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.
User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Qvist » 04 Jul 2012 08:13

tonyh wrote:
Harro wrote:I don't mean what does "oh yawn" mean, I want to now what you mean when you say...
tonyh wrote:But for every Theofor Eicke, or Max Simon, there was a Paul Hausser, or Kurt Meyer, or Wilhelm Mohnke, or Wilhelm Bittrich, or Felix Steiner, or Fritz Witt.
because it tastes like the usual "Soldiers Like Any Other" mantra Hausser invented and which is again and again parroted by Waffen-SS appologists despite being complete bantam.
To begin, I was replying to BillHermann's mistaken assertion of:
"It is the fiction that they had no role in the camps or were men of an organization that had no political affiliation."

The sentence above would give the less educated reader the impression that when Waffen SS soldiers weren't at the front, they were happily gassing Jews in the camps.

It simply isn't the case and the vast majority of the men who passed through the ranks of the Waffen SS hadn't any contact with any camp at all.

My point in contrasting the likes of Eicke and say Bitterich, is to say that while one was ensconced in the camp system, the other never even saw a camp and it illustrates the folly of lumping a large body of men into one convenient bag.

Also, while the Waffen SS was part of the nazi organisation and wholly incorporated in the nazi state and system, the majority of the men (especially the younger ones) had no real political affiliation, in the true sense of the word. As I said, most weren't even members of the party.

If there was a common "political" trend amongst the volunteers of the Waffen SS (who drew men from a large geography), it was vehement anti Communism.
I agree that you cannot automatically and necessarily label W-SS soldiers war criminals, but that last paragraph in particular just goes way overboard.

The Waffen SS were, explicitly, openly and fundamentally, a politicised organisation. Its entire rationale for existing was political and ideological. It was, and understood itself as, the armed branch of the nazi movement, to whom it had a more fundamental loyalty than even to the German state. I am sure many soldiers joined it for other reasons, just like lots of people joined the KGB for other reasons than ideological fervor. But that does not change the nature of the organisation.

While the interconnectedness with the camp system etc can certainly be exaggerated as factor defining the organisation, that connectedness was much more than an incidental occurrence on the individual level. There was, quite simply, no essential distinction between the Waffen SS and the elements operating the camps, or engaged in executing the holocaust in the field in the east. People moved backed and forth between one and the other routinely. There were people commanding W-SS divisions who had commanded Einsatzgruppen in 1941, and W-SS divisions formed in part from the units that spent much of 1941 lining men, women and children up in the baltic woods and shooting them through the head. While most W-SS soldiers were not direct holocaust participants, the W-SS as an organisation contained a very great proportion of those who were. There was no divide. That can not legitimately be simply ignored, or fobbed away as a matter of a few individual cases.


The problem with that type of approach is that it leads one to incorrect conclusions and colours the view terribly. It's fine if one has a "History Channel" level of interest, but delving deeper requires a more intense approach. Labelling organisations is dodgy as it labels the men under those organisations. This is why it's wrong to believe that the Waffen SS was a "criminal" organisation, on the basis that the SS was labelled as such. It's perhaps unfortunate that the men of the Waffen SS even had SS in its title. Perhaps if their title was different, the view of them by some people would be different too. Organisations have different levels of people and involvement and assuming everyone in a given organisation is fully paid up, or shares exactly the same views etc is, by and large, a mistake.

It's really just an extension of "all Germans were nazis".
"It's perhaps unfortunate that the men of the Waffen SS even had SS in its title"? I repeat - there was no divide. There was no "concentration camp SS" in which the bad people served, and a "Waffen-SS", in which the "real soldiers" served. People moved from Einsatzgruppen to front service to security work to camp duty seamlessly and without particular fanfare, all deployed and run by the same instance, SS Führungsamt. The stated purpose of operating conventional military units within the SS framework was the need to use war service to build the organisation's (that is, the SS) prestige, so that it could better fulfill its chief function as the ultimate executor of the nazi movement's political vision. That is why the organisation existed and that is why there was such a thing as Waffen-SS divisions. The Waffen Ss wasn't built to bolster Germany's warmaking capacities, it was built to bolster the political clout of the SS.

I have many times argued hard against people who want to see the history of the Waffen-SS entirely in that light, and approach them primarily as a tool of ideological terror and crimes against humanity. That is in my opinion not the right historical approach, because most W-SS formations did spend most of its time in tasks other than this, and with the increasing complexity of the organisation it also becomes more contradictory - containing, for instance, lots of foreign volunyteers and even German conscripts. But, it should never be forgotten that this was because the history of the organisation was shaped and cut short by events (the deterioration of the war and eventual defeat) that derailed its design. Had Germany won the war, the W-SS would have fulfilled its purpose, and the men who were killing tanks on the steppes in 1943 would have become the men relied upon to implement radical demographic designs in the east, with everything that entailed. It doesn't matter if everyone within the organisation had the same views or motives, this is what it was.
Last edited by Qvist on 04 Jul 2012 11:42, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BillHermann
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 15:35
Location: Authie

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by BillHermann » 04 Jul 2012 11:40

indeed

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by tonyh » 04 Jul 2012 13:55

BillHermann wrote:By the way you seem to misunderstand we are not saying that all Waffen-SS members = the camps that is of course not true but late war you can say the organization Waffen-SS does = the camps and the organization Waffen -SS does = the SS.

Members not all the organization yes. To ignore this denies them the history.
Nobody is ignoring anything of the sort. However, the tendency to simply lump together vast groups of men into a basic and simplistic category, especially during a wartime situation, will lead one to incorrect conclusions. For example, while the Waffen SS technically fell under the banner of the SS and their head was Himmler, the reality of the situation was that they separate and quite distinct. The SS was not a monolithic organisation, by any stretch.
BillHermann wrote:Again I never said "all" but it is true that the many were. Especially those who went through the ranks of the Hitler youth would have some level of interest in the movement. Why would you voulenteer to join the SS or Waffen-SS if you did not have some level of interest in the message, values and culture. A vast majority of Germans from 1932 to 1944 were quite happy to wave the flag and support the organization either out of pride or fear. But support is support, having lived in Germany for 7 years and talking to seniors the vast majority will agree. The only ones that don't often don't want to talk about it or have private reasons not to talk about. They know that not all were bad, but they say most followed.
You see, you're doing it again. "Especially those who went through the ranks of the Hitler youth would have some level of interest in the movement..." ALL boys who of age in the 30's and 40's "went through thr ranks of the Hitler Youth". There wasn't a choice in the matter. That doesn't mean they all robotically rolled out the other end as ardent little nazis.

I agree that in some way, the majority of Germans at least paid lip service to the nazi state, or simply didn't know how to proceed in the chaos of the 30's and during the actual war, their hands were tied completely. But, what else could they have done? The nazi state strangled opposition from teh start. It's not as if dissent had a chance to exist in any real form. It's easy for us to sit here decades after the fact and damn a nation for it's complicity in the nazi state, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of Germans of the period wouldn't have had even a 10th of the knowledge that we do, about what the nazis actually meant. A lot of people simply wouldn't have known what the party and its apparatus stood for. They would have contented themselves with the knowledge that suited their needs, or opinions at the time. There are people that do it today with modern political parties. They offer support and know bugger all about what that actually means.
BillHermann wrote:By the way I'm am well versed in the Ukrainians, Albanians, French, Dutch, Scandinavians, Croatian, Italians, and people from the Baltics that joined and that the vast majority did not join because they were staunch Nazis. There were many reasons from getting a living wage to agreeing with the policies, to being able to fight Communists or to be able to legally bully your neighbor who was of a diffrent religion or race. But most of these units had senior officers and NCOs that were part of the original organization. I just don't subscribe to the post war fiction that has been created. Funny thing is many of the German Waffen-SS veterans would agree with many of these statements but of course some would not as usual. I would also like to add that I know that some of the senior Waffen-SS members were not as bad as others however most were party members some you mentioned even had the Golden Party Badge. That is pretty tight with the leaders at the top.
But, there was a myriad of reasons for joining the Waffen SS. For instance many Reichswehr officers joined because it offered better conditions and also a better military career. Of course there were those who joined because they were committed to the nazi cause, or at least the part of the nazi cause that they believed in.

Hausser himself joined because it was an opportunity to mold officers in a candidate school. But, part of the requirement for that position was that he join the Verfuegungstruppe. He actually had no office within the Allgemeine SS proper. This certainly doesn't mean that Hausser was a hardened nazi, or a figure like Eicke, who by all accounts was a pretty unlikeable fellow.

By the way, Hausser was given his golden party badge in 1943. It was more of a token than anything else and certainly didn't have the meaning that was associated with that particular badge in general. Its meaning also changed during the course of its existance. While the first members of the party were deemed eligble to wear it, because of their service to the nazi party, later awards were expanded to include service to the country. It's in that capacity that Hausser recieved his. One wonders how often he wore it, if at all.

It also didn't mean that recipients (especially in that capacity) were automatically "tight with the leaders at the top."
BillHermann wrote:I have many books on the matter as well and have read many that are flaky and fictional trying to separate the organization from the SS and Nazis. This simply is not true and any book that touts this is no better than a fictional book from Len Deighton.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of books written about the war leave a lot to be desired. Books about the Waffen SS would be no different. However, I do believe that the SS was not a monolithic structure and that the branches were quite distinct, even though they all fell under the same umbrella. We'll just have to disagee on that matter.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by tonyh » 04 Jul 2012 14:16

Qvist wrote:
tonyh wrote:
Harro wrote:I don't mean what does "oh yawn" mean, I want to now what you mean when you say...
tonyh wrote:But for every Theofor Eicke, or Max Simon, there was a Paul Hausser, or Kurt Meyer, or Wilhelm Mohnke, or Wilhelm Bittrich, or Felix Steiner, or Fritz Witt.
because it tastes like the usual "Soldiers Like Any Other" mantra Hausser invented and which is again and again parroted by Waffen-SS appologists despite being complete bantam.
To begin, I was replying to BillHermann's mistaken assertion of:
"It is the fiction that they had no role in the camps or were men of an organization that had no political affiliation."

The sentence above would give the less educated reader the impression that when Waffen SS soldiers weren't at the front, they were happily gassing Jews in the camps.

It simply isn't the case and the vast majority of the men who passed through the ranks of the Waffen SS hadn't any contact with any camp at all.

My point in contrasting the likes of Eicke and say Bitterich, is to say that while one was ensconced in the camp system, the other never even saw a camp and it illustrates the folly of lumping a large body of men into one convenient bag.

Also, while the Waffen SS was part of the nazi organisation and wholly incorporated in the nazi state and system, the majority of the men (especially the younger ones) had no real political affiliation, in the true sense of the word. As I said, most weren't even members of the party.

If there was a common "political" trend amongst the volunteers of the Waffen SS (who drew men from a large geography), it was vehement anti Communism.
I agree that you cannot automatically and necessarily label W-SS soldiers war criminals, but that last paragraph in particular just goes way overboard.

The Waffen SS were, explicitly, openly and fundamentally, a politicised organisation. Its entire rationale for existing was political and ideological. It was, and understood itself as, the armed branch of the nazi movement, to whom it had a more fundamental loyalty than even to the German state. I am sure many soldiers joined it for other reasons, just like lots of people joined the KGB for other reasons than ideological fervor. But that does not change the nature of the organisation.


While the interconnectedness with the camp system etc can certainly be exaggerated as factor defining the organisation, that connectedness was much more than an incidental occurrence on the individual level. There was, quite simply, no essential distinction between the Waffen SS and the elements operating the camps, or engaged in executing the holocaust in the field in the east. People moved backed and forth between one and the other routinely. There were people commanding W-SS divisions who had commanded Einsatzgruppen in 1941, and W-SS divisions formed in part from the units that spent much of 1941 lining men, women and children up in the baltic woods and shooting them through the head. While most W-SS soldiers were not direct holocaust participants, the W-SS as an organisation contained a very great proportion of those who were. There was no divide. That can not legitimately be simply ignored, or fobbed away as a matter of a few individual cases.


The problem with that type of approach is that it leads one to incorrect conclusions and colours the view terribly. It's fine if one has a "History Channel" level of interest, but delving deeper requires a more intense approach. Labelling organisations is dodgy as it labels the men under those organisations. This is why it's wrong to believe that the Waffen SS was a "criminal" organisation, on the basis that the SS was labelled as such. It's perhaps unfortunate that the men of the Waffen SS even had SS in its title. Perhaps if their title was different, the view of them by some people would be different too. Organisations have different levels of people and involvement and assuming everyone in a given organisation is fully paid up, or shares exactly the same views etc is, by and large, a mistake.

It's really just an extension of "all Germans were nazis".
"It's perhaps unfortunate that the men of the Waffen SS even had SS in its title"? I repeat - there was no divide. There was no "concentration camp SS" in which the bad people served, and a "Waffen-SS", in which the "real soldiers" served. People moved from Einsatzgruppen to front service to security work to camp duty seamlessly and without particular fanfare, all deployed and run by the same instance, SS Führungsamt. The stated purpose of operating conventional military units within the SS framework was the need to use war service to build the organisation's (that is, the SS) prestige, so that it could better fulfill its chief function as the ultimate executor of the nazi movement's political vision. That is why the organisation existed and that is why there was such a thing as Waffen-SS divisions. The Waffen Ss wasn't built to bolster Germany's warmaking capacities, it was built to bolster the political clout of the SS.

I have many times argued hard against people who want to see the history of the Waffen-SS entirely in that light, and approach them primarily as a tool of ideological terror and crimes against humanity. That is in my opinion not the right historical approach, because most W-SS formations did spend most of its time in tasks other than this, and with the increasing complexity of the organisation it also becomes more contradictory - containing, for instance, lots of foreign volunyteers and even German conscripts. But, it should never be forgotten that this was because the history of the organisation was shaped and cut short by events (the deterioration of the war and eventual defeat) that derailed its design. Had Germany won the war, the W-SS would have fulfilled its purpose, and the men who were killing tanks on the steppes in 1943 would have become the men relied upon to implement radical demographic designs in the east, with everything that entailed. It doesn't matter if everyone within the organisation had the same views or motives, this is what it was.

Where have I even posited that the Waffen SS wasn't "a politicised organisation" ? What I am saying is that the men who joined the Waffen SS did so for a multitude of reasons, as you yourself have just said. I am not saying that the organisation itself was apolitical, or that it was created independent of the politics at the time. Nor am I saying that it was independent of the "holocaust in the field". However, the majority of men that passed through its ranks did not join through reasons of politics. Nor did they join to line up Jews and shoot them into ditches etc.

And I would have had the same conversations as you have had over the years about the Waffen SS with other members of the forum who are content to view its men as simple nazi functionaries content with massacring Jews and carrying out war crimes.

I agree completely that it's "not the right historical approach".

I believe and still believe that the vast majority of the men who formed the ranks of the Waffen SS were of a completely different calibre to those who were in the likes of the Allgemeine SS, or Sicherheitsdienst.

User avatar
Harro
Member
Posts: 2993
Joined: 19 May 2005 18:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Harro » 04 Jul 2012 14:28

So curious what "tonyh" thinks of the opinion SS-Sturmbannführer Diercks (DKiG) expressed about the Waffen-SS.

User avatar
BillHermann
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 15:35
Location: Authie

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by BillHermann » 04 Jul 2012 21:32

I believe and still believe that the vast majority of the men who formed the ranks of the Waffen SS were of a completely different calibre to those who were in the likes of the Allgemeine SS, or Sicherheitsdienst.

Ohhh but you are wrong, very wrong. Most members of the Allgemeine SS had full involvement in the Waffen-SS at some level. The Allgemeine SS was like a club, but it's mebers willfully went or were conscripted into the fighting forces, especially the Waffen-SS. The Sicherheitsdienst as well would have had a close relationship, not only its members but also on the front as the Sicherheitsdienst followed the combat troops and often had them help in Sicherheitsdienst duties.

Adolf Eichmann from the RSHA like many police members was commissioned in the Waffen-SS later in the war. The police were quite close to the Waffen SS as they both hat the same parent organizations, many members moved between the two and the Waffen-SS had a number of police units and divisions.

The Waffen-SS and the RSHA both had the same parent agency how could they not have similarities. There were far more similarities than differences.

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by waldzee » 04 Jul 2012 21:48

@ the Writer:
Where have I even posited that the Waffen SS wasn't "a politicised organisation" ? What I am saying is that the men who joined the Waffen SS did so for a multitude of reasons, as you yourself have just said. I am not saying that the organisation itself was apolitical, or that it was created independent of the politics at the time. Nor am I saying that it was independent of the "holocaust in the field". However, the majority of men that passed through its ranks did not join through reasons of politics. Nor did they join to line up Jews and shoot them into ditches etc.

And I would have had the same conversations as you have had over the years about the Waffen SS with other members of the forum who are content to view its men as simple nazi functionaries content with massacring Jews and carrying out war crimes.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
@ the responder:
It was massacure with a purpose- 'Historic land clearances'
The SS recruited heavily among the Swartzeedeutch, my Black Sea German 'relatives'. The Premise was direct & blunt: Post war acres, slaves,polygamy. Plus revenge. Plus no more "Christian Slave-religion guilt">

Talk of mystical higher purpose is nice,& may have motivated a minority, but hey, recruiting 18 year old front line fighters is best marketed by "sex, booty, & no constraining rules".
The Ancient , proven , message... :)
Especially when you are in a hurry....

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Qvist » 04 Jul 2012 22:14


Where have I even posited that the Waffen SS wasn't "a politicised organisation" ? What I am saying is that the men who joined the Waffen SS did so for a multitude of reasons, as you yourself have just said. I am not saying that the organisation itself was apolitical, or that it was created independent of the politics at the time. Nor am I saying that it was independent of the "holocaust in the field". However, the majority of men that passed through its ranks did not join through reasons of politics. Nor did they join to line up Jews and shoot them into ditches etc.

And I would have had the same conversations as you have had over the years about the Waffen SS with other members of the forum who are content to view its men as simple nazi functionaries content with massacring Jews and carrying out war crimes.

I agree completely that it's "not the right historical approach".
Okay, fair enough. A straightforward reading of the quoted post did not convey that message, but it's your prerogative to clarify your position.
I believe and still believe that the vast majority of the men who formed the ranks of the Waffen SS were of a completely different calibre to those who were in the likes of the Allgemeine SS, or Sicherheitsdienst.
Which is where I was about to disagree with you. But having spent a good while checking my assumptions by going briefly through the subsequent careers of 30 or so EinsatzGruppe and -kommando commanders, I am frankly less certain that I was right. I could in point of fact find no more than 2 or 3 cases where these officers went on to serve in the Waffen-SS, and they appear to have constituted very much the exception. The remainder generally ended up as SD, Gestapo or SiPo commanders around Europe, or in RSHA. I may have drawn too far-reaching conclusions from a limited number of cases known to me (above all the Latvian SS divisions, which are heavily interwoven both with EG commanding personnel and baltic units with a holocaust record). It would be great if someone with some serious biographical SS competence could weigh in on this. Michael? Rob?

Might as well post the list I checked, I guess:

Einsatzgruppe commanders in Poland

I: Bruno Streckenbach: Served in the 8.SS Cavalry division, and commanded 19. (Latvian) SS div.
II: Emanuel Schäfer: No W-SS service (SD chief in Serbia)
III: Hans Fischer: No W-SS service (inspector general of SiPo)
IV: Lothar Beutel: Convicted of sexual crimes, degraded, posted to Dachau as private, penal unit in 3. SS "TK", reinstated, served in Reichsapothekerkammer, then fought in W-SS in Hungary in 1944-45 (!)
V: Ernst Damzog (b 1882): No W-SS service (SiPo inspector in Posen)
VI: Erich Naumann (b.1905): No W-SS service (SD chieg WK II/Netherlands)
zbv: Udo von Woyrsch: NWSSS (Police service in Saxony)
16: Rudolf Tröger : Army service! Killed on WF in 1940 attacking the Maginot line, of all things.

EK commanders:

Ludwig Hahn, EG commander Barbarossa
Bruno Müller, EG Commander Barbarossa
Alfred Hasselberg, SD Lublin then ?
Karl Brunner, SD Salzburg, Bozen
Otto Sens, SD Krakau/Kattowitz
Karl Heinrich Rux, SD Bromberg, Thorn, Yugoslavia
Wilhelm Scharpwinkel, SD Breslau ua
Fritz Liphardt, SD/Gestapo Radom, Stettin
Helmut Bischoff, SD, various KZ
Walter Hammer, Gestapo/RSHA
Heinz Gräfe, RSHA/Unternehmen Zeppelin
Robert Schefe, RSHA
Walter Albath, various SD posts
Franz sommer, Kripo Köln
Gerhard Flesch, Sipo, SD Norway
Bruno Müller: Several SD positions
Otto Rasch, Director of Kontinental Oil

Barbarossa Einsatzgruppen

EG commanders

Franz Stahlecker: Killed by partisans
Heinz Jost: Liaison with AG south, lieutenant W-SS (claimed)
Humbert Pifrader, RSHA
Friedrich Panzinger: SD Riga, RSHA
Wilhelm Fuchs, SD Serbia/RSHA

User avatar
BillHermann
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 15:35
Location: Authie

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by BillHermann » 04 Jul 2012 22:40

Crimes and commands alone are not the only way to judge an organization, the information must also come from the association and the relationship of the organization with its parent organization.

Mapping out the history of the organization in question gives us direct links to the police and parent organization. We also must concider the junior ranks and NCOs in this as well.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by tonyh » 04 Jul 2012 23:02

Harro wrote:So curious what "tonyh" thinks of the opinion SS-Sturmbannführer Diercks (DKiG) expressed about the Waffen-SS.
You mean his opinion on him being indoctrinated into the nazi's anti-Bolshevik ideology? And that the Waffen SS were not "just soldiers" ? I would say that he's correct in some ways. But, I would also suggest that they were not simply nazis, by and large, either. Not in the strictest sense of the word anyway. Being "anti-Bolshevik" was shared by many people outside of Germany, the vast majority of America for a start. That wouldn't constitute being a nazi though. Of course, there were the hardened devotees involved in the Waffen SS too, but to what extent the men of the Waffen SS signed up to nazi ideology, as a whole, remains a question. I would say the range would be mildly Conservative to die-hard party members.

That the Waffen SS as an organisation wasn't set up to be "just soldiers" is a fair enough comment and one I'd agree with. However, that doesn't mean the men who volunteered for frontline service signed up to be nazis.

That's why I would make the distinction in calibre between the men of the party and the men of the Waffen SS.

User avatar
BillHermann
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 15:35
Location: Authie

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by BillHermann » 05 Jul 2012 06:01

It's like we are running around in circles.

We know very well that some were less political than others, we know that the late war conscripts were not much into the Nazi thing. This does not need to be said. We are not talking about the members themselves but the organization. It was tightly regulated and part of the SS. If it wasn't it would have been called something else. Even having the SS in the title means that there is a direct relationship. It's pretty clear, saying wait a second some just joined to fight the Bolsheviks is not a defence of the organization but a defence of the individual. Of course some former members would say that we were not all bad because it's obvious. But any oganization has roots. The Waffen-SS had direct ties, it's logistics training and conception came from the SS and Nazi party. What more is needed.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Qvist » 05 Jul 2012 07:14

BillHermann wrote:Crimes and commands alone are not the only way to judge an organization, the information must also come from the association and the relationship of the organization with its parent organization.

Mapping out the history of the organization in question gives us direct links to the police and parent organization. We also must concider the junior ranks and NCOs in this as well.
Of course. But the point involved here was if "the vast majority of the men who formed the ranks of the Waffen SS were of a completely different calibre to those who were in the likes of the Allgemeine SS, or Sicherheitsdienst". My, and your, argument in that regard relied to a considerable extent on the assumption that men moved back and forth between the W-SS and other parts of the SS responsible for implementing nazi crimes. In that regard, it is not irrelevant to what extent that actual people actually did that. And it seems that at least as far as EG officers are concerned, this was only exceptionally the case. I have not however discarded the point, I simply acknowledge that I have some difficulty substantiating it, which reasonably also forces me to question whether it is ultimately sustainable.

User avatar
sidelock123
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 19 Jun 2012 10:05

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by sidelock123 » 05 Jul 2012 09:28

Crimes of the Waffen SS are nothing new in the wider historical view of military conquest and major continental struggles for power. I feel this whole debate is trying to moralise on a basic fact that the human race are still the only major dominant species and one who regardless of cause, reason, humanity, compassion; kills its own species on a regular basis. Its a non subject Im afraid. If we are focussing in on the Waffen SS and the wider SS in relation to crimes against sections of society nameley Jews and minorities then again we have a pattern of persecution dating back over 2000 years of similar brutal purges. As someone with German ancestry and family I feel that major powers like the USA and the European Demcracies have labelled the crimes commited by Germany in 33-45 period as somehow unique and punishable by a lifetime of guilt and reparation when they are not. What they are sadly is a cyclical event or pattern which the Human Race continues to and will continue to follow. Beleive it or not there are many today who say the entire Banking Crisis experienced in 2008 which dragged the world into a similar global depression as that of the 1930's was in principle led by Jewish controlled Investment Banks. And so the cycle continues...

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Qvist » 05 Jul 2012 11:15

sidelock123 wrote:Crimes of the Waffen SS are nothing new in the wider historical view of military conquest and major continental struggles for power. I feel this whole debate is trying to moralise on a basic fact that the human race are still the only major dominant species and one who regardless of cause, reason, humanity, compassion; kills its own species on a regular basis. Its a non subject Im afraid. If we are focussing in on the Waffen SS and the wider SS in relation to crimes against sections of society nameley Jews and minorities then again we have a pattern of persecution dating back over 2000 years of similar brutal purges. As someone with German ancestry and family I feel that major powers like the USA and the European Demcracies have labelled the crimes commited by Germany in 33-45 period as somehow unique and punishable by a lifetime of guilt and reparation when they are not. What they are sadly is a cyclical event or pattern which the Human Race continues to and will continue to follow. Beleive it or not there are many today who say the entire Banking Crisis experienced in 2008 which dragged the world into a similar global depression as that of the 1930's was in principle led by Jewish controlled Investment Banks. And so the cycle continues...
Yeah, and in a few billion years the universe is going to end anyway, so what does it all really matter? :roll:

For my part, I have no time for such feeble attempts to excuse the inexcusable by the means of absurd reductionism, as if genocidal warfare was some immutable law of nature. Of course it's not "cyclical", what sort of moronic nonsense is that? Sit up and pay attention to the world around you, and to the choices that are in fact open to peoples and governments and why they respond to them as they do. It may take more effort than dissolving real issues into a miasma of comfortable quasi-philosophical dung, but at least you'd have the satisfaction of trying to get to grips with reality instead of attempting to pass intellectual laziness off as deep insights.

User avatar
Harro
Member
Posts: 2993
Joined: 19 May 2005 18:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Harro » 05 Jul 2012 11:19

Qvist wrote:Yeah, and in a few billion years the universe is going to end anyway, so what does it all really matter? :roll:
Yup, and I guess "sidelock123" will blame that on the Jews too :roll:

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”