Valhalla's Warriors -Waffen-SS Eastern Front

[pzrmeyer2]

Interesting to see that all the old veterans have dusted off their swords and slipped back in to their tighter, well-worn fatigues for this discussion.
While I admire the effort Terry has gone through to research, write, and self-publish a book, something that thus far I've been unwilling and unable to do, it is in my opinion equally admirable to expose him and his motives as yet another rehasher of myths, slanders, and half-truths about the Waffen SS. Coupled with other recent works such as "The Myth of the Eastern Front" and "Jochen Peiper", and the hysterical reactions of those who find their works challenged, it doesnt take a stretch of the imagination to see that there is panic in the minds of those who have held on to ideologically-based, historically innacurate, "in a bubble" examinations of the Waffen SS and that their grip on the minds of the more learned studiers of the time is slipping. In short, these works simply do not withstand even cursory objective intellectual scrutiny.When even constructive criticism, pointing out of factual errors, and simply asking for answers to inconvient questions are lumped in to the category of SS apologia, denial, and ignorance, then we know what they and their motives are.

My question is quite simple:

These men were not the `fourth' part of the Armed Forces but more so the political tool with which Hitler and Himmler could unleash their genocidal plans with throughout the Eastern Front.

and whilst I really do admire the Waffen-SS as a military force

well, which is it then? a politcal tool used for unleashing genocial plans, or a military force worthy of your admiration?

and I am intersted in Terry's answer re Adenauer.

And finally, I think its important to note that this a "grown-up" forum. One should not actively solicit feedback and advice if one is not prepared to accept negative responses. Put on some thicker armor, Terry, and bring a sharper sword.

[AAA]

I would also ask this : what is the justification to treat the Waffen-SS as a single case for anything?

I ask this because the organization not only quite enormous (approaching a million men), but was surely one of the most heterogenous fighting forces ever assembled. How does one manage to establish generalizations applying across the divisions that apply to 1SS LSSAH(the prototypic merciless Aryan supermen)and 2SS Das Reich (partly composed of conscripted Alsation Frenchmen by the 1944 Oradour-sur-Glane massacre), with 3SS Totenkopf (initially based on former camp guards and infamous for atrocities, an uneven combat record and remarkable turnover of personnel), with 7SS Prinz Eugen (Volksdeutch, and reviled for warcrimes), the 9SS (recruited from the RAD labour service) or 12SS Hitlerjugend (children)?

Thats just German units, how to make valid generalizations that cover the foregoing and the foreign units? Like with 5SS Viking and 11SS Nordland (mainly scandinavian volunteer fighters for nazism, the first German officered but the second mainly Scandinavian officers, both with fine combat records and a near blameless record regarding atrocities), with 13SS Hadschar (Bosnian muslims with German officers, mutinous, incapable of combat but not incapable of atrocities) and 21SS Skanderbeg (Albanians, useless, almost all of whom deserted before ever being sent on operations), against 15SS Latvian I and 19SS Latvian II (Latvian officered and often run like a continuation of the prewar Latvian army, but manned almost entirely by conscription, yet with combat records both good and spotless) and 20th Estonian (similar), vs all the rest?

Thats about 20 moderately dodgy generalizations about individual divisions in the preceding two paragraphs alone, but how valid can any cross W-SS generalization be? I suggest that working from such a premise is inherantly and irreparably flawed from conception.

[Frederick L Clemens]

...Thats about 20 moderately dodgy generalizations about individual divisions in the preceding two paragraphs alone, but how valid can any cross W-SS generalization be? I suggest that working from such a premise is inherantly and irreparably flawed from conception.

AAA, if you can't make generalizations about a wildly heterogenous organization like the W-SS, you'll miss out on the fun of inventing absurd terms like "systemic genocide"?

Call me stupid, but I thought genocide was inherently systematic and/or systemic - how could one attempt to commit true genocide unless one used a large well-ordered organization conducting operations according to a system? Can there be such a thing as random or haphazard genocide? Can random murder be called genocide simply because the victims were in a particular ethnic category.

Now if the W-SS was intended to commit genocide, one would have label the W-SS as an abject failure having allowed so many prisoners to survive and having diverted so many resources into fighting other military units rather than sticking to "job number one." So let's call it "incompetent genocide".

[pzrmeyer2]

[quote][/Now if the W-SS was intended to commit genocide, one would have label the W-SS as an abject failure having allowed so many prisoners to survive and having diverted so many resources into fighting other military units rather than sticking to "job number one." So let's call it "incompetent genocide".quote]

which then again begs the question how the author can "admire the Waffen-SS as a military force"

[Frederick L Clemens]

I call on the author (again) at this point to state his book thesis in 3 or 4 paragraphs here. And add a couple of sentences as to the differences between his PhD thesis and his book.

Let's have a real debate on what he is contending, rather than shadow puppet show we have so far.

Convince us why we should buy your book. Is it anything new or does it provide any fresh insight?

If your main thesis is that the W-SS was a criminal organization, tell us why that is a new conclusion when the same thing was already said at Nuernberg?

[Uncle Joe]

Valhalla, a simple question: which of these organizations killed more civilians during WW two: Waffen-SS or US Army Air Force/Corps? Let´s compare some incidents: USAAF managed to wipe out e.g. some 80,000 civilians (dead) during a few hours in Feb 1945 in Tokyo. And how many were killed in that "horrible war crime" in Oradour by that horribly criminal Waffen-SS?

[Frederick L Clemens]

Valhalla, a simple question: which of these organizations killed more civilians during WW two: Waffen-SS or US Army Air Force/Corps? Let´s compare some incidents: USAAF managed to wipe out e.g. some 80,000 civilians (dead) during a few hours in Feb 1945 in Tokyo. And how many were killed in that "horrible war crime" in Oradour by that horribly criminal Waffen-SS?

Frankly, Uncle Joe, I think that kind of question is just a distraction for this thread. Although there is some merit to making comparisons between the actions of various armed forces, the subject of the W-SS alone is complex enough that I don't believe it helps to head off into tangents like the ethics of aerial bombardment - that's a topic that will be debated FOREVER. Besides, the W-SS did not have an air force - to Himmler's chagrin.

The author's topic is the criminality of the W-SS, so let's focus on that. But first, let's hear what, if anything, this particular author adds to that topic. His silence makes me suspect that he has become hesitant in the face of people who have "heard it all before" and want to see something original.

[phylo_roadking]

Moderator's Note;

Not just a distraction.

As recently stated -

Please note that it has always been a standard on the forum that when discussions on war crimes arise, the sins or not of one side are NOT measured against or excused by those of the other. What constitutes a "war crime" is a breach of the various treaties defining the laws of warfare, treatment of non-combatants, destruction of property, treatment of POWS, etc. - or the commonly-held "customs of war" underpinning them...what does NOT make an action a "war crime" is that the other side did it first or worse. Each war crime or alledged war crime stands on its own "merits" and circumstances - and not in comparison with or measured against any other by degree. That is a entirely spurious line of argument.

[Paddy Keating]

Two wrongs certainly don't make a right. I think it is probably alright to refer, for instance, to Allied war crimes if one is seeking to make the point that, essentially, the rules tend to go out the window once the fight heats up and rosy maudlin notions of chivalry find infertile ground with, of course, some exceptions. I think UJ was making a point made by a number of moral commentators in the past, namely that there is not very much difference between shooting several thousand civilians, dousing them with gasoline and cremating them and dropping HE and incendiary bombs on civilians from a great height. Killing is killing and most holy and spiritual instruction books say that it is wrong. The Sixth Commandment is quite unequivocal on the subject. From the civilians' viewpoint, there isn't much difference. They end up dying violently. With any luck, they are dead before the flames get to them. If anything, at the risk of offending delicate types, the death squad killer who gets up close to his victims is probably more honest, in terms of assuming personal responsibility for his actions, than the clean-shaven young airman who presses a button 20,000 feet up in the air. I'm sorry to seem so cold about it but once the average man develops the requisite mindset, no rules apply anymore. Knowing how his mind works, as a result of sparring with him so often, I think that's what UJ was driving at. Remember, he is Finnish and they can be quite blunt. Anyway, where is Dr Goldsworthy?

PK

[Frederick L Clemens]

...I think UJ was making a point made by a number of moral commentators in the past,...

And that's why it is a point not worth making - it's been done to death.

It is incumbent upon "Valhalla" to demonstrate that he isn't making a point that likewise hasn't already been done to death. Methinks though that he is not used to engaging with people who already have moved beyond the black/white analysis of this particular period in history.

[Paddy Keating]

Fair comment, FLC.

PK

[phylo_roadking]

And all posters will ensure they keep within THESE

discussion of the Holocaust has no place on this Forum.

Feldgrau's policy on the issue of war crimes is that discussions of war crimes, ala "xyz unit did xyz thing at xyz place and date" is fine as long as it remains TOTALLY neutral and unbiased either for or against it.

Uncle Joe's comments, and the comments on HIS comments are off-topic - but will stand at present. I don't want to have to start pruning, but will do so if the Forum rules on war crimes and war crime discussions aren't followed. It would be sad to have to do so - AND having had the rules drawn to posters' attention they'd in turn have to be dealt with in an appropriate manner for breaking them.

All posters will stay withing the bounds noted here

viewtopic.php?f=75&t=27918

I would have thought there was ENOUGH to discuss in this thread WITHOUT that...

[valhalla]

Hello,
back again, been very busy at work lately, lots of bad people in the world you know.

Now this would be an interesting question to pose I guess. What should we do about the hundreds of officers who served in the camp system and also the Waffen-SS? Should we apportion their actions in the camps to the Waffen-SS or just worry about what they did at the front lines?

And I guess we could cover the Einsatzgruppen, where some 30 or so Waffen-SS officers served at the cutting edge of that absurd term "systemic genocide", now apparently they were not an abject failure because they did manage to kill quite a few people.

And should we not also talk about the 1500 frontline Waffen-SS who also served in the Einsatzgruppen or perhaps we might just let them go.

I guess the Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt (WVHA) is also a problem because it was run by Waffen-SS generals and oversaw various unpleasant enterprises; such as SS-Obersturmbannführer Bobermin reporting how earthworks would be obtained for the Waffen-SS in a letter to WVHA Chief Oswald Pohl in 1944.

"… considering that we have a technically well-equipped establishment, and that the men of the forced labour camp will be at our disposal at favourable conditions, we shall most likely show a profit. The main reason for the taking over is the sufficient supply of building material to the Waffen-SS.
(Nuremberg Military Tribunal, 1946: Vol 5:249)

Now I don't want to breach the rules about war crimes so I am not going to talk about the above any further, but then I guess that makes it hard for me to talk about why I think the Waffen-SS committed some of the most "evil" acts in recent history.

Now if I give too much away no-one will buy the book will they!!!

[valhalla]

Now what would we say about the evidence of Mr Brill from the Leibstandarte?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you tell us, please, who was in charge of the command within the concentration-camp. Was it not the Waffen-SS?
BRILL: No, they were not commands of the Waffen-SS. Certain members of the nominal Waffen-SS were with the commands; but there is a clear order of the High Command of the Armed Forces which I have already mentioned. It is included in the Army circular of December 1940, and states that members of the Death’s Head units do not do any military service in the sense' of the Waffen-SS -Members of the Death’s Head units.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like to ask you to be more concise. So you contend that the commands in concentration-camps were not Waffen-SS commands?
BRILL: The commands were not under the High Command of the Waffen-SS; but I wish to point out that members of the Waffen-SS were with the commands. This is the difference.
(The International Military Tribunal, 1946: Vol 20:352)

Now is this a play on words to avoid responsibility I wonder???

Indeed what do we do about Waffen-SS members who served in the camps. The question needs to be asked at what point did these members of the Waffen-SS become nominal? Was it before they joined the fighting divisions of the Waffen-SS, or was it after they left them and took up duties in the camps? At what point did Max Simon, commander of the Reichsführer-SS Division, or Georg Bochmann, commander of the Gotz Von Berlichingen Division, consider themselves to be merely nominal Waffen-SS members? Simon and Bochmann both served at Sachsenburg and Dachau

[valhalla]

And to those who think that the Waffen-SS were not political then perhaps the thoughts of Adolf Hitler may convince otherwise. The SS were independent from both the Police and the Wehrmacht, and available for Hitler’s exclusive use. To this purpose Hitler issued a secret Führer order on the 17th of August 1938, which outlined the role and uses of the Waffen-SS both in peacetime and in war. He clearly delineates that the Waffen-SS is indeed different from just ordinary soldiers.
I

I. The Armed Units of the SS.
The SS-Verfügungstruppe.
1. The SS-Verfügungstruppe is neither a part of the Wehrmacht nor a part of the police. It is a standing armed unit exclusively at my disposal. As such and as a unit of the NSDAP, its members are to be selected by the Reichsführer-SS according to the ideological and political standards which I have ordered for the NSDAP and for the Schutzstaffeln. Its members are to be trained and its ranks filled with volunteers…
(The International Military Tribunal, 1946: Vol 4:170)

But of course the grandfather of the Waffen-SS would have us believe otherwise.

HERR PELCKMANN: Was the Verfügungstruppe, therefore, meant to be a political nucleus? The Prosecution accuses it of being a special instrument for the oppression and elimination of political opponents and of having aided realisation of the Nazi ideology by use of force.

HAUSSER: That is not true. The Verfügungstruppe had neither political nor police tasks. It developed gradually into a test troop which incorporated all the old soldierly virtues with the requirements of our socialist age. It paid special attention to the relations between officers and men, encouraged advancement without special examinations, and did away with any and all exclusiveness. (The International Military Tribunal, 1946: Vol 20:358)

Maybe Hausser had not read the below Fuhrer order.

III. Orders in case of Mobilisation.
A. The employment of the SS-Verfügungstruppe in case of mobilisation is a double one.
1. By the Supreme Commander of the Army within the wartime army. In that case it comes completely under military laws and regulations, but remains a unit of the NSDAP politically.
2. In case of necessity in the interior according to my orders; in that case it is under the Reichsführer-SS and Chief of the German Police.
In case of mobilisation I myself will make the decision about the time, strength and manner of the incorporation of the SS-Verfügungstruppe into the wartime army; these things will depend on the internal political situation at that time.
(The International Military Tribunal, 1946: Vol 4:170)

Looks like they had both political and police tasks to me. But who am I to question history. And to those who argue it was the fourth branch of the German Armed Forces perhaps you should speak to the below chap, because he was obviously misinformed.Even the generals of the Wehrmacht made it clear that the Waffen-SS was not part of the regular army but rather a creature of Himmler’s. Former chief of the Wehrmacht General Von Brauchitsch stated this at Nuremberg:

DR. LATERNSER: Now, the subordination of the Waffen-SS will have to be cleared up as well. Just what was the subordination of a Waffen-SS division to the Army?
VON BRAUCHITSCH: The Waffen-SS was subordinated to the Army only for tactical purposes. It was subordinated to the Army neither for discipline nor for judicial matters. The Army had no influence on promotions or demotions of people, and so forth.
DR. LATERNSER: To whom was a Waffen-SS division subordinate, when it was not engaged in a tactical task? That is, when it was neither in battle nor in the operational area?
VON BRAUCHITSCH: In any event, not the Army. It was subordinate to the Reichsführer-SS or to the High Command of the Armed Forces.
DR. LATERNSER: And to whom was it subordinate in the home area?
VON BRAUCHITSCH: To the Reichsführer-SS.
(The International Military Tribunal, 1946: Vol 20:580)

I just love history, don't you?