SS Bashing

[painfbat]

He's also known as AH, but I "like" the HH (= Holocaust Hitler) best.

Cheers

[painfbat]

= = = It's also interesting, why people from Estonia, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Croatia etc. joined the SS = = =

I'm no expert, but about the Dutch:

Besides the fact that many were National Socialists, there were many who joint out off anti-communism(the main German propaganda and to protect christianity, some went for the adventure, etc. many reasons. For example the well known Gerard Mooyman came from a poor family, living in an area were there were no jobs, and the SS gave him the change of a militairy career and an officer-position(He was 17 years old when he joined). After the war he admitted he was wrong, found himself guilty for the holocaust and gave away his medals. He was also punished by the Government for joining a foreign army during wartime, but as far as I know was never involved with warcrimes.

One should also not forget that in the early days many joined to fight the communists and were promised they would fight as a Dutch Armee, under the Dutch flag and Dutch officers. Suprise, suprise, that didn't happen. Therefore many who joint the early days came home very soon(before finnishing basic training) when they found out they would fight under the German flag.

Besides that many Dutch volunteers also joint the Kriegsmarine, also joint as lorrydrivers, construction workers and farmers in the East. Mostly to find they were used as POW-guards and to fight partisans.

Now, for whatever reason people joint, what I find most disturbing is the fact that many, many, young German boys were brainwashed from the day they were born, like many other regimes did and still do, and didn't knew better. I'm sure many off them didn't commit war-crimes. And, like Andreas said before, also many boys were drafted at the end of the war.

Is the SS a criminal organisation? YES

Are all the men who served within the ranks criminals. I think not, it should be judged per case and depends on the fact if a person commited war-crimes etc. or not. It is to easy to say "ok, he was brainwashed since he was born, we'll give him his own tree to hang".

Cheers,

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Pandur:

i think the biggest problem here is that I make no difference inside the "human race".

And I don't believe in guardian angels. That doesn't take me very far in understanding someone who believes in them, though. "There are no guardian angels, so this religious person can't really believe in them either. Let's just say that he believes in fortune."

Regardless, Hitler and his following most definately saw the tall, blonde Germans (like Hitler, eh, uhmm I mean Goebbels, uh... ) a superior race to Slavs, and Jews the greatest threat to their racial purity. All that Übermensch stuff etc. That's called racism. All in all, a flawed world view, but what can you do.

[JasonC]

"but what can you do"

You can kill them, that's what you can do.

[Pandur]

And I don't believe in guardian angels. That doesn't take me very far in understanding someone who believes in them, though. "There are no guardian angels, so this religious person can't really believe in them either. Let's just say that he believes in fortune."

thats why i said "tricked into thinking..."

i just try to make clear that "normaly" recism isnt "connected" to übermenschen, tall blond germans(he brought that up out of the nordic mythology, like the sig rune too) and jews, but to any kind of bad action wich someone can do against someone else with different race(black, white, red,...) nationallity or sometimes religion even if they live in the same country(for most people race). you make it sound as germany invented racism.

however i dont say someone did good or bad, i try make clear that i try to be in between.

but it seems everyone takes me for a nazi :mad:

what can i do ...

[undead reindeer cavalry]

it never fails to impress me how people want & love to believe in anti-rational illogical nonsense, how they hold pure limitless hypocricy so dearly close to their hearts. it's not surprising why some mentally ill people believe that mankind is cursed by a God to live a sinful life without sense for truth or decency.

[Runyan99]

Machiavelli wrote;

"All those who have written on civil institutions demonstrate (and history is full of examples to support them) that whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it. If their evil disposition remains concealed for a time, it must be attributed to some unknown reason, and we must assume that it lacked occasion to show itself; but time, which has been said to be the father of all truth, does not fail to bring it to light."

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"but what can you do"

You can kill them, that's what you can do.

So, we should just kill any perceived racist that we encounter? Shall we shoot them in the street?

I feel compelled to ask why you maintain such a fierce stance on topics such as this. Are you of Jewish or Russian descent? Did some relative(s) of yours die during the Second World War at the hands of the Nazis? It would explain things a bit.

[phil102]

From the judgement of the IMT on the criminality of the SS

"Conclusions: The SS was utilised for the purposes which were criminal under the Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave labour programme and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war. The defendant Kaltenbrunner was a member of the SS implicated in these activities. In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende and the members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS. The Tribunal does not include the so-called SS riding units. The Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsfuehrer SS (commonly known as the SD) is dealt with in the Tribunal's Judgment on the Gestapo and SD.

Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organisation with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter or who were personally implicated as members of the organisation in the commission of such crimes, excluding, however, those who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who had committed no such crimes. The basis of this finding is the participation of the organisation in war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with the war; this group declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to belong to the organisations enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to 1st September, 1939. "

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judorg.htm#ss

for an informed discussion on the criminality of the SS see http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=46013

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by phil102:

for an informed discussion

That hardly seems relevant here.

Besides which, the link you provide only has two guys arguing semantics; no conclusion is reached.

[phil102]

That hardly seems relevant here.

lol - yeah I agree

Besides which, the link you provide only has two guys arguing semantics; no conclusion is reached

True, but it does not take much effort to find a whole lot more relevant information on linked and related threads on that forum. One just has to make the effort to look. Surely interested people do not need to be spoon fed!

[LongLeftFlank]

(Briefly scans EXTREMELY deep and muddy rut on dead end trail leading to bottomless swamp, passes bog check, reverses the heck out of there)

[JasonC]

Oh, I'm so fierce about it. Those maintaining that Nazis are fluffy bunnies aren't at all delusional.

Ad hominem arguments tend to work marginally better as rhetoric when the one employing them isn't guessing, grasping at straws, and hopelessly wide of the mark. They don't actually work as arguments, ever, but we knew that. Not that you actually meant it.

Nazis appeal from justice to violence, I accept the appeal and advocate killing them. It is a perfectly straightforward transaction, without the slightest complexity, which transpires a couple of miles below good and evil. They've nothing whatever to complain about. They ask for it, they receive it, then they rot and the worms eat them. Worms you see are a superior lifeform, a fitter race, with greater evolutionary potential than the blond blockhead murderers they consume. It's nature, don't you know.

[ng cavscout]

But worms don't build sexy tanks like the Tiger or sexy planes like the Me-262. Worms don't wear keen black uniforms with silver piping, nor do they have large breasted blonde women in Octoberfest waitress outfits, otherwise, they would be loved just like the Nazi's are.

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Oh, I'm so fierce about it. Those maintaining that Nazis are fluffy bunnies aren't at all delusional.

Exactly. Whenever someone starts a thread like this, you seem to jump to the conclusion that Nazi sympathizers abound here and you must hold back the tide - personally. I've only seen this behavior with Jews and other groups targetted by the Third Reich, or(among Americans, at least) descendants of slain veterans. I'm not trying to antagonize, just understand.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i guess hate-speech crowds are run by an inner need to "form tribal lines". we still are just damned apes looking for an excuse to express our tribal nature, like chimps gathering to patrol the outer edges of their territory. the reasons we give ourselves for our hateful tribal needs & deeds are just phony & petty excuses devoid of consistent rational reasoning.

[JasonC]

Navscout - Italians make better suits these days. Hotter women too. Then there is the food.

[JasonC]

URD - actually my attitude is the pinnacle of reason and based on the foundation of rationalism. And I can prove it with chapter and verse (lol).

There is nothing original in the Nietzschean cynicism of the Nazis. In Plato, it gets its strongest spokesman in the form of Callicles in the dialogue the Gorgias.

"S - Please restate your position for me from the begining. What is it that you and Pindar hold to be true of what's just by nature? That the superior should take by force what belongs to the inferior, that the better should rule the worse and the worthy have a greater share than the less worthy? You're not saying anything else, are you? I do remember correctly?

C - Yes, that's what I was saying then, and I still say it now, too.

S - Is it the same man you call both 'better' and 'superior'? I wasn't able then, either, to figure out what you meant. Is it the stronger ones you call superior, and should those who are weaker take orders from the one who's stronger? That's what I think you were trying to show then also, when you said that large cities attack small ones according to what's just by nature, because they are superior and stronger, assuming that superior, stronger, and better are the same. Or is it possible for one to be better and also inferior and weaker, or greater but more wretched? Or do better and superior have the same definition? Please define this for me clearly. Are superior, better, and stronger the same or are they different?

C - Very well, I'm telling you clearly that they're the same.

S - Now aren't the many superior by nature to the one? They're the ones who in fact impose the laws upon the one, as you were saying yourself a moment ago.

C - Of course.

S - So the rules of the many are the rules of the superior.

C - Yes, they are.

S - And aren't the rules of these people admirable by nature, seeing that they're the superior ones?

C - That's my view.

S - Now, isn't it a rule of the many that it's just to have an equal share and that doing what's unjust is more shameful than suffering it, as you yourself were saying a moment ago? Is this so or not? Be careful that you in your turn don't get caught being ashamed now. Do the many observe or do they not observe the rule that it's just to have an equal and not a greater share, and that doing what's unjust is more shameful than suffering it? Don't grudge me your answer to this, Callicles, so that if you agree with me I may have my confirmation from you, seeing that it's the agreement of a man competent to pass judgmengt.

C - All right, the many do have that rule.

S - It's not only by law, then, that doing what's unjust is more shameful than suffering it, or just to have an equal share, but it's so by nature too...

Gorgias 488b-489b.

Many = stronger. No claims against them run, unless based on a real or imagined *moral* superiority. Toss morality out the window and appeal to force, and the many win automatically.

At the pinnacle of reason, and known for 2500 years. So when some knot of immoral idiots appoint themselves "superior" based on pure wind and indifference to morality, blow the living crap out of them, problem solved. Show them what rule of the stronger really means, because they are utter fools if they think it means them.

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by JasonC:

So when some knot of immoral idiots appoint themselves "superior" based on pure wind and indifference to morality, blow the living crap out of them, problem solved. Show them what rule of the stronger really means, because they are utter fools if they think it means them.

I find your choice of words ironic, and I don't see how they can be applied, except during war. Otherwise, you're advocating murder.

Suddenly, I'm reminded of a line I once read on a T-shirt: "Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them."

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by JasonC:

URD - actually my attitude is the pinnacle of reason and based on the foundation of rationalism.

if your attitude would be based on reason, not alone be a pinnacle of one, you would apply consistent reasons as a base for your output on the given context.

So when some knot of immoral idiots appoint themselves "superior" based on pure wind and indifference to morality, blow the living crap out of them, problem solved. Show them what rule of the stronger really means, because they are utter fools if they think it means them.

how would you rate the Irony Factor for the above quote? i would rate it: the highest possible.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Navscout - Italians make better suits these days. Hotter women too. Then there is the food.

IMO Israelis fare a lot better if we are to give Aesthetic Nazi Points to modern day equivalents. their technical, tactical and feline female attractiveness is simply astonishing.

[JasonC]

URD - my reasons are entirely consistent. I give people exactly what they ask for. If they say morality is a crock, for them it is a crock and they have no appeal to it. If they say they recognize only the law of the jungle, tear them apart with red tooth and red claw. They ask, they receive, the worms rejoice.

If they say one thing and do another, say whatever you please and treat them as their actions dictate, ignoring their words. If they say morality is the highest principle and act like it, morality is the highest principle when dealing with them. It is a military alliance of the just against all others, not a suicide pact.

[Inola]

Some days ago I saw interview of one member of SS legion. He was from one of Benelux counties (cant remember correct). When he was asked, “why did you join SS?” he answered “I went to Easter front to fight with bolshevism. I hate ideology, making brainwash”. He told it with so bravery face, with so confidence.

And at that time I wanted to ask him-“Hitler was just a choir boy, he never killed anybody, and never ordered to do it? He never used brainwash? And Osvencim, Darhau, Treblinka were just a chance?”

They really didn’t, understand at that time, what fascism was? They thought, they do well, taking people to gas cameras, shooting innocents into back of head in trenches –one line on the other?

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"S - Please restate your position for me from the begining. What is it that you and Pindar hold to be true of what's just by nature? That the superior should take by force what belongs to the inferior, that the better should rule the worse and the worthy have a greater share than the less worthy? You're not saying anything else, are you? I do remember correctly?

C - Yes, that's what I was saying then, and I still say it now, too.

S - Is it the same man you call both 'better' and 'superior'? I wasn't able then, either, to figure out what you meant. Is it the stronger ones you call superior, and should those who are weaker take orders from the one who's stronger? That's what I think you were trying to show then also, when you said that large cities attack small ones according to what's just by nature, because they are superior and stronger, assuming that superior, stronger, and better are the same. Or is it possible for one to be better and also inferior and weaker, or greater but more wretched? Or do better and superior have the same definition? Please define this for me clearly. Are superior, better, and stronger the same or are they different?

C - Very well, I'm telling you clearly that they're the same.

S - Now aren't the many superior by nature to the one? They're the ones who in fact impose the laws upon the one, as you were saying yourself a moment ago.

C - Of course.

S - So the rules of the many are the rules of the superior.

C - Yes, they are.

S - And aren't the rules of these people admirable by nature, seeing that they're the superior ones?

C - That's my view.

S - Now, isn't it a rule of the many that it's just to have an equal share and that doing what's unjust is more shameful than suffering it, as you yourself were saying a moment ago? Is this so or not? Be careful that you in your turn don't get caught being ashamed now. Do the many observe or do they not observe the rule that it's just to have an equal and not a greater share, and that doing what's unjust is more shameful than suffering it? Don't grudge me your answer to this, Callicles, so that if you agree with me I may have my confirmation from you, seeing that it's the agreement of a man competent to pass judgmengt.

C - All right, the many do have that rule.

S - It's not only by law, then, that doing what's unjust is more shameful than suffering it, or just to have an equal share, but it's so by nature too...

Gorgias 488b-489b.

That's all wonderful, but it doesn't define that which is just, and that which is unjust. And as I've argued with you before, nobody agrees on what is just and unjust when it comes to the really big questions.

For example, the right of the Israeli state to exist, and the act of defending it. The Isrealis naturally feel it is just. The Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs clearly believe it is unjust, and feel perfectly justified in trying to destroy the Jewish state.

Who is right? How can you tell?

Personally, I respect JasonC's clear willingness to stamp out evil (unjustness?) when he sees it. I expect any rational actor to behave in a manner that defends his own interests. I certainly believe the same things with respect to foreign policy.

I just think he willingly fails to concede the philosphical point that the strong ultimately are the ones who judge what is 'just' and what is 'unjust'. Those who think themselves Just, and yet are slain, have no voice. Only the victors will speak.

[Yushal]

I dont know if he fails to concede your so-called point or not. I certainly dont.

Put simply, this "point" seems to state that truth is only what we (whoever we may be) say it is.

And actually, most people do agree on what is just and what is unjust, I think. Take two of the most basic rules of mankind, which I believe you will find stated in any major system of morality:

A. Do unto others...

B. An eye for an eye.

IF NOT A THEN B

JasonC's operatus seems to follow directly from the above.

BTW, the only irony I find in this thread is that logic is the finest fruit of Empiricism, yet lends itself to definition of morality, while Empiricism itself remain amoral...