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
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1636

Post by ljadw » 31 May 2016, 17:10

There were 314 air attacks on Berlin,resulting in the death of 20000 civilians (an average of 60 per attack) :20000 was 0.5 % of the population . If the Allies were targetting the Berlin civilians, there would have been more casualties .

histan
Member
Posts: 1668
Joined: 14 Jan 2008, 18:22
Location: England

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1637

Post by histan » 31 May 2016, 17:46

Still no answer to Harro,s question - the silence is deafening.

The "defenders" of the Waffen SS have had years to identify a equivalent action carried out by UK/US land forces so we can assume that none exists - if they had found one the response would have been immediate. It can also be assumed that they can not find a similar one, for example the gathering together of the population of a village and killing them by machine gun fire. Again they have had years to find one or more examples and if they had been able to find a single one the response would also have been immediate.

It is clear that the Waffen SS was unique in its willingness to break the agreed rules on the conduct of land warfare.

I emphasise ground forces because as everyone knows there had been agreements signed by both Germany, the UK and the USA that covered the conduct of land warfare (and also the conduct of naval warfare). These very specifically made it illegal to deliberately kill the civilian population. It was recognised that civilian casualties were an inevitable consequence of war and also that military commanders were not constrained by the possibility that civilian casualties might occur when planning their operations. For example the artillery commander of 1 SS Panzerkorps did not have to conduct a risk assessment of the possible number of French civilian deaths that might result from a particular fire plan in support of 12 SS HJ in Normandy and to refuse to fire if he considered the risk too high.

The rules of land warfare also did not stop military commanders conducting operations that might have an impact on the civilian population, including those aimed at its morale. For example, when besieging a city it was perfectly legal to achieve its surrender by starving it out and it was also legal to use artillery fire to destroy gas, electricity, and water works - which would again impact directly on the civilian population. Physical destruction of the city was also legal. What was not legal was the deliberate killing of the civilian population.

With regard to air warfare there were no internationally approved agreements that covered its conduct in place in 1939. So the conduct of air warfare had not been codified with no agreement on which acts might and which acts might not be considered legal. In particular there was no agreed rule that covered the deliberate killing of civilians. There was a draft set of proposals that did exist and both the RAF and the Luftwaffe, separately, decided to follow the guidelines laid down in it, until it could be demonstrated that the other side had broken them. Both the RAF and the Luftwaffe kept to these guidelines (with the possibility of a few relatively minor exceptions) from 1939 to 1941 and into 1942.

Concerning tactical air support it was decided that the same rule would apply to air power that applied to land operations - in particular to artillery. So the target attacked had to have military value and the objective must not be to deliberately kill civilians. Once again the military commander was not constrained in his planning by the possibility that there might be civilian casualties.

Since they could not answer Harro's question by presenting examples from UK/US land forces they selected an example from Uk/US air operations. In particular the attack against the grounds of a mental institution in support of ist Airborne Division. This, however, backfired when it was quite clear that the attack was planned against what were believed to be German troops, just as it would have been legal if artillery fire had been used prior to the seizing of the location where the gliders were due to land by infantry already on the ground. Even more tellingly, before they carried out the attack because of the possibility of civilian casualties the USAAF asked for confirmation that there were German troops at that location.

Once again I ask the question - can anyone give me an example of a Waffen SS unit questioning an order on the grounds that it might cause civilian casualties?

I have never claimed that the RAF did not target civilian morale or civilian infrastructure - as the quotes above show that was a major part of the strategic bombing campaign - once the RAF had mastered the technical issues such as the correct mix of HE and incendiaries, and how to get the required number of aircraft over the target in the short time required. But this was not illegal - there were no agreed rules on the conduct of air warfare and targeting these was legal under the rule of land warfare, for example when besieging a city.

What I have yet to see is a document in which the RAF states that it is deliberately trying to kill the civilian population.

Enough of this ditraction - lets get back to considering thw Waffen SS

Regards

John


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

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1638

Post by Michael Kenny » 31 May 2016, 18:26

Gorque wrote:
From the wikipedia:
The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death.
Harris, Arthur Travers (1995). Despatch on war operations, 23rd February, 1942, to 8th May, 1945. Cass Series: Studies in Air Power 3. Psychology Press. p. 7

So much for the statement that "The Allies did NOT intentionally target German and Japanese civilians in WWII"
Your quote shows you simply do not understand your source. The stated aim was ' to break the morale of the population which occupies it' and this was to be achieved by ' make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger.'
The end result should be 'to produce destruction and fear of death'. Nowhere does it say the aim was to kill civilians and kill civilians only.
Civilian war workers were a legitimate target anyway and endless hand-wringing and excuse making will never erase the stain and stench left by an army that did target civilians for certain death. Death up close and personal with a bullet between the eyes in many cases. That army was The German Army of WW2.

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

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1639

Post by Michael Kenny » 31 May 2016, 18:27

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote: After you have nailed certain lies through the above post, you are perilously close to being labelled with fanbois, neo nazi....proto fascist or some such cute titles.
If it walks like a duck........................

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

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1640

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 31 May 2016, 20:18

I answered Harro. Directly addressing him. Some may not have been satisfied with the answer. It was too simple....too little ingredients in it for invoking fire and brimstone.

The bottomline is : The thread was about the elite ness or otherwise of the Waffen SS. I said repeatedly that some Waffen SS divisions had performed like elite formations and some were pedestrian. Some were ineffective. I had also suggested that for issues like war crimes and atrocities there are other existing threads.

But no. Some wouldn't have that. For them every thread on AHF have to per force be about the Holocaust and war crimes under different names.

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

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1641

Post by Harro » 31 May 2016, 20:23

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:The bottomline is : The thread was about the elite ness or otherwise of the Waffen SS.
And again: no it was not about eliteness, just read the opening post to see what it is about and why the crimes of the Waffen-SS are part of this discussion.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1642

Post by Gorque » 31 May 2016, 22:10

ljadw wrote:This does not prove that the allies intentionally targetted the axis civilian populations:bombing of cities is not the same as targetting the civilians, besides the cities were bombed and factories were no longer targetted because 74 years ago it was impossible that targetting factories would result in the destruction of factories :area attacks were the only possibility,and there was no difference with the attacks on factories:

Precision attacks on factories resulted almost always in destruction of cities and mostly failed .Thus one took the other solution : the cities were attacked to destroy the factories .

Besides,the area attacks were legitimate and humaritarian .

It was legitimate to target the man who made ammunition for Wittman,but this could not be done, thus one targetted the factory where the man was working, as did did not produce sufficient results, one targetted the city where the factory was located . All this was legitimate.

It was also humanitarian : if after Gomorrha the Germans had given up, millions of German lives would be spared, but the Germans refused to give up and have only themselves to blame .
You're too funny. :lol:

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1643

Post by Gorque » 31 May 2016, 22:49

Michael Kenny wrote:
Gorque wrote:
From the wikipedia:
The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death.
Harris, Arthur Travers (1995). Despatch on war operations, 23rd February, 1942, to 8th May, 1945. Cass Series: Studies in Air Power 3. Psychology Press. p. 7

So much for the statement that "The Allies did NOT intentionally target German and Japanese civilians in WWII"
Your quote shows you simply do not understand your source.


Mr Kenny:

I noticed that you did not include the final two quotes that I provided. Why was that? Are you feeling a tad uncomfortable knowing that your nation knowingly engaged in actions that resulted in the intentional roasting of civilians in their cellars and the bomb-shelters? In case you missed them, let me provide them for you again.
In 1942, Lindemann presented the "dehousing paper" to the Cabinet showing the effect that intensive bombing of German cities could produce. It was accepted by the Cabinet, and Air Marshal Harris was appointed to carry out the task. It became an important part of the total war waged against Germany. Professor Lindemann's paper put forward the theory of attacking major industrial centres in order to deliberately destroy as many homes and houses as possible. Working-class homes were to be targeted because they had a higher density and fire storms were more likely. This would displace the German workforce and reduce their ability to work.
and
The directive stated that "operations should now be focused on the morale of the enemy civilian population, and in particular, the industrial workers". Lest there be any confusion, Sir Charles Portal wrote to Air Chief Marshal Norman Bottomley on 15 February "...I suppose it is clear that the aiming points will be the built-up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories". Factories were no longer targets.


Michael Kenny wrote:The stated aim was ' to break the morale of the population which occupies it' and this was to be achieved by ' make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger.'
The end result should be 'to produce destruction and fear of death'.


Which would also be the same stated aim as a common terrorist, would it not?
Michael Kenny wrote:Nowhere does it say the aim was to kill civilians and kill civilians only.
Stop your mendacity Mr.Kenny. What do you think will occur when civilian residences are bombed in the dead of the night and without warning? That the bombs will miraculously exempt the civilians? When the tactics were shifted from bombing industrial targets to concentrating on the "dehousing" of civilians, the expectation of mass death was known. Hiding behind semantics does not change the known end result.
Michael Kenny wrote: Civilian war workers were a legitimate target anyway
I didn't realize that the mothers and children were also considered Civilian War Workers. So how low do you intend to go Mr Kenny in order to absolve yourself of your pangs of conscience and doubt?
Michael Kenny wrote:.... and endless hand-wringing and excuse making will never erase the stain and stench left by an army that did target civilians for certain death. Death up close and personal with a bullet between the eyes in many cases. That army was The German Army of WW2.

And from the safety of up high and far away was the modus operandi of the R.A.F. in WW2.
Last edited by Gorque on 31 May 2016, 22:53, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1644

Post by Gorque » 31 May 2016, 22:50

Michael Kenny wrote:
sandeepmukherjee196 wrote: After you have nailed certain lies through the above post, you are perilously close to being labelled with fanbois, neo nazi....proto fascist or some such cute titles.
If it walks like a duck........................
Our Mr Kenny, the forum Dalek.

Apologist!! Revisionist!!

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

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1645

Post by Michael Kenny » 31 May 2016, 23:10

Gorque wrote:

Mr Kenny:

I noticed that you did not include the final two quotes that I provided. Why was that? Are you feeling a tad uncomfortable knowing that your nation knowingly engaged in actions that resulted in the intentional roasting of civilians in their cellars and the bomb-shelters?
When did Ireland engage in such acts? It was never mentioned in any of my school history lessons.

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

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1646

Post by Michael Kenny » 31 May 2016, 23:12

Gorque wrote:
Apologist!! Revisionist!!
Is that a confession or a boast?

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

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1647

Post by Michael Kenny » 31 May 2016, 23:19

Gorque wrote: And from the safety of up high and far away was the modus operandi of the R.A.F. in WW2.

I believe that was the 'modus operandi' of every air force since conception. Perhaps you are thinking of the chivalrous SS Air Force where the dashing heroes landed in enemy territory and the pilots sallied forth to do battle hand-to-hand.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 31 May 2016, 23:26, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1648

Post by Michael Kenny » 31 May 2016, 23:21

Gorque wrote: Stop your mendacity Mr.Kenny. What do you think will occur when civilian residences are bombed in the dead of the night and without warning?

They will be very upset that the air defence system (Goring) failed to detect the bombers and demand his resignation?

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

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1649

Post by Michael Kenny » 31 May 2016, 23:25

Gorque wrote: Which would also be the same stated aim as a common terrorist, would it not?
An apologist for the SS (a criminal Organisation) is lecturing others about 'terrorism'!

histan
Member
Posts: 1668
Joined: 14 Jan 2008, 18:22
Location: England

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#1650

Post by histan » 01 Jun 2016, 01:15

According to the "laws of war" in 1939, a military commander was not constrained in his planning by the fact that civilian casualties will be an unintended outcome of his plan. This military planning can include targeting the civilian population but one of the ways he might chose to achieve his objective - deliberately killing the civilian population was not allowed as were some of the means he might use.

For example the German army achieved the surrender of Warsaw by using its artillery to destroy the city's water supply. This forced the civilian population to drink river water an risk disease. The leadership in Warsaw decided to surrender the city rather than risk a serious outbreak of disease. All of this the end, the ways and the means were perfectly legal. It would not have been legal for the German army to achieve the required end by, say introducing disease into the water supply because that means was illegal.
At the same time, the German army also carried out a programme of physical destruction of the city of Warsaw also aimed at persuading the commanders in Warsaw to surrender the city, again this was largely undertaken by artillery but with some support from the Luftwaffe. There are vivid descriptions from the civilian population, where they describe themselves as being under fire 24 hours a day - by artillery in daylight and by aircraft at night and saying that they believe that the German intention was to deliberately kill civilians. Not true, legal experts in the "laws of war" have declared all these actions legal, the military end, the ways and the means.
The responsible commanders in the German army believed that Warsaw had brought this death and destruction on itself by refusing to surrender earlier, after all it was clear that Germany had already won the war in Poland.

So it can be argued that it was legal to achieve the surrender of Germany by destroying the civilian infrastructure of its cities in the same way that the German army planned to use physical destruction as one of the ways to achieve the surrender of Warsaw. Of course, the civilian inhabitants of German cities believed they were being deliberately targetted for killing, as did the inhabitants of Warsaw, London, Liverpool, etc when their cities were bombed. Because they believed it didn't make it true. Also remembering that there were no laws governing the conduct of air warfare for the RAF commanders to break. It is also clear that there is no evidence that that the RAF planned to deliberately kill civilians - if there was it would have already been posted instead of the extracts already posted. The responsible commanders might also take the same view as the German commanders at Warsaw - Germany's defeat was inevitable and they brought it on themselves by not surrendering earlier.

The above discussion is not an argument in support of the strategic bombing campaign - my assessment is that it was seriously flawed and that arguments can be made concerning proportionality (the value of the effect that an attack was planned to achieve versus the likely resulting civilian casualties). but proportionality was not a legal requirement.

Sorry for continuing the diversion. I do have too points I want to make - one relating directly to "Why the Waffen SS" and the other concerning the importance of considering morality and "obeying the rules" when discussing "elite" status and as a result why elite status can not be conferred on the Waffen SS but these will have to wait until another post.

Regards

John

PS there is too much emotive language used in some posts in this thread - they do not add to the discussion, they hinder it and they make me at least less inclined to take seriously the views of the poster

Post Reply

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”