Did Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH) in Death Camps

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
NMcK
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 10 May 2002 10:09
Location: UK

Did Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH) in Death Camps

Post by NMcK » 10 May 2002 10:19

Hi,

I have come across a film (fictional) concerning the Holocaust in which officers of the 'Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH)' are depicted working in concetration camps.

Having tried to find further information on this matter, I appear to have drawn a blank. From what I have found, Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH) were not seconded to cencentration camp duty.

Can I therefore draw on the knowledge of users here to establish whether this is indeed the case, or whether I have got this completely wrong?

Thanks

Nick

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

re

Post by tonyh » 10 May 2002 11:59

Afaik, the LAH were not involved in the running of the KZ's at any level. The guarding of the camps was the domain of the Totenkopfverbandt, which later formed the basis od the 3rd SS div. "Totenkopf", under Theodor Eicke.

The spaces for camp guard duty were filled, however, by various men from many SS divs. including I'm sure, by LAH men, during the course of the war. Mostly by men to young to join up properly, or by men who were serving out a probation period, before joining front line units. Or by older soldiers, cashiered officers and men who had committed various misdemenors at the front or rear duty actions. In other words men given the choice to face a court martial action or "special service". I doubt that many men held prison guard duty in high regard.

Tony

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14002
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 10 May 2002 13:13

Also men being unfit for fighting, possibly because fo war injuries, I believe...

Christian

rkoy
Member
Posts: 192
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 23:07
Location: Angleton Texas USA

yes

Post by rkoy » 10 May 2002 14:05

i know a wiking div vet and he said they would do that on convalacent(spelling) leave recovering from wounds.

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14002
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 10 May 2002 14:56

I get to think, then:

1) can the Waffen-SS be blaimed because of this, or is it the high command (Himmler), for placing the soldiers in the KZ-camps?

2) does anyone know how these soldiers acted when compared to the guards. I have a feeling they have acted much more humane, but please, let me know what you know!

Christian

User avatar
David C. Clarke
Member
Posts: 11368
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 17:17
Location: U.S. of A.

Hi !

Post by David C. Clarke » 10 May 2002 21:18

Hi Christian, not meaning to pick a fight with you certainly, but why do you feel that men from divisions other than the 3rd SS would have acted more humanely towards the inmates of a Camp? I believe the philosophy that allowed for camps was that the Reich had both external and internal enemies. As part of this belief, the camps were part of the war against the internal enemy, just as frontline service was part of the war against the external enemy. As an SS member, the soldier was obligated by his honor to fight both the external and internal enemy. Best Regards, David :)

Chief Whip
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2002 16:16
Location: EU

Post by Chief Whip » 10 May 2002 21:46

i.) Why the obsession with Totenkopf every time ‘the camps’ are mentioned? Is that as far as you think? The division, Totenkopf, was a military fighting unit, just as the Leibstandarte was. This Pavlovian reflex of pointing fingers to Totenkopf is slowly but surely starting to become utterly boring.

ii.) Any facts to back your theories up, or are you just pretending to be a philosopher? So ‘the SS man’ (a wide concept – do we count in the waiters, the musicians and the functionaries at all the ministries?) was to ‘fight’ against the Jew in the camps just like he was to ‘fight’ against the Russian in the field?

With a knick-knack paddy whack …

User avatar
David C. Clarke
Member
Posts: 11368
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 17:17
Location: U.S. of A.

Chlef Whip!

Post by David C. Clarke » 10 May 2002 21:56

Hi Chief Whip, well first of all, I'm not obsessed with Totenkopf, although I truly despise the unit, I recognize it as being one of the true "elite" fighting units of the Third Reich. Secondly, Totenkopf's involvement in the camp system is well-documented. Thirdly, the concept of the internal and external enemies is not mine, Himmler worshipped the idea
and Hitler was the chief priest of the philosophy.
Now, if you have any proof that Camp guards from, say, the 1st or 2nd SS were kinder and gentler, I'd love to hear it.
Regards, D

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14002
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 10 May 2002 22:06

To David:
Well, the guards of the KZ camps were brutal towards the inmates, and the reason they were a part of the SS was, as far as I have been able to find out, purely for practical reasons.
Therefore, I think it could be interresting to find out, exactly how much their behavior differed from that of the camp guards. I think Totenkopf is a grey area, because they for one origined from KZ camp guards, but on the other hand, were fine soldiers for the majority of their strength. At least for many of the foreign voulenteers, the reason to join the Waffen-SS was to fight the war - not to be a part of the SS (for example, 78% of the members of Frikorps Danmark joined for 'Kriegsdauer' - duration of the war).
I think it is very possible that these soldiers would treat the people in the camps more humane. First, they were soldiers, and killing defenceless civilians would probably be a problem to some (they were not hardened in the same way as the German camp guards, who had been exposed to hours of propaganda). Second, they were not fighting the internal enemies of Germany, but the external.

Just a thought, though. I am very interrested in any information regarding this!

Not fighting back, though, just elaborating :D

To Chief, I assume your comments were to Davids post, not mine, as I could not in any way see the resemblance in content!

Christian

Chief Whip
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2002 16:16
Location: EU

Post by Chief Whip » 10 May 2002 22:17

“ […] I truly despise the unit [Totenkopf] […]”

Mr. Clarke informs us he ‘despises’ the third Waffen-SS tank division. That is his personal opinion. Personal opinions are derived from facts. Facts are derived from literature. I would very much so like to hear from Mr. Clarke which books on the Totenkopf he has read.

“I recognize it as being one of the true "elite" fighting units of the Third Reich.”

Said Mr. Clarke. Why does he feel the need to put elite between markers? Was, perhaps, Totenkopf not elite enough for him? Mr. Clarke can do better perhaps? I would like to see Mr. Clarke’s military decorations and his rank before judging whether Mr. Clarke the attorney has a case or not.

“Secondly, Totenkopf's involvement in the camp system is well documented.”

So well document, that you cannot quote any sources? I am afraid that remark will be scrapped from the records Mr. Clarke – from lack of proof.

“Thirdly, the concept of the internal and external enemies is not mine, Himmler worshipped the idea and Hitler was the chief priest of the philosophy.”

With some hollow phrases, Mr. Attorney thinks he just invented warm water. I do not know by heart what went on inside the minds of the SS-Reichsführer and his Führer, but because Himmler thinks of something, it is true? I’m afraid I have some bad news for the Russians and Jews. Say, I wouldn’t have thought you supported those ideas.

"Now, if you have any proof that Camp guards from, say, the 1st or 2nd SS were kinder and gentler, I'd love to hear it."

Let’s not put words in my mouth here, Mr. Attorney.

Besides, let us not build on clouds, who said there every where ‘camp guards’ from ‘1st or 2nd SS’? So far, we have the names of 1., 2. and 3. SS-Panzerdivision. None of, for example, the sixteenth.

Is this not another discrediting round? Is this not another row against the iron men of the past?

Factual data is what I would like to hear from Mr. Clarke. So far he has come up with nothing but the inside of his pockets.

That he ‘despises’ Totenkopf is what ravishes his credibility. He has none left. A miracle to me as to why Mr. Clarke would continue his boring round of accusations.

Mr. Attorney should know that the way to deal with harmful witnesses is to take away their credibility. In this case, Mr. Attorney took away his own credibility. These are friendly reminders to Mr. Clarke.

rkoy
Member
Posts: 192
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 23:07
Location: Angleton Texas USA

Chief

Post by rkoy » 10 May 2002 22:35

its just a forum!!!!!!!!!! take it easy calm down.....now take a few breaths and come back nice.................... rodney

User avatar
David C. Clarke
Member
Posts: 11368
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 17:17
Location: U.S. of A.

Hi Guys!

Post by David C. Clarke » 10 May 2002 22:52

Hi rkoy, don't worry, I have to be "moderate", I'm not myself--the old Commissar D the EviL, and frankly this conversation is pointless inasmuch that no one's mind will be changed by it. But, to dispose of it:
A. Yes I despise the 3rd SS. It is a personal opinion, to which everyone is entitled.
B. I also happen to think that 3rd SS's combat record was impressive. Therefore, in that the much over-used word "elite" can be applied, I would think that the Division earned it. (They also probably earned being tried by the Russians after the war, but that's neither here nor there.) Again, this is an opinion.
C. Okay, I'm convinced that I don't know what your average SS Camp Guard/Combat Infantryman thought of Camp Guard Duty. I bow to Chief Whip and ask him to please enlighten me.
D. I'm not about to waste energy tonight citing paragraphs of "sources,"
like the average SS defender does attempting to prove that the Waffen SS weren't really Nazis. Which does kind of bring up the question of, if the SS weren't Nazis and didn't belief in Hitler's or Himmler's ideology, then who in Germany did?
E. But I won't go that far afield. Chief Whip, please guide us into the minds of the SS Camp Guards and tell us how their attitudes towards the Concentration Camps, the Death Camps,. etc., varied from that of your average member of the Waffen SS when he wasn't guardiong some camp.
Cheers, D

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Re: Chief

Post by Timo » 10 May 2002 23:12

rkoy wrote:its just a forum!!!!!!!!!! take it easy calm down.....now take a few breaths and come back nice.................... rodney
But Rodney, never in the history of this forum (or the old forum) did Thomas ever respond in a nice way. What makes you think he will try this time?

Just my 2 cents,
Timo

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 10 May 2002 23:16

Chief Whip wrote:That he ‘despises’ Totenkopf is what ravishes his credibility. He has none left. A miracle to me as to why Mr. Clarke would continue his boring round of accusations.
But Thomas, who has more credibility? One who despises somebody, or one who worships somebody?

Just wondering.

Chief Whip
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2002 16:16
Location: EU

Post by Chief Whip » 11 May 2002 10:08

Mr. Clarke,

Nothing. Not a spat. I say, you for one still have a lot of reading ahead of you. You lump in ‘SS men’ together as if every ‘SS-man’ came out of a blacksmith monthly with a serial number stamped on their forehead.

Obviously, your blind adoration for Ivan and Bolshevism is getting the discussion nowhere. I would also like to remind you that being ‘tried by the Russians’ means mutilation or execution. Or, in the best cases, 10-15 years imprisonment for having been in the German Army. Pictures and accounts can be supplied if Mr. Clarke refuses to believe so.

Mr. Clarke is suggested to read

‘WIE EIN FELS IM MEER’ – LIKE A ROCK IN THE SEA, Karl Ullrich, 308 pages. The text is in both German and English, so Mr. Clarke will understand. It is the divisional history on TOTENKOPF.

Image

Chruschtschow, a man no doubt having the sheer privilege of decorating Mr. Clarke’s bedroom, said about the division; “Wohin ich auch kam, die Totenkopf-Division war schon da.”

---
As a footnote, Mr. Clarke, ‘personal opinions’ aren’t worth the bloody paper they are written on. Facts and argumentations with factual data is worth gold – if you hadn’t been born and raised in some American school or some such god awful place, you’d have known what studying real history means. It doesn’t mean enthusiastically shouting ‘I despise this, and that, and that too!’ on some bleeding internet website.

Credibility is gained by factual approach.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”