behaviour on the part of combattants. ------------------ Andreas [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 03-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 Let's clear up a few things here. In no way shape or form am I completely blaming the Waffen SS for what happened in Auschwitz, etc. Also Fionn, there were no partisans in Oradour. And why would you take an ENTIRE village and destroy it? That would just make the resistance all the more mad and in the result, you'd lose more men as you went on. Burning women in a church? Doesn't sound all that soldierlike to me. ------------------ Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn. Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howitzer Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 (a) What Steve said. ( Hakko: I agree that there is no "right" in the constitution regarding driving, etc. But, neither are there rights regarding riding a bicycle, or walking between two towns; I don't need a license to do either (where I live at any rate). I live by the law our government lays down, and if a law is wrong (in my opinion) I'll fight to change it. But, I will not lay down and worship the law, nor look to the governement for my salvation. © Regarding the SS. I will not condemn the men who served in it as a group. I will condemn individuals, and actions and philosophies. Condemning a group is, in simple terms, exactly how Hitler inspired a nation to kill. He "labeled" others (jews and others) as bad, root causes of Germany's woes and the people followed his lead. (d) Hakko: I leave you with this question...Should SS vets (and I mean waffen-ss soldiers, not concentration camp butchers) be proud of the service to their country? Steve C. [This message has been edited by Howitzer (edited 03-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 D'oh! Double post deleted. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 03-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heibis: Hell, almost any branch of German state were part of the final solution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that was exactly the point of the exhibition, but I haven't seen it, so if somebody did, please comment. Many Germans after the war subscribed to the 'clean war' idea, that the Wehrmacht was essentially good, just following orders. The baddies were always the Nazis, not the Germans, and as has been pointed out here before, after '45 there were no Nazis in Germany . So therefore society could absolve itself of any guilt very easily. Regardless of the factual accuracy of the exhibition, I think it is good that it has opened up a debate about the involvement of almost all parts of society in the crimes against humanity committed by Germans, if only by looking away or by defending to the last. FWIW, I agree with Fionn that this is a complex debate and that context is very important. I just think that it is better to debate these issues in a civil society than to hide behind smoke screens and propaganda, as was done in Germany until quite recently about the role of the Wehrmacht. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 Clarification: When I said Oradour could be considered to be a viable target by virtue of at least tacit acceptance of partisan activity I didn't mean that the entire village should be wiped out. I would have no problem with the men being shot since they could, conceivably, serve with partisan forces and certainly many were aware of the activities and identities of partisans in the surrounding country. Women are, obviously, off limits unless the partisan force actively recruits and consists of large numbers of women. Children are always off limits obviously. You'll note that in my post I made it clear that if I felt a partisan group was operating from a specific village that I would take the MENFOLK out. I limited this to menfolk. Be sure to read what I write before launching into any condemnations k? Germanboy, IMO any village which supported partisans was free game for reprisals. That those reprisals should ONLY fall on the men of the village (unless women were active in the partisan forces) was a point so obvious that I didn't feel it needed stating. Since you and others don't seem to take it as read I'll say it clearly. Unless it can be shown that women are active in the partisan force (such as in instances in Russia etc) reprisals should fall ONLY on men of military age obviously. Sos, Why would I take an entire village and destroy it? Well, if that village was supporting partisans who were taking a steady toll on my lines of supply and communications and reinforcements and limiting my ability to move tactically and strategically I would feel that ANY village or people supporting them were, in fact, acting against the best interests of my soldiers and division and would act to neutralise such a threat. If I could deport the civies from the village I'd do that. If not, I'd crack down hard on anyone who could even remotely be a partisan. In the long run this sort of action is necessary and is recognised to be so by all armies. If you look into it in any detail you'll see that ANY captured partisans can be summarily executed without trial since it is ILLEGAL to bear arms against an army when not in the uniform of a sovereign nation ( generally speaking of course). Oradour certainly wasn't a high point of the Waffen-SS and the killing of women was definitely uncalled for but I don't think that the idea of a "reprisal" against the village was "evil". I think it was simply the way things were done in those days and, during those days, many armies had exactly the same policy regarding partisans as the Germans practiced in France. The "evil" that day was in the fact that unecessary killing went on among the women and children. And that was more due to the soldiers getting carried away than any deliberate policy ( we all probably know examples of Allied combatants locking Axis troops up in barns or houses and grenading or burning them to death too (just to give a comparison here again). ) If anyone wants to explain to me how British policy was different during the Boer war, Russian policy different during and after the 2nd World War etc etc I'd love to hear it My point here again isn't to make the Waffen-SS or Heer out to be brilliant and "white knights". my point is simply that my opinion is that they and all other armies and armed groups were "grey". They all performed atrocities and outrages but since the victors write the histories the Allied ones aren't much mentioned. I am continually surprised by the number of German veteran and US or UK veteran accounts which include stories of German soldiers being shot while surrendering or being shot after surrendering. Go read some first person accounts and realise that MOST men on all sides were pretty decent human beings and that, since they were all pretty decent human beings and husbands, fathers, sons etc they sometimes made very serious errors and did things we now would think are terrible. In most cases these guys went back to their civie lives after the war and never committed a violent act again (highlighting the importance of context). In some cases though you obviously have units which were just criminal (Dirlewanger (sic?) etc) and those very singular units can be justly condemned in isolation. To condemn the Waffen-SS in isolation and ignorance of the context is flawed IMO. I think the only rational course is to either take the viewpoint that: a) all sides must be condemned in general equally but that certain small units can be singled out for particular condemnation ( a regt or division-sized unit for example... Something the size and breadth of the Waffen-SS can't simply be generally condemned especially by people who don't even understand that by 1944 the majority of new Waffen-SS members were conscripts or transferred in from the Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine with no choice in the matter.) b. that one cannot condemn any side in general since war can make men do terrible things and that only the WORST EXCESSES can be condemned on a case by case and a per individual basis. E.g. Instead of condemning the Waffen-SS for Oradour choose to condemn the officer who got the idea of locking the women in a church and burning it to the ground. Surely it was HIS fault this happened and not the Waffen-SS'? Whatever your answer to the question I pose above I'd like to caution you to replace the word Waffen-SS with the word society and apply the same question to all the school shootings that go on in America. Ask it again in this new context. I bet it is not so easy to answer now is it? Welcome to the world of seeing things in context and in different lights . Ps. FWIW I believe that it isn't really right for us to generally condemn entire armies or divisions based on the actions of a few individuals during a terrible war. I think that it is more fitting to feel pity for all the men who didn't accept surrenders in those terrible conditions ( I'd find it a terrible psychological burden to know I cut a surrendering man's life short.) but only truly condemn those whose actions were "out of scale" to the context in which they occured. (that word context appears again because it lies at the crux of the matter IMO). Anyways, this is a nice discussion. let's all just remember its a discussion of issues and viewpoints ok and lets hope it doesn't degenerate into name-calling since I don't think that will do anyone's views any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howitzer Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 Well said, Fionn. Steve C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 Fionn, I am glad about the clarification, I was getting a bit worried here. I am sure that if you go back and reread your post, you will understand how some of us here got the wrong impression of where you are coming from. I still think that it is wrong to compare the killing of civilians with the killing of POWs, which went on on all sides, as you rightly say. While it surely is the direct fault of the officer who gave the order in Oradour, ask yourself what would have happened if the CO in charge of a US Paratroop unit had given the same order in a German village: - would the soldiers have carried it out? - if they did, would he have been removed from his post by his superiors and faced a court-martial? I would say that in the WWII US army, the answer to both these questions is a yes. And this is where the organisation Waffen SS has to face responsibility, for accepting, if not encouraging such actions on the part of its unit commanders. To say that Oradour wasn't a high-point and that soldiers got carried away is a bit weak for what happened there, I find. It was an atrocious crime, and every soldier involved in it should have been locked up for good. As you can see from the article on the website I linked in earlier, the officers in charge came of scot-free even in post-war Germany, and that is something I feel ashamed about as a German. How it compares to the Boer war, well I live in England and I am continually amazed by the belief that the moral high ground is occupied by the English, but I don't think that is the issue here. The important thing is that over 40 years later, in WWII, the British army was no longer doing this. Bomber Command is a different issue. Just to put that into context We all know that the US Cavalry does not exactly have a spotless issue when it comes to genocide either, but that is also quite irrelevant here, I find. Personally, I don't think that every soldier in the Waffen SS is a criminal, and I don't think that the Allies were choir boys either. But the organisation Waffen SS allowed things to happen that were unthinkable and unheard of in the US and British, and even the Canadian armies of WWII. Again, killing POWs does not count in my book. So, in the context of WWII, I would argue that the organisation Waffen SS is tainted. That does not mean that I think every member should automatically be locked up. But I refuse to accept, and I think it would be an insult to most vets in the allied armies to say, that the Waffen SS was their equal in terms of behaviour. FWIW, I don't think we will agree on the issue, but I would appreciate if you could see that one can have a different opinion on the matter even AFTER taking context into consideration. So to give you an idea of where I am coming from, here are some things I think are covered by 'War is war and **** happens': - Pearl Habour - Shooting POWs short time after a fire-fight (unless done as official policy and on large scale) - civilian casualties in besieged cities or during street-fighting - bombing Kassel/Schweinfurt, other industrial targets - dumping the atom bomb on Hiroshima And exampes of what is not: - carpet bombing Dresden in Feb.45 or Worms in March 45 - Oradour - enslaving civilians (e.g. Poles and Russians) - using children as soldiers - mines disguised as toys Just food for thought. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary T Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 I don't normally get involved in (what are usually) these sort of discussions mainly because everyone already has their opinion and no amount of discussion will change them. However, Fionn, how can you say Oradour was 'a great piece of propaganda'? To call it such implies it did not happen or has been exaggerated in some way. Whereas your observations of shooting of surrendering prisoners etc by all armies in battle I agree with there are enormous differences where non-combatants are concerned. What you are advocating by shooting (without any trial whatsoever) all innocent or otherwise men in a village is unjustified murder. Just exactly how are the innocent villagers meant to stop the partisans form operating? Would the British Army in Northern Ireland be justified in going into every Catholic home and shooting dead on the streets every Catholic male, guilty or otherwise? I cna't believe you would support that. As Sos says such an attitude is completely and utterly counter productive anyway. There is no doubt in my mind that the Waffen-SS in particular was more inclined than either its Wehrmacht counterparts or its opponents, with the possible exception of the Red Army, to commit these sort of crimes. That is not to say that the W-SS always acted this way or that the Allies/Wehrmacht didn't. Indeed the Wehrmacht in Russia certainly did. But in Western Europe the Wehrmacht certainly did not eliminate every village/town when one of its members was killed by the local resistance. At Ascq in March 1944 when a train carrying SS-Aufkl. Abt. 12 was derailed (with no casualties) the men of this unit went on the rampage and summarily shot 86 innocent people who had the misfortune of living near to the station. Similar overzealousness was reported when LAH went to Italy in 1943. What causes soldiers to act in a such way?All soldiers from all armies WILL act in this way if they are allowed to (even against their own population). The key is if they are allowed to. The Wehrmacht behaved badly in Russia, but generally stuck to the rules in Western Europe, the reason being they were told from the beginning of the Russian campaign that a blind eye would be turned against crimes committed. No such tolerance was implemented in the west. This leaves me with the conclusion that somewhere within the Waffen-SS psyche, and it doesn't have to be within the minds of every conscript just the officers/SNCO's, was a more brutal and ruthless streak than existed in the minds of their Wehrmacht colleagues. The reasons for that? Well....I won't even go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 Fionn, thank you for the clarification. I can definitely see your point in deporting the villagers or capturing (or killing , TO a certain degree, after trial when they are found guilty) the menfolk. I'm sorry if it sounded real bad the first time I replied to you, but the Polish blood gets stirred when I hear "SS" and "civilians" and "shot". I indeed think the guys who got the ideas should be held responsible, but also those who followed the orders (willingly) to a degree. I have to agree I don't like your phrasing Oradour as a "great piece of propaganda". I also admit that yes, there were Polish units who did shoot SS prisoners. However, the 1st Independent Polish Parachute Brigade never shot a single POW. Sort of off the Germans here, but why'd the USSR shoot all the Poles at Katyn? Sorry if I sounded irrational, but just my opinion with the first message. Thanks Gary T for your message. Didn't bombing civilians work against the Luftwaffe in BOB and against us later? So much for weakening the morale ------------------ Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn. Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member! [This message has been edited by Gen. Sosaboski (edited 03-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Schuggerbaby Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 Originally posted by Fionn: Oh boy Oradour sur Glane... A great little piece of propaganda. Hello Fionn Frankly, any village which supports partisans makes itself a target for reprisals. A village can't expect to allow partisan activity to occur unreported in its midst and then be seen as an innocent entity when reprisals are taken. I think the partizan problem in this extent was a very new problem with which the soldiers where confrontated. But even if the allies excecuted german POW's in stress situations, i see a great difference between this fact and the organized eradication of whole settlements. After all, did the villagers had any choice? How should the hinder some partizans to set up an ambush or to hide in their houses. If they did, they were all treated as colaborateurs and who should save them from reprisals at the hand of the partizans? The Civilians were the weakest in any conflict and they suffered always the greatest losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All American Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 Truthfully, I think this argument about Oradour sur Glane is a waste of everyone's time. The problem with this argument is it revolves around how occupying soldiers are supposed to deal with partisans. The problem is noone really knows the answer. Partisans wear civilian clothes and hide their weapons so it's hard to know who is and who isn't a partisan. So what is an occuplying force supposed to so when they are attacked by partisans and none of these partisans were captured? The US army in Vietnam tried being nice to villages and helping them. This didn't stop these villages from helping the VC. The occupying force could try to get an inside man into the partisan group but this could take months or years and during this time, more casualties would be sustained by the occupying force. The occupying army could set up a trap for the partisans but they probably wouldn't get all of the partisans and also other partisans may not have entered the trap in the first place. Another idea would be for every soldier/vehicle/equipment killed/destroyed or damaged/stolen or destroyed so many civilians would be executed. However, this may only enrage the partisans and make them more determined. The only other possible solution is to wipe out everyone who could be a partisan meaning all civilians. The problem is there is no good choice among these possible solutions. While I agree that the Waffen-SS were more likely to be more brutal then the Whercmacht I wouldn't say every soldier in the Waffen-SS were pure evil. The truth is the officer corps of the Waffen-SS were much more likely to be Nazis rather then just someone who wanted to fight for their country. These officers would probably put less restrictions on their soldiers and allow them to be brutal and maybe even encourage it. Anyway, my point is the reason why the Waffen-SS murdered all the civilians was probably because of a) more likely to have more brutal officers fellow soldiers had been captured and mutilated which enraged the Waffen-SS soldiers c) lack of a more effective choice (not to say this one was the best of the ones I have posted) All American ------------------ perviously known as Kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts