Totenkopf, elite or criminals...?

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Yes, but also a lot of good warriors...

Christian

[tomalbright]

One could argue that the chain gang prisons in the South were used to keep blacks "at bay" and as a means of coercive social control; the threat of the KL in Nazi Germany and the chain gang in the South was similar in that they terrorized "targeted" groups, although the types of indivduals targeted in Germany was different and the incarceration was procative and premptive, not reactive as it was in the South. I was mainly comparing the conditions in both types of prisons as being similar, with poor rations, heavy outdoor labor and brutal overseers. Hundreds of prisoners per year did not die in prisons elsewhere in the U.S, but the death rates in the South did amount to figures comparable to the pre-war KL system.

As far as the shooting of POW's in the East, I believe all Heer and W-SS units were probably equally guilty of treating the Russian as an "untermensch". No evidence exists which sets the SS-TK division apart in being more ruthless in this regard than lets say "Wiking" or "Das Reich". However, I will agree that no Russians would have wanted to be at the tender mercies of Eicke, Simon or Becker. I would say that SS-TK behavior was certainly influenced by these men. But the war in the East technically made war criminals of everyone. On La Paradis, see my earlier thread. As I have said, the behavior of the SS-TV regiments in Poland was their greatest crime by far, but this was prior to the formation of the SS-TK division. Certainly the experiences in Poland were formative to the attitude of the division towards all "enemies" of the Reich, military and non-combatants alike. But by 1942, most of these men were dead or gone from the division. Men like Otto Baum, Karl Ullrich and Hermann Priess dominated the division as much as Becker or Simon after Eicke's death. All I am saying is that the story of the SS-TK division is a complicated tale.

[Caldric]

One could argue that the chain gang prisons in the South were used to keep blacks "at bay" and as a means of coercive social control; the threat of the KL in Nazi Germany and the chain gang in the South was similar in that they terrorized "targeted" groups, although the types of indivduals targeted in Germany was different and the incarceration was procative and premptive, not reactive as it was in the South. I was mainly comparing the conditions in both types of prisons as being similar, with poor rations, heavy outdoor labor and brutal overseers. Hundreds of prisoners per year did not die in prisons elsewhere in the U.S, but the death rates in the South did amount to figures comparable to the pre-war KL system.

As far as the shooting of POW's in the East, I believe all Heer and W-SS units were probably equally guilty of treating the Russian as an "untermensch". No evidence exists which sets the SS-TK division apart in being more ruthless in this regard than lets say "Wiking" or "Das Reich". However, I will agree that no Russians would have wanted to be at the tender mercies of Eicke, Simon or Becker. I would say that SS-TK behavior was certainly influenced by these men. But the war in the East technically made war criminals of everyone. On La Paradis, see my earlier thread. As I have said, the behavior of the SS-TV regiments in Poland was their greatest crime by far, but this was prior to the formation of the SS-TK division. Certainly the experiences in Poland were formative to the attitude of the division towards all "enemies" of the Reich, military and non-combatants alike. But by 1942, most of these men were dead or gone from the division. Men like Otto Baum, Karl Ullrich and Hermann Priess dominated the division as much as Becker or Simon after Eicke's death. All I am saying is that the story of the SS-TK division is a complicated tale.

Complicated or not excuses such as "they did it to" do not remove the fact that the SS-TK did in fact execute POW's on the East and West fronts, not to mention against civilians.

So the original question, as you have answered your self, "SS-TK- Elite or Criminals". The answer is they were elite at times and criminal for sure.

What happened in the United States or SS-Das Reich or 16th Panzer Division or any other is simply a red herring.

[JLEES]

Caldric,
Yes, I agree, they were overall both elite troops and criminals at the same time. Sure there were other units that also fall into the category of being an elite unit that also did bad things, but that was not the question. The SS TK was an elite formation of soldiers that fought well on the Eastern Front and fought well with blood on their hands from illegal activities. It's immaterial whether other elite units also shot prisoners, that weren’t the question, but the answer to the question is “yes” they (for the most part) were both elite troops and criminals.
James

[Caldric]

Caldric,
Yes, I agree, they were overall both elite troops and criminals at the same time. Sure there were other units that also fall into the category of being an elite unit that also did bad things, but that was not the question. The SS TK was an elite formation of soldiers that fought well on the Eastern Front and fought well with blood on their hands from illegal activities. It's immaterial whether other elite units also shot prisoners, that weren’t the question, but the answer to the question is “yes” they (for the most part) were both elite troops and criminals.
James

They were destroyed so many times I wonder sometimes if it was elite or just fanaticism such as the Japanese showed in combat. What they lacked in military acumen they made up for in fanatical zeal.

[Scott Smith]

Eicke was a "take no prisoners" kind of Old Fighter. This is the style-of-command that everybody wants in the military unless it is an enemy outfit.

Not really, only those that are hell bent on ending up at the end of a rope should they lose the war.

Eicke was very questionable in many ways, but aside from being on the side to lose a very brutal war (he was killed in combat in 1943) what is incomparably criminal about Eicke as a war commander? It's a serious question.

[Scott Smith]

Yes, I agree, they were overall both elite troops and criminals at the same time.

They were destroyed so many times I wonder sometimes if it was elite or just fanaticism such as the Japanese showed in combat. What they lacked in military acumen they made up for in fanatical zeal.

They held the line when they were told to if at all possible. Sometimes that is what it takes to fight wars. But they also displayed a high level of skill, leadership, and initiative, and it can't simply be laid to ideological fanaticism alone. It is hard for most Americans to accept that Germans, who lost two world wars, were very exceptional soldiers, and usually better at fighting for their country than Americans or British "fighting for Democracy." I know Ambrose tried hard (and failed) to challenge that idea.

[Caldric]

Yes, I agree, they were overall both elite troops and criminals at the same time.

They were destroyed so many times I wonder sometimes if it was elite or just fanaticism such as the Japanese showed in combat. What they lacked in military acumen they made up for in fanatical zeal.

They held the line when the were told to if at all possible. Sometimes that is what it takes to fight wars. But they also displayed a high level of skill, leadership, and initiative, and it can't simply be laid to ideological fanaticism alone. It is hard for most Americans to accept that Germans, who lost two world wars, were very exceptional soldiers, and usually better at fighting for their country than Americans or British "fighting for Democracy." I know Ambrose tried hard (and failed) to challenge that idea.

Perhaps, as I said elite maybe, but at any rate I do not find standing your ground to last man reason for elitist rank. American Marines did this and more at Chosin. There is no need to fight to the last man, it is much better to defeat the overwhelming enemy with just tons of skill and excellent leadership. This will get you through at times. So I am not sure if the "better then" holds much water.

Perhaps the difference is that in Western Democracy such nations young people in UK and US are not subjected to almost complete brainwashing by propaganda system so well oiled that it could talk normal people into the most barbaric acts. Not to say Democracy does not have its propaganda, I would be naive to make such a statement, although it is nothing comparable to Nazi Propaganda system.

[Wolf]

Eicke was a "take no prisoners" kind of Old Fighter. This is the style-of-command that everybody wants in the military unless it is an enemy outfit.

Not really, only those that are hell bent on ending up at the end of a rope should they lose the war.

Eicke was very questionable in many ways, but aside from being on the side to lose a very brutal war (he was killed in combat in 1943) what is incomparably criminal about Eicke as a war commander? It's a serious question.

..."take no prisoners"...

If that is the kind of military leaders 'everybody wants', everybody should make da*n sure they win.

[Scott Smith]

One could argue that the chain gang prisons in the South were used to keep blacks "at bay" and as a means of coercive social control; the threat of the KL in Nazi Germany and the chain gang in the South was similar in that they terrorized "targeted" groups, although the types of indivduals targeted in Germany was different and the incarceration was procative and premptive, not reactive as it was in the South. I was mainly comparing the conditions in both types of prisons as being similar, with poor rations, heavy outdoor labor and brutal overseers. Hundreds of prisoners per year did not die in prisons elsewhere in the U.S, but the death rates in the South did amount to figures comparable to the pre-war KL system.

As far as the shooting of POW's in the East, I believe all Heer and W-SS units were probably equally guilty of treating the Russian as an "untermensch". No evidence exists which sets the SS-TK division apart in being more ruthless in this regard than lets say "Wiking" or "Das Reich". However, I will agree that no Russians would have wanted to be at the tender mercies of Eicke, Simon or Becker. I would say that SS-TK behavior was certainly influenced by these men. But the war in the East technically made war criminals of everyone. On La Paradis, see my earlier thread. As I have said, the behavior of the SS-TV regiments in Poland was their greatest crime by far, but this was prior to the formation of the SS-TK division. Certainly the experiences in Poland were formative to the attitude of the division towards all "enemies" of the Reich, military and non-combatants alike. But by 1942, most of these men were dead or gone from the division. Men like Otto Baum, Karl Ullrich and Hermann Priess dominated the division as much as Becker or Simon after Eicke's death. All I am saying is that the story of the SS-TK division is a complicated tale.

Complicated or not excuses such as "they did it to" do not remove the fact that the SS-TK did in fact execute POW's on the East and West fronts, not to mention against civilians.

So the original question, as you have answered your self, "SS-TK- Elite or Criminals". The answer is they were elite at times and criminal for sure.

What happened in the United States or SS-Das Reich or 16th Panzer Division or any other is simply a red herring.

Well, to recapitulate, it is argued that the SS-TK division were not soldiers at all but criminals with guns, and the basis for that is that they were originally formed by the SS-TV from concentration camp guards, which, as I mentioned, was a ruse to create a Party Army without Regular Army obstruction.

Someone confused prewar concentration camp cadre with Death Camps and I objected strongly to that, although the prewar KLs were not country clubs. Mr. Albright has obviously done a lot of research here.

Oberstgruppenführer Hausser went so far as to say that the Waffen-SS were ONLY soldiers after all. There is much truth to this, although the SS were heavily involved in police and security duties (along with the Wehrmacht and Feldgendarmerie). Certainly most of the Waffen-SS had never seen a KL and were treated shabbily by their countrymen as "alibis for a nation." I believe it was wholly unjustified as well to criminalize the entire SS. They were not the mafia but the enforcers of a sovereign state. Sorry, I don't think comparative perspective is an "excuse" or red-herring at all.

I do feel that there is an interesting thought here: Eicke was very much taken by the notion of the "Enemies of the State," who were held at bay behind his barbed wire as he inculcated vigilance and hatred in his men. It is a short extrapolation from that uncompromising, puritanical brutality to the wartime conditions that make bloodbaths a reality. Sometimes running the toughest prison camp--or the toughest Panzer division--is not the answer to all of a country's problems.

Americans like tough talk, though. They like it from their sheriffs and they like it from their generals.

[JLEES]

Scott Smith,
You have jumped to some major conclusions here that are not supported by facts when you said, "It is hard for most Americans to accept that Germans, who lost two world wars, were very exceptional soldiers, and usually better at fighting for their country than Americans or British "fighting for Democracy." I know Ambrose tried hard (and failed) to challenge that idea." First off, there were some outstanding German units in the war there is no getting around that, but there were also some very poor ones too. Would you like being in a Luftwaffe infantry division on the Eastern Front, or one of the Volkssturm units. If the answer to that question is yes, you had better do some reading on the subject. I would also argue with your comment that most Americans have a hard time accepting that the Germans were exceptional soldiers. There are also many Germans who don't give a shit about WWII and wouldn't have any idea if Germany had good units or bad ones in the war. In fact you’re the only American making a comment like that on this web site. Again, you shouldn't over-generalize like that. Next, there was a number of US combat formations in the war that were also exceptional fighting units: like the 82nd and 101st Airborne, six US Marine divisions in the Pacific, 1st US Inf. Div, 1st and 2nd US Armored Divisions, etc. These were US combat units that were probably superior to the average German combat units in the war and so course there were ones that were not. Finally, Ambrose wasn't trying to challenge the idea that German units were not as good as American units in the conflict, you might want to re-read his forward again and pay special attention to his thesis statement in the book.

Now the question here is whether the SS TK was an elite combat unit or criminals? The answer, I believe, to this question is yes on both accounts!
James

[Scott Smith]

..."take no prisoners"...

If that is the kind of military leaders 'everybody wants', everybody should make da*n sure they win.

I agree. Eicke is a war-criminal and Lawrence of Arabia is an icon.

[Wolf]

No evidence exists which sets the SS-TK division apart in being more ruthless in this regard than lets say "Wiking" or "Das Reich".

Maybe not, but at the same time it's kind of telling that several of the 'high profile' war crimes comitted by the Waffen SS can be linked to the Totenkopf units or induviduals with ties to Totenkopf, such as Le Paradis or Oradour-sur-Glane (Lammerding).

There is no shortage of arch-scum who passed through the ranks of the Totenkopf division.

In fact, there really can be little doubt that Totenkopf was very much suited for the type of extermination war the Nazis wanted to wage in Russia. In the end think the Germans can consider themselves lucky not all units were like Totenkopf.

[Wolf]

...and Lawrence of Arabia is an icon.

Not to me he isn't.

[Scott Smith]

In fact you’re the only American making a comment like that on this web site. Again, you shouldn't over-generalize like that.

That is because the members of this forum are exceptionally well-informed on WWII.

I know it is a generalization but usually the Germans were better infantrymen and the Americans better artillerymen. According to the data from Trevor Dupuy, it took only three Germans to fight five Americans or British to a standstill. Dupuy is loathe to credit the Nazi/Prussian fanaticism for this superiority in two world wars and credits the German General Staff instead for "institutionalized excellence." Dupuy is forced to become apologetic even so; he is reluctant to critique the soldiers of his own country, overtly or implicitly.

As far as Ambrose, as far as I'm concerned he was an "apple-pie historian." This does not mean that I value his work not at all or that it is not good writing, plagiarism notwithstanding.