Why the Waffen-SS

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Freikorps, Reichswehr, Austrian Bundesheer, Heer, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Fallschirmjäger and the other Luftwaffe ground forces. Hosted by Christoph Awender.
Post Reply
dshaday
Member
Posts: 628
Joined: 29 Dec 2013, 19:57

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1561

Post by dshaday » 28 May 2016, 15:09

Hi
ML59 wrote: If you do not acknowledge the evil "criminal" nature of the SS and pretend to deal with them as any other purely military organization not only you make a major historical mistake but, in this contest even more important, you completely fail to grasp the intimate soul of the Black Corps and all its ramifications.

Of course the SS was not a purely military organisation. The General SS had various branches, one of which called the Waffen SS, had a particular military focus. As the war progressed, this focus increased (ignoring this is a historical mistake).

Why is there an issue with readers having an interest in the military aspect of the Waffen SS, eg foreign volunteers, conflict with the Heer, recruiting, irony, human tragedy etc ? You can do this AND still appreciate its ideological roots in the General SS and the evil, immoral political ideology. I see no problem.

What I do see, too often, is posters going out of their way to exaggerate in vilifying/disparaging the Waffen SS (even bordering on fantasy). These historical mistakes should not be ignored on this forum, but corrected.

Dennis

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1562

Post by Michael Kenny » 28 May 2016, 16:32

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:


Lt Col Hal McCown, US Army, testified that Jochen Peiper and his Waffen SS men provided equal succour and treatment to wounded US POWs at La Gleize, at a time when supplies and the general state of the battle were precarious for Peiper's formation. He further stated that the general conduct of the waffen SS at La Gleize was professional and honourable at all times.

Duel In The Mist:


Stoumont

Hans Hillig, who was accused of murder during the Malmedy
Trial, stated:
"In the early part of the afternoon of the 19th December 1944,
the following happened. If one travels from LA GLEIZE to
STOUMONT there stands a bouse on the left side of the road just
as one reaches the edge of STOUMONT. Around the house is a
garden which is surrounded by a hedge about 1.20 meters high.
I was told by Untersturmfuhrer Krausse to park behind this
house that is, behind the hedge. We were standing there for
about one-half hour at this place, when I received from
Untersturmfuhrer Krausse the order to gather up in one pile all
enemy weapons and ammunition; the available crew of my
vehicle was to help me. Suddenly I heard Sturmbannfuhrer
Peiper shout, 'Hillig, get that prisoner.' I knew where the prisoner
was because once before I had executed an order from Peiper at
which time I saw the prisoner. I took the prisoner from the lobby
of the house where be was sitting on the stairs and guarded by
Rottenfuhrer Water Lehn. I led him beside the house and turned
him over to Sturmbannfuhrer Peiper who was sitting on a stone.
Immediately next to Peiper stood the following officers:
Obersturmfuhrer Rudi Maule, and Untersturmfuhrer Horst
Krausse, and I believe I also saw there Hauptsturmfuhrer Hans
Gruble. After I gave the prisoner over to Peiper I withdrew about
5 to 6 meters and remained there. The reason was I wanted to
see what Peiper intended to do with the prisoner. I saw and
beard as Peiper was talking to this man in a foreign tongue. This
prisoner only answered to the first sentence which be was asked
by Peiper. Peiper continued talking to the prisoner, but the
prisoner remained mute. At the end of the interrogation between
Peiper and the prisoner I know, however, that the prisoner gave
a short answer. Peiper was then very angry and shouted, 'Hillig!'
I answered, 'Sturmbannfuhrer'. Peiper said, 'Shoot the man and
lay him next to the anti-aircraft gun.' By that he meant that I
should shoot this man in the vicinity of the anti-aircraft gun. I
led the prisoner away towards the location which was indicated
to me by Peiper WHen I was about 75 meters away from Peiper
he shouted after me, 'That is far enough.' I would like to add that
I Had' a pistol on me but no machine pistol; therefore; I let
someone hand me a machine pistol from my vehicle. I cannot
tell exactly who gave it to me but I believe it was Rottenfuhrer
Walter Landfried. After I had been addressed by Peiper as
indicated above, I took the machine pistol and fired one shot
into the region of this American prisoner's heart. He collapsed
immediately. As he lay on the ground I shot him once more into
the temple to be sure that be was dead. I know that the man did
not suffer and was dead because his eyes were glassy. I then
returned to Peiper who was still standing at the same spot, and
reported to him that I had executed his order. He answered
something which had to do with the prisoner, but, however, I
cannot remember it anymore. I then returned to my previous
work."




Georg Ebeling, a crew
member from Panther 002. He stated during the Malmedy Trial:
"In the morning of 19 December, our tanks drove into
STOUMONT. Shortly thereafter, the two radio SPWs of our
platoon joined us. Then the order was given that the tank was to
be camouflaged. After it was camouflaged, I got into tbe tank
and shortly thereafter I heard Sgt. Hillig call to tbe C.O. - Lt.Col.
Peiper. A short time later Sgt. Hillig returned with a prisoner of
war and took him to a field which was located behind the
bouses where we were standing. After Sgt. Hillig had moved away
from the house, about 40 yards, he shot at the American. The
American collapsed at once and Sgt. Hillig shot him in the
head again with his pistol."





[/i]


User avatar
Harro
Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: 19 May 2005, 19:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1563

Post by Harro » 28 May 2016, 17:51

From: "Career, crimes and trial of SS-Sturmbannführer GUSTAV KNITTEL - Commander of the Aufklärungsabteilung ‘LSSAH’ (available in two to three weeks from now)
On the 28th of May Knittel was implicated by defendant number 38, Anton Motzheim, an SS-Unterscharführer from III. Battalion, SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment 2 ‘LSSAH’, who testified that in Stavelot on the morning of the 19th of December 1944 he had witnessed Peiper standing with Knittel and SS-Sturmbannführer Werner Poetschke, the commander of SS-Panzer-Regiment 1 ‘LSSAH’, and heard the latter call out “Obersturmbannführer, here are two prisoners of war” whereupon he heard Peiper say: “as usual”, suggesting that this meant they were to be shot.
When the court met again on the 17th of June 1946 the defence counsels fully focused on the ‘Malmédy Massacre’ and the cases against members of ‘Kampfgruppe Peiper’, especially when Peiper himself took the witness stand on Friday the 21st of June. Knittel was only mentioned when Peiper sarcastically dismissed the accusation by SS-Unterscharführer Motzheim from III. Bataillon, SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment 2 ‘LSSAH’, who, as a witness for the prosecution, had testified that in La Gleize in the morning of the 19th of December 1944 he had overheard Knittel and Peiper discussing a mission and heard the latter reply “the usual” in an indifferent and disdainful manner when allegedly SS-Sturmbannführer Poetschke told him: “here are two more prisoners of war”. Peiper told defence counsel Lieutenant Colonel Dwinell that high ranking officers did not concern themselves with prisoners of war and that his conversation with Knittel had nothing to do with prisoners: he had just learned from the commander of the ‘Schnelle Gruppe’ that the Americans had recaptured Stavelot and he had just given Knittel the unwelcome mission of turning around to recapture the town from the west. Peiper claimed that he conferred with Knittel in La Gleize at 12.30hrs and that he had not been in the town that morning. Motzheim stated the meeting took place at about 11.00hrs but Peiper insisted that he was personally conducting the attack on Stoumont at that time and that he did not return to La Gleize until noon when his men had finally captured Stoumont. After action reports from the involved American units refute his time table: ‘Kampfgruppe Peiper’ had captured Stoumont at least four hours earlier before 08.00hrs. Werner Wendt recalled in 2003 that it was well before 10.00hrs in that morning that he and Jürgen Brandt had met Knittel at the Antoine farm – nine kilometres from La Gleize – which indicates that the meeting between Peiper and Knittel could not have taken place after approximately 09.00hrs. Knittel and Peiper were very fortunate that neither the after action reports nor recollections such as those of Werner Wendt were available to the court at the time of the trial as it would have crushed their alibi’s.

ML59
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 12:09
Location: GENOVA

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1564

Post by ML59 » 28 May 2016, 18:05

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:[

These definitions are relative and contextual. Going by your standards the entire US Army deployed in Indo China and Iraq will have to be named criminal organisations, regardless of the fact that individuals and units fought these wars honourably.
No, the US Army COMMITTED, occasionally, WAR CRIMES but it never planned, organized or put in practice an extermination policy toward its real or supposed ideological, racial or political enemies. The SS did it. We can accuse the US Army of disproportionate use of force, not of deliberate genocidal crimes.

sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1565

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 28 May 2016, 18:08

Ok fair enough. Now I will gather all the evidences and quotes of allied officers doing the same thing with prisoners during interrogation for gathering vital enemy information. And some more of gratuitous killing of German Pow s after the battle had moved far away.

sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1566

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 28 May 2016, 18:10

ML59 wrote:
sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:[

These definitions are relative and contextual. Going by your standards the entire US Army deployed in Indo China and Iraq will have to be named criminal organisations, regardless of the fact that individuals and units fought these wars honourably.
No, the US Army COMMITTED, occasionally, WAR CRIMES but it never planned, organized or put in practice an extermination policy toward its real or supposed ideological, racial or political enemies. The SS did it. We can accuse the US Army of disproportionate use of force, not of deliberate genocidal crimes.
That's a matter of opinion. No US officer of Vietnam or Iraq fame has ever had to stand trial in an International War Crimes Tribunal. Hence such opinions can be freely traded.

Pena V
Member
Posts: 792
Joined: 21 Feb 2006, 20:51
Location: Finland

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1567

Post by Pena V » 28 May 2016, 18:15

Rob - wssob2 wrote:On paper, there were a total of 40 Waffen-SS divisions created between 1940-45.
No. 2. "Das Reich", 3. "Totenkopf" and 4. Polizeidivision were created in 1939.
Rob - wssob2 wrote:The divisions were consecutively numbered 1-38 with two duplicates: 23 and 29.
I know. The question is are we talking about 38 divisions (BillHermann's original figure) or 40 divisions (ljadw's later figure). In this context they cannot be both right.

Regards,

Pena V

User avatar
Harro
Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: 19 May 2005, 19:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1568

Post by Harro » 28 May 2016, 18:21

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:Ok fair enough. Now I will gather all the evidences and quotes of allied officers doing the same thing with prisoners during interrogation for gathering vital enemy information. And some more of gratuitous killing of German Pow s after the battle had moved far away.
Because that would prove an Allied planned organised extermination policy toward real or supposed ideological, racial or political enemies?

ML59
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 12:09
Location: GENOVA

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1569

Post by ML59 » 28 May 2016, 18:31

dshaday wrote:Hi


Why is there an issue with readers having an interest in the military aspect of the Waffen SS, eg foreign volunteers, conflict with the Heer, recruiting, irony, human tragedy etc ? You can do this AND still appreciate its ideological roots in the General SS. I see no problem, unless you don't trust the average reader?

What I do see too often, is posters going out of their way to exaggerate in vilifying/disparaging the Waffen SS. These bias are historical mistakes should not be ignored on this forum.

Dennis
Dennis,
there is no issue with anybody dealing with SS history, I'm myself deeply interested in the Third Reich history under every aspect: political, economic, ideological, social and, naturally, military. The point is that too often it happens that forumists display a "glorifying" attitude for everything concerning the Black Corps or, per extension, the Third Reich, completely dismissing the criminal nature,under every aspect, of the Nazi regime. To present the W-SS as Teutonic Knights with no other faith than their military duty is a great historical mystification. All along the war there was a constant exchange of roles between the W-SS and all other branches of the SS, including Totenkopf Verbande, KL and extermination camps staff, euthanasia program and so on. It was the SS that put up the most brutal and murderous forced labor organization, that through unhuman exploitation purposefully killed hundred of thousands of people. So, to study the W-SS is OK, to tell us they were nice guys only bound to their military duty is a farce.

ML59
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 12:09
Location: GENOVA

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1570

Post by ML59 » 28 May 2016, 18:41

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:
That's a matter of opinion. No US officer of Vietnam or Iraq fame has ever had to stand trial in an International War Crimes Tribunal. Hence such opinions can be freely traded.
No, it's not a matter of opinions: individuals responsible of war crimes have been prosecuted in WW2, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Operation Iraqi freedom, in Afghanistan and several of them have been condemned to very heavy sentences. My Lai, Abu Graib, Fallujah and many crimes committed in Afghanistan have been denounced by the American press and resulted in public trials, something that never happened in the Third Reich. As long as a free independent judicial system is working, there is no need for International War Crimes Tribunals. In Third Reich time, there was no independent judicial system at all and absolutely no will to have it.

sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1571

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 28 May 2016, 19:44

ML59 wrote:
sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:
That's a matter of opinion. No US officer of Vietnam or Iraq fame has ever had to stand trial in an International War Crimes Tribunal. Hence such opinions can be freely traded.
No, it's not a matter of opinions: individuals responsible of war crimes have been prosecuted in WW2, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Operation Iraqi freedom, in Afghanistan and several of them have been condemned to very heavy sentences. My Lai, Abu Graib, Fallujah and many crimes committed in Afghanistan have been denounced by the American press and resulted in public trials, something that never happened in the Third Reich. As long as a free independent judicial system is working, there is no need for International War Crimes Tribunals. In Third Reich time, there was no independent judicial system at all and absolutely no will to have it.

Do you genuinely believe what you are saying about the American press and free judiciary having rendered a war crimes tribunal irrelevant? Or are you saying it to carry forward the argument?

I find it incredible that you consider one suspended jail term converted to house arrest....sufficient for My Lai. And being a student of WWII and knowing the reasons for hanging Keitel, Jodl and Ribbentrop .. you still feel that justice was done for the criminal conspiracy and war against Iraq !

sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1572

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 28 May 2016, 19:47

Harro wrote:
sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:Ok fair enough. Now I will gather all the evidences and quotes of allied officers doing the same thing with prisoners during interrogation for gathering vital enemy information. And some more of gratuitous killing of German Pow s after the battle had moved far away.
Because that would prove an Allied planned organised extermination policy toward real or supposed ideological, racial or political enemies?

Because that would prove that brutality and crimes of passion are part of every war. And quoting some instances of battle field brutality against prisoners doesn't prove that an entire organisation was "criminal" and as soldiers they were collectively "dishonourable".

User avatar
Harro
Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: 19 May 2005, 19:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1573

Post by Harro » 28 May 2016, 19:55

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:Because that would prove that brutality and crimes of passion are part of every war. And quoting some instances of battle field brutality against prisoners doesn't prove that an entire organisation was "criminal" and as soldiers they were collectively "dishonourable".
It would be interesting if you managed to differ between replies and would stick to their right context: you mentioned McCown as an example of Peiper's honourable behaviour and several members countered this by providing information as to why Peiper was so kind to him and how he dealt with prisoners before he came across McCown. Another member argued that it was their planned organised extermination policy toward real or supposed ideological, racial or political enemies which set the SS apart from their Allied opponents. In reply to that specific argument you stated that you will gather all the evidences and quotes of allied officers doing the same thing. Hence my question to you: would that prove that the Allies enforced a planned organised extermination policy toward real or supposed ideological, racial or political enemies?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1574

Post by Michael Kenny » 28 May 2016, 20:01

There is no way the believers can accept reality. They can not and will never see the difference between armies that have some soldiers who commit crimes and an army that promotes, rewards and lauds the most barbaric acts of cruelty as policy.
Why would anyone try and defend a convicted war criminal? A convicted war criminal who was very lucky to delay his deserved demise for 20 odd years. One only hopes he had time to repent before his former victims despatched him.

sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1575

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 28 May 2016, 20:11

Harro wrote:
sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:Because that would prove that brutality and crimes of passion are part of every war. And quoting some instances of battle field brutality against prisoners doesn't prove that an entire organisation was "criminal" and as soldiers they were collectively "dishonourable".
It would be interesting if you managed to differ between replies and would stick to their right context: you mentioned McCown as an example of Peiper's honourable behaviour and several members countered this by providing information as to why Peiper was so kind to him and how he dealt with prisoners before he came across McCown. Another member argued that it was their planned organised extermination policy toward real or supposed ideological, racial or political enemies which set the SS apart from their Allied opponents. In reply to that specific argument you stated that you will gather all the evidences and quotes of allied officers doing the same thing. Hence my question to you: would that prove that the Allies enforced a planned organised extermination policy toward real or supposed ideological, racial or political enemies?
I replied to your specific poser. Peiper no doubt, at Malmedy and before, played hard ball. There was a British XXX Corps captain who played hard ball too during the breakout battle at the Dutch border on 17 Sept ' 44. He rode a Bren Carrier with German POWs. He shoved the business end of his service revolver into the faces of his prisoners and kept the trigger under first pressure.
He then demanded to know the locations where the German AT guns were camouflaged and hidden. The Germans simply pointed out the locations and the gun crews were blasted and machine gunned before you could articulate "long live the Geneva Convention " !

Well though no august tales of horror have been spun from this episode in suitably horrified polite publications, the episodes are kinda similar..huh ?

Post Reply

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”