war crimes
war crimes
who, on this site, can honestly say that, if they were in the ss units accused of war crimes during the last war, they would not have been involved in them. bearing in mind the punishment for refusing would have been in most cases the firing squad. i am not condoning any of the attrocities i am sure that some were happy to do it but to condemn all is wrong. g.i.'s massacred surrendered ss at one of the concentration camps. free french massacred charlemange prisoners of war. these too are attrocities,but they went unpunished. so, if anyone, but mainly those who have been in combat and bearing in mind the punishment of probable death, can honestly say i wouldn't have done it i'd like to hear. thank you.
Well,I'll bite.
Of course I like to think I would do the courageous thing and refuse to participate in any war crime.
But,if you are talking about shooting wounded enemy combatants instead of bringing them to first aid,that might be a different story.
As far as shooting hostages,or "political enemies of the state",I would do what others did.Quietly fade into the background and not participate.If chosen for a specific crime,I would quietly and respectfully ask to be excused on "personal"grounds.
Hindsight is always 20/20 and someone in the rear might not agree with the decisions a front line soldier has to make.
Of course I like to think I would do the courageous thing and refuse to participate in any war crime.
But,if you are talking about shooting wounded enemy combatants instead of bringing them to first aid,that might be a different story.
As far as shooting hostages,or "political enemies of the state",I would do what others did.Quietly fade into the background and not participate.If chosen for a specific crime,I would quietly and respectfully ask to be excused on "personal"grounds.
Hindsight is always 20/20 and someone in the rear might not agree with the decisions a front line soldier has to make.
STRENGTH & HONOR
good point tyr, i can't honestly say what i would do in a combat situation. i have no defence for the camp guards who were, in the main, sadistic killers. the front line is diferent though and combatants do things that they wouldnt do or dream of doing when the adrenalin flows. it's very easy to sit in your armchair in front of cnn or the bbc and say they shouldn't do that but you spend time under fire watch your friends getting killed or maimed watch a sergeant go to accept surrender from white flag waving enemy troops only to get mown down by a hail of bullets. these things affect front line troops and, i believe, make them more succeptable to actions that they wouldn't normally take
I remember a line from Guy Sajers book in which he says that he wishes the reader could be in the cold,exhausted,frightened,overwhelmed by battle din,while reading his book, to get the real feeling of combat.joefraser wrote:good point tyr, i can't honestly say what i would do in a combat situation. i have no defence for the camp guards who were, in the main, sadistic killers. the front line is diferent though and combatants do things that they wouldnt do or dream of doing when the adrenalin flows. it's very easy to sit in your armchair in front of cnn or the bbc and say they shouldn't do that but you spend time under fire watch your friends getting killed or maimed watch a sergeant go to accept surrender from white flag waving enemy troops only to get mown down by a hail of bullets. these things affect front line troops and, i believe, make them more succeptable to actions that they wouldn't normally take
I agree that the psychopaths pouring Zyklon-B are indefensible.But what about those transferred to the camps ,recovering from wounds suffered in battle,or those assigned to camps that were not up to snuff for combat duties?What a nightmare for them.
Please do not think I am excusing murder and genocide.I am not,just putting out hypothetical situations in which basically good men found themselves.What would you do as a SS mann transferred to duty in a concentration camp?
Something to think about.......
STRENGTH & HONOR
-
Wurger
- Contributor
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 8:19 am
- Location: Establishing a 5th column in your country . . .
Re: war crimes
This isn't the case. Christopher Browning has documented numerous cases where men who refused to participate in executions were allowed fall out without fear of reprisal. The fact that most men chose to participate in these actions despite being given the option is particularly telling of their mindset.joefraser wrote:bearing in mind the punishment for refusing would have been in most cases the firing squad.
Wurger - Resident Leftist Thug
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Joefraser,
We know from post-war psychological studies that about 80% of us are so conformist that we will inflict incapicitating pain on an innocent human being if the right authority figure takes the moral responsibility of issuing the order for us.
I also know from my own personal experience that my own standards of morality have been eroded over time, to the point where I was routinely doing things I would not originally have countenanced.
So it is entirely possible that I would have conformed and taken part in W-SS atrocities.
But none of this changes what is right and what is wrong, or what is legal and what is illegal.
So, what is your point?
Cheers,
Sid.
We know from post-war psychological studies that about 80% of us are so conformist that we will inflict incapicitating pain on an innocent human being if the right authority figure takes the moral responsibility of issuing the order for us.
I also know from my own personal experience that my own standards of morality have been eroded over time, to the point where I was routinely doing things I would not originally have countenanced.
So it is entirely possible that I would have conformed and taken part in W-SS atrocities.
But none of this changes what is right and what is wrong, or what is legal and what is illegal.
So, what is your point?
Cheers,
Sid.
well put Sid...
All this seems to be the same discussion all over again whether the waffen ss or for that matter any other german soldiers can be excused of warcrimes just because they were under pressure either from the war itself or from their superiors. Let me recommend you all a book by Slavenka Drakulic 'They would never hurt a fly - war criminals on trial in the Hague.' Here we learn the story of Drazen Erdomovics. He was a serb who participated in the Srebrenica massacre. He was sentenced to ten years of prison, but that was later reduced to five years since the prosecutors akcnowledged that he was under extreme pressure. He had not wanted to participate but was forced to do the shooting. Does that absolve him of guilt? no... he is still a warcriminal and although at times it does seem unfair that he was convicted of doing something that he only did because he was under threat of death himself. But if no one steps up and refuses an illegal order, then the laws of war aint worth the paper it is written on. And yes it is easy to say so sitting in the comfort of my suburban home, but it all boils down to our individual responsibility. If we don't acknowledge this then the tyrants, the warmongers and all the others who force us to accept the breach of basic human law has won...
All this seems to be the same discussion all over again whether the waffen ss or for that matter any other german soldiers can be excused of warcrimes just because they were under pressure either from the war itself or from their superiors. Let me recommend you all a book by Slavenka Drakulic 'They would never hurt a fly - war criminals on trial in the Hague.' Here we learn the story of Drazen Erdomovics. He was a serb who participated in the Srebrenica massacre. He was sentenced to ten years of prison, but that was later reduced to five years since the prosecutors akcnowledged that he was under extreme pressure. He had not wanted to participate but was forced to do the shooting. Does that absolve him of guilt? no... he is still a warcriminal and although at times it does seem unfair that he was convicted of doing something that he only did because he was under threat of death himself. But if no one steps up and refuses an illegal order, then the laws of war aint worth the paper it is written on. And yes it is easy to say so sitting in the comfort of my suburban home, but it all boils down to our individual responsibility. If we don't acknowledge this then the tyrants, the warmongers and all the others who force us to accept the breach of basic human law has won...
Hi Sid,
Did I read your post right ? if so you must be mellowing a bit.
Your experience is somewhat similar then mine but you overlooked what I think is perhaps the most important - a persons upbringing and the standards derived from this upbringing.
Take care,
Gerhard
joefraser
You say "the camp guards who were, in the main, sadistic killers"
When stationed in Arolsen near Dachau the camp guards I saw were not allowed to speak to prisoners, in fact were not allowed to enter the camp. Like all guards they guarded the perimeter of the camp and accompanied working partys outside the camp. At a visit to a adjacent clothing depot I spoke to a guard who was sent there because of his injuries. That, Dachau was the only camp I saw and what little I saw, of all the others I don't know.
For instance later on in the POW camp the guards had nothing to do with us but the people who managed the camp - that's where the real bastards were.
In any case if given a order, that order was - do it or else. I remember when at basic training. A couple of my comrades (17 year olds) were sentenced to death.
The Spiess (sargent major) picked the firing squad, because I was one of his favorites it included me. When trying to get out of it my squad leader explained refusing it amounted to disobeying a order which had the same consequence.
The weapons sargent loaded the rifles with a blank in every second rifle and handed them out and collected them afterwards. I was so shaken up even with the difference in recoil between a live round and a blank I did not know what mine was but always hoped mine was one of the blanks
My two cents worth.
Did I read your post right ? if so you must be mellowing a bit.
Your experience is somewhat similar then mine but you overlooked what I think is perhaps the most important - a persons upbringing and the standards derived from this upbringing.
Take care,
Gerhard
joefraser
You say "the camp guards who were, in the main, sadistic killers"
When stationed in Arolsen near Dachau the camp guards I saw were not allowed to speak to prisoners, in fact were not allowed to enter the camp. Like all guards they guarded the perimeter of the camp and accompanied working partys outside the camp. At a visit to a adjacent clothing depot I spoke to a guard who was sent there because of his injuries. That, Dachau was the only camp I saw and what little I saw, of all the others I don't know.
For instance later on in the POW camp the guards had nothing to do with us but the people who managed the camp - that's where the real bastards were.
In any case if given a order, that order was - do it or else. I remember when at basic training. A couple of my comrades (17 year olds) were sentenced to death.
The Spiess (sargent major) picked the firing squad, because I was one of his favorites it included me. When trying to get out of it my squad leader explained refusing it amounted to disobeying a order which had the same consequence.
The weapons sargent loaded the rifles with a blank in every second rifle and handed them out and collected them afterwards. I was so shaken up even with the difference in recoil between a live round and a blank I did not know what mine was but always hoped mine was one of the blanks
My two cents worth.
war crimes
Is there anyone on this board who can mention the name of a country whose army has never committed a warcrime.
I find it disturbing that the losing side is always accused of having committed warcrimes , whilst the victors are hailed as heroes and are as white as snow.
I find it disturbing that the losing side is always accused of having committed warcrimes , whilst the victors are hailed as heroes and are as white as snow.
Mazabuka
No I can't mention one exept maybe Luxembourgs but that's only a guess. First of all no matter what training you give a soldier, no matter how many times he is taught the values of the hague and the geneva convention, you can't prevent him from snapping under pressure and killing a civilian. But it is a whole new ball game if you do not teach your soldiers the values of the laws of war, or if you encourage them to break the laws of war. Some of the rules in the laws of war are either antiquated or make no sence when it comes to the reality of war. An example could be the trial of Donitz on the case of breaching the laws of submarine warfare.
But since everyone is doing it does that make it allright that you did it too? if someone steals a tv and gets away with it, should you avoid trial for stealing one too?
No I can't mention one exept maybe Luxembourgs but that's only a guess. First of all no matter what training you give a soldier, no matter how many times he is taught the values of the hague and the geneva convention, you can't prevent him from snapping under pressure and killing a civilian. But it is a whole new ball game if you do not teach your soldiers the values of the laws of war, or if you encourage them to break the laws of war. Some of the rules in the laws of war are either antiquated or make no sence when it comes to the reality of war. An example could be the trial of Donitz on the case of breaching the laws of submarine warfare.
But since everyone is doing it does that make it allright that you did it too? if someone steals a tv and gets away with it, should you avoid trial for stealing one too?
well as long as we don't have an international court of justice with the right power we will have the victors justice. But the case of the victors not being tried does not exempt the loosing side for crimes commited. I guess you are refering to germanys warcrimes and how the allied were not being tried. Without an international court you didn't have the tool for trying the bombing of german cities or the Katyn massacre. But would it help? The sovietunion or the allied powers would probably not agree to you dragging stalin or Bomber Harris to the Hague og Nuremberg. When it comes to german warcrimes, they on almost every level far outdid what the allies committed of warcrimes. So no wonder that no allied leader was that eager to say 'oh by the way we did some to, so you are not that bad after all, since you are just like us' You say that the victor always comes out white... well with a bit help from historians we now know that this is not the case anymore and US, Brish and Soviet conduct are now being scrutinised and fingers pointed, but that does not change the fact that every axis soldier/leader who committed a crime and was convicted got what he deserved... Should we have tried Harris, Churchill and a lot other leaders who breached the protocol? we probably should have... But political circumstances prevented someone from doing it.I find it disturbing that the losing side is always accused of having committed warcrimes , whilst the victors are hailed as heroes and are as white as snow
Earned a promotion in part by stating that I would shoot my prisoners, in order to achieve my objective. The panel was most impressed.
Don't know whether I would have, I was never tested. However the fact that I said it, and it impressed senior officers has often made me think.
- Hans
Don't know whether I would have, I was never tested. However the fact that I said it, and it impressed senior officers has often made me think.
- Hans
Was haben wir für dich gewollt
Du deutsches Vaterland?
- H Gehr IR 21./17.ID
Du deutsches Vaterland?
- H Gehr IR 21./17.ID
war crimes
hi sid,
that is my point. anyone can sink that low as to do things that they wouldnt normally do in combat situations and no it isn't right. it is the way all the ss get branded as criminals that gets me but there you go. i belive it is s.o.p. for the s.a.s. to shoot all prisoners taken on a raid bar one for interregation. this is probably s.o.p. for all special forces, maybe someone who knows could verify.does that make these modern troops as bad?
that is my point. anyone can sink that low as to do things that they wouldnt normally do in combat situations and no it isn't right. it is the way all the ss get branded as criminals that gets me but there you go. i belive it is s.o.p. for the s.a.s. to shoot all prisoners taken on a raid bar one for interregation. this is probably s.o.p. for all special forces, maybe someone who knows could verify.does that make these modern troops as bad?
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi joefraser,
Where did "all the SS get branded as criminals"?
It certainly wasn't at Nuremberg. There it was explicitly stated that membership of the SS was not of itself a crime. Like anyone else, specific SS men had to be charged with a specific crime.
It is true that the Waffen-SS was declared a criminal organisation at Nuremberg. However, there was a reason for this. This was because, due its particular character as an institution, its men were far more likely to be involved in war crimes than other branches of the Wehrmacht. (For example, of four massacres of their civilians that the French brought up at Nuremberg, three were committed by the Waffen-SS, yet W-SS men comprised 5% or less of the German manpower in France). Thus, as an institution, the Waffen-SS was
What really condemns the Waffen-SS as a criminal organisation is the demonstrably better behaviour of the German Army, which was campaigning under identical operational conditions to the Waffen-SS. After Army complaints about SS indiscipline in Poland in 1939, the Waffen-SS was withdrawn from coverage by military law and thereafter, as an institution, was held to different standards from the Army.
Cheers,
Sid.
Where did "all the SS get branded as criminals"?
It certainly wasn't at Nuremberg. There it was explicitly stated that membership of the SS was not of itself a crime. Like anyone else, specific SS men had to be charged with a specific crime.
It is true that the Waffen-SS was declared a criminal organisation at Nuremberg. However, there was a reason for this. This was because, due its particular character as an institution, its men were far more likely to be involved in war crimes than other branches of the Wehrmacht. (For example, of four massacres of their civilians that the French brought up at Nuremberg, three were committed by the Waffen-SS, yet W-SS men comprised 5% or less of the German manpower in France). Thus, as an institution, the Waffen-SS was
What really condemns the Waffen-SS as a criminal organisation is the demonstrably better behaviour of the German Army, which was campaigning under identical operational conditions to the Waffen-SS. After Army complaints about SS indiscipline in Poland in 1939, the Waffen-SS was withdrawn from coverage by military law and thereafter, as an institution, was held to different standards from the Army.
Cheers,
Sid.
Well,first you ask when did all SS get branded as criminals.then cite Nuremburg as an example of how Waffen SS membership was not criminal.but that the Waffen SS WAS a criminal organization!! What double talk.sid guttridge wrote:Hi joefraser,
Where did "all the SS get branded as criminals"?
It certainly wasn't at Nuremberg. There it was explicitly stated that membership of the SS was not of itself a crime. Like anyone else, specific SS men had to be charged with a specific crime.
It is true that the Waffen-SS was declared a criminal organisation at Nuremberg. However, there was a reason for this. This was because, due its particular character as an institution, its men were far more likely to be involved in war crimes than other branches of the Wehrmacht. (For example, of four massacres of their civilians that the French brought up at Nuremberg, three were committed by the Waffen-SS, yet W-SS men comprised 5% or less of the German manpower in France). Thus, as an institution, the Waffen-SS was
What really condemns the Waffen-SS as a criminal organisation is the demonstrably better behaviour of the German Army, which was campaigning under identical operational conditions to the Waffen-SS. After Army complaints about SS indiscipline in Poland in 1939, the Waffen-SS was withdrawn from coverage by military law and thereafter, as an institution, was held to different standards from the Army.
Cheers,
Sid.
If an organization is criminal then members of that organization ARE CRIMINALS!!
I do not believe the Waffen SS should be branded as a criminal organization.You cite the fact that the Waffen SS was only 5% of German Armed Forces,and say that because so many WSS members were charged as criminals,the whole organization was culpable.
I respectfully disagree.
Best Wishes,
TYR
STRENGTH & HONOR