Hi panzermahn.
I am aware of the Geneva convention regarding 'irregulars' if captured, however the main reason for the conviction was the execution also of random prominent Danish people (a few doctors if I recall) as retribution for sabotage activities and for torturing Danish resitance fighters.
Birkedal-Hansen at least for some time worked for Gestapo in Denmark as an intelligence officer (leader of a group called Birkedal-Hansen operating in civilian) and as such he had close ties with various pro-German groups, like Schalburg-korpset. I don't know exactly what he was sentenced for, but in the closing days quite a few of these intelligence teams, having nothing to loose, went on a killing spree. I believe most death sentences where given to members of these groups.
~ Christian
Dutch SS veterans, Korea
-
Christian Godske
- New Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:35 am
- Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
- Contact:
-
panzermahn
- Associate
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:09 am
- Location: Malaysia
-
Alex Dekker
- Associate
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:37 pm
- Location: Alkmaar,The Netherlands
- Contact:
A few years ago, I tried to find this out. I contacted a former commander of the Dutch squad, he told me there were a few, 20 former W-SS at most. That's all he knew, further details are not recorded.
For Indonesia nothing is known, except one story. One ex W-SS soldier told his story to Ger Verrips, published as "mannen die niet deugden" (verschrikkelijke titel!). So I contacted the Veteransorgansiation and I got some stuff about former W-SS soldiers serving the fightings in Indonesia.
Here we go again: no written records, no proof, only stories. The man who send me those articles and copies out of books, wanted know what I could find. After a period of two years: absolutely nothing... I think we have to do it with the stories...
For Indonesia nothing is known, except one story. One ex W-SS soldier told his story to Ger Verrips, published as "mannen die niet deugden" (verschrikkelijke titel!). So I contacted the Veteransorgansiation and I got some stuff about former W-SS soldiers serving the fightings in Indonesia.
Here we go again: no written records, no proof, only stories. The man who send me those articles and copies out of books, wanted know what I could find. After a period of two years: absolutely nothing... I think we have to do it with the stories...
I can only confirm the presence of former (Dutch) SS men who were offered to regain their Dutch citizenship by the Dutch government through fighting for the UN forces in Korea. A familymember of mine did so too. He first served with the Waffen SS at Leningrad, was wounded there and send to a hospital in Vienna, after his recovery he was reposted with the "Schwere SS Pnz.Abt. 103/503" (Kingtiger) and send to Russia only to end the war wounded in Berlin and being captured by the Russians. After he had recovered he was send back by the Russians to The Netherlands where he was placed in a boysinstitution because he was under the age of 18 years. He then worked for a Dutch firm, without a Dutch citizenship, until he got the word that he could "earn" back his citizenship by fighting in Korea and so he did. I know of one (Dutch) person he met there who had fought with the SS-Fallschirmjäger.
At the other hand it was not (commonly) known to the other members of the forces serving there that SS men were amongst them. Even now there stil is a strong denial (or disbelieve) from the Koreaveterans regarding SS men fighting in Korea.
Anyway, be sure SS-men have served in Korea, did their job, were (re)given the Dutch citizenship they had lost, medals and a "thank you" and lived on afterwards. Documented only by those SS-men who have been there.
At the other hand it was not (commonly) known to the other members of the forces serving there that SS men were amongst them. Even now there stil is a strong denial (or disbelieve) from the Koreaveterans regarding SS men fighting in Korea.
Anyway, be sure SS-men have served in Korea, did their job, were (re)given the Dutch citizenship they had lost, medals and a "thank you" and lived on afterwards. Documented only by those SS-men who have been there.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Sid,
Although I am a little puzzled too about Paddy's statement on the blueprint of Nato I am a little surprised too about your fierce and in my opinion also littlebit totalitarian reaction.
Don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to his opinion.
Firstly a little correction:
Paddy speaks of Waffen-SS, so that's rather national (German) and not foreign, treacherous etc.
The rest of the lot (foreign volunteers) who were in your words "the treacherous renegades serving a foreign totalitarian dictatorship" may have had all kinds of reasons to join, not only because they were convinced "Nazi". A great part of them who joined the SS had a cause: stop the communist (horde) and that does sound familiar, at least it was till about 1989.
I am not making any comparison here but I would like to say that a lot of these foreign SS men believed in this cause, supported even by different Christian believes. Serving a cause for some people does not take in account nationality.
Looking at the total number of foreign volunteers I myself am surprised to see how many there were, in my opinion more than a "relatively small number", of course depending on what you compare it with.
We now know a lot of what has happened then and we should have learned from that. If those men who joined the SS then had known what we know now about that regime I wonder how many of them would still make the decision to join that regime, cause or no cause, being a foreign regime or not.
I think the ones who still would join are the fanatics and believe me, in spite of all the knowledge we have about the second world war and the carnages that have followed after the second world war, these fanatics will always be amongst us, friend or foe.
So not all the "wrong" guys are with the enemy.
Furthermore I think the view on "who is right or wrong" is dictated by the victor.
Greetings.
Although I am a little puzzled too about Paddy's statement on the blueprint of Nato I am a little surprised too about your fierce and in my opinion also littlebit totalitarian reaction.
Don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to his opinion.
Firstly a little correction:
Paddy speaks of Waffen-SS, so that's rather national (German) and not foreign, treacherous etc.
The rest of the lot (foreign volunteers) who were in your words "the treacherous renegades serving a foreign totalitarian dictatorship" may have had all kinds of reasons to join, not only because they were convinced "Nazi". A great part of them who joined the SS had a cause: stop the communist (horde) and that does sound familiar, at least it was till about 1989.
I am not making any comparison here but I would like to say that a lot of these foreign SS men believed in this cause, supported even by different Christian believes. Serving a cause for some people does not take in account nationality.
Looking at the total number of foreign volunteers I myself am surprised to see how many there were, in my opinion more than a "relatively small number", of course depending on what you compare it with.
We now know a lot of what has happened then and we should have learned from that. If those men who joined the SS then had known what we know now about that regime I wonder how many of them would still make the decision to join that regime, cause or no cause, being a foreign regime or not.
I think the ones who still would join are the fanatics and believe me, in spite of all the knowledge we have about the second world war and the carnages that have followed after the second world war, these fanatics will always be amongst us, friend or foe.
So not all the "wrong" guys are with the enemy.
Furthermore I think the view on "who is right or wrong" is dictated by the victor.
Greetings.
-
Alex Dekker
- Associate
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:37 pm
- Location: Alkmaar,The Netherlands
- Contact:
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Revi,
Please explain how my reaction was "totalitarian"? It consisted of one quote and two questions, one of which was tongue-in cheek and rhetorical.
Paddy was presumably trying to perpetuate the old late wartime Nazi propaganda fiction about a pan-European, anti-Bolshevik crusade, as supposedly epitomised by the international nature of later Waffen-SS recruitment, as if it was the prototype for NATO. In fact, this only became a significfant part of Waffen-SS recruitment policy in early 1943, from when ideological considerations were suspended in desperate pursuit of cannon fodder for "total war".
Of course, NATO actually sprang from the Atlantic Charter of Nazism's liberal democratic opponents. It was defined by the shared values of its constituent states, which were definitely not shared with Nazi Germany, and not by the particular nature of any particular opposition. NATO had an anti-totalitarian viewpoint opposed to both Nazism and Communism.
Originally the Waffen-SS was opposed to the recruitment of non-Germanic peoples. As a result, apart from the Wiking Division, most of the earliest recruitment of foreigners was undertaken by the German Army, not the Waffen-SS. The responsibility for their recruitment was mostly transferred to the Waffen-SS by political decree in 1943-44.
The motivations of Eastern Europeans, who formed the great majority of the foreign "volunteers", were nationalist, not internationalist. That was why they served in national divisions. They never had equal status in the Waffen-SS with Germanic peoples. Furthermore, the two nationalities that provided the highest proportion of "volunteers", the Latvians and Estonians, actually had conscription imposed upon them to make up their numbers.
Nor did Volksdeutsche rush to the Waffen-SS's colours. Their numbers were very low until virtual conscriptrion was imposed by agreement with the governments of Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, etc. in 1943.
Throughout north-west Europe recruitment was low. In no country was it sufficient to maintain even a single division in the field. Typically such national contingents could maintain only a mixed brigade or regiment on continuous operations. Formations raised in these areas often had their numbers made up by using many of the above mentioned Volksdeutsche conscripts from Eastern Europe.
Take Norway, which was about as Germanic as one could get. It contributed an average of only four volunteers a day during the war. Clearly nobody was going to get killed in the crush at the recruiting offices!
It is always possible to recruit a certain number of people for any cause. The French Foreign Legion has even managed to do so for nearly two hundred years without any identifiable cause. The foreign Waffen-SS were not the spearhead of some Pan-European movement. The relatively few western Europeans were mostly renegades from the sentiments and laws of their own countries. They did not represent their countries in any substantive way, let alone Europe. They represented Nazi German interest and only Nazi German interest. They were, in short, traitors.
Of course who is right or wrong is not defined by the victors. It is defined by the actions of all the participants as measured against universal values.
Cheers,
Sid.
Please explain how my reaction was "totalitarian"? It consisted of one quote and two questions, one of which was tongue-in cheek and rhetorical.
Paddy was presumably trying to perpetuate the old late wartime Nazi propaganda fiction about a pan-European, anti-Bolshevik crusade, as supposedly epitomised by the international nature of later Waffen-SS recruitment, as if it was the prototype for NATO. In fact, this only became a significfant part of Waffen-SS recruitment policy in early 1943, from when ideological considerations were suspended in desperate pursuit of cannon fodder for "total war".
Of course, NATO actually sprang from the Atlantic Charter of Nazism's liberal democratic opponents. It was defined by the shared values of its constituent states, which were definitely not shared with Nazi Germany, and not by the particular nature of any particular opposition. NATO had an anti-totalitarian viewpoint opposed to both Nazism and Communism.
Originally the Waffen-SS was opposed to the recruitment of non-Germanic peoples. As a result, apart from the Wiking Division, most of the earliest recruitment of foreigners was undertaken by the German Army, not the Waffen-SS. The responsibility for their recruitment was mostly transferred to the Waffen-SS by political decree in 1943-44.
The motivations of Eastern Europeans, who formed the great majority of the foreign "volunteers", were nationalist, not internationalist. That was why they served in national divisions. They never had equal status in the Waffen-SS with Germanic peoples. Furthermore, the two nationalities that provided the highest proportion of "volunteers", the Latvians and Estonians, actually had conscription imposed upon them to make up their numbers.
Nor did Volksdeutsche rush to the Waffen-SS's colours. Their numbers were very low until virtual conscriptrion was imposed by agreement with the governments of Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, etc. in 1943.
Throughout north-west Europe recruitment was low. In no country was it sufficient to maintain even a single division in the field. Typically such national contingents could maintain only a mixed brigade or regiment on continuous operations. Formations raised in these areas often had their numbers made up by using many of the above mentioned Volksdeutsche conscripts from Eastern Europe.
Take Norway, which was about as Germanic as one could get. It contributed an average of only four volunteers a day during the war. Clearly nobody was going to get killed in the crush at the recruiting offices!
It is always possible to recruit a certain number of people for any cause. The French Foreign Legion has even managed to do so for nearly two hundred years without any identifiable cause. The foreign Waffen-SS were not the spearhead of some Pan-European movement. The relatively few western Europeans were mostly renegades from the sentiments and laws of their own countries. They did not represent their countries in any substantive way, let alone Europe. They represented Nazi German interest and only Nazi German interest. They were, in short, traitors.
Of course who is right or wrong is not defined by the victors. It is defined by the actions of all the participants as measured against universal values.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Cees Kleijn
- New Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 3:53 am
- Location: Amsterdam
Sid, I don't really understand which point you want to make clear, but I was a little bit surprised to read you statement that the foreign volunteers were 'right-wing, treacherous renegades serving a foreign totalitarian dictatorship'. People expressing such words to judge a past they have never experienced themselves, are hardly called reliable historians. I hope I do not have to explain that. Besides this, I would give you the advice to talk with these 'renegades' themselves. Perhaps you will get a more reliable idea of who they are and what their motives were.
For about the contents of your last posting, some points you made are built on very weak grounds. For example, you want to express your knowledge about the recruitment of the foreign volunteers, but I can only advice you to study this topic really carefully before doing such statements. Perhaps Standarte "Nordwest" and the several foreign legions will interest you.
Usually I do not want to take part in such internet discussions, because my time is valuable for me, but I want to highlight your last phrase.
'Of course who is right or wrong is not defined by the victors. It is defined by the actions of all the participants as measured against universal values.'
Perhaps you were not aware of the fact that you are using a known fallacy here, but I have to disagree with you statement. Without falling in a philosophical discussion about universal values and moral standards according to the writings of Plato and so on, I think it is actually true that history is written by the victors. Your postings seem to be great examples of that point of view.
With kind regards,
Cees
For about the contents of your last posting, some points you made are built on very weak grounds. For example, you want to express your knowledge about the recruitment of the foreign volunteers, but I can only advice you to study this topic really carefully before doing such statements. Perhaps Standarte "Nordwest" and the several foreign legions will interest you.
Usually I do not want to take part in such internet discussions, because my time is valuable for me, but I want to highlight your last phrase.
'Of course who is right or wrong is not defined by the victors. It is defined by the actions of all the participants as measured against universal values.'
Perhaps you were not aware of the fact that you are using a known fallacy here, but I have to disagree with you statement. Without falling in a philosophical discussion about universal values and moral standards according to the writings of Plato and so on, I think it is actually true that history is written by the victors. Your postings seem to be great examples of that point of view.
With kind regards,
Cees
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Cees,
What I actually wrote was "How can a relatively small number of right-wing, treacherous renegades serving a foreign totalitarian dictatorship be the prototype for an alliance of sovereign liberal democracies?" (A question, incidentally, that has not yet been answered).
Which bits do you object to?
1) "Relatively small number"? Not a single western European nationality was able to maintain a single Waffen-SS division continuously in the field. Compare that with their mobilisable national manpower pools. There really was only a "relativelt small number".
2) "Right-wing"? Were any Western European Waffen-SS volunteers Left-wing or even Centrist? They virtually all came from their national equivalents of the Nazi Party. They really were "Right-wing".
3) "Treacherous renegades"? They had almost all betrayed their countries in order to serve under the Axis flag at a time when, for the most part, their governments were in the Allied camp. Indeed, if the north-west Europeans really were ideologically in favour of Hitler's "Germanic Reich" they wanted to extinguish their own nations' separate identities! They really were "Treacherous renegades".
4) "Foreign totalitarian dictatorship". What else was Nazi Germany to other Western Europeans? It really was a "Foreign totalitarian dictatorship".
It might be upsetting to some to see all these things strung together in a single sentence, but which ones are actually inaccurate?
It is no good saying that some of my statements were on weak ground if you (1) don't specify which and (2) don't even attempt to offer a viable alternative explanation.
Who said anything about "history is written by the victors"? It certainly wasn't me. What I wrote was "Of course who is right or wrong is not defined by the victors. It is defined by the actions of all the participants as measured against universal values". Are you suggesting that the so-called "Holocaust" would be righter or wronger depending on who won? Genocidal mass murder is genocidal mass murder is genocidal mass murder, regardless of who commits it, and Nazism was not alone.
But to pick up on your "History being written by the victors". This is self evidently untrue and always has been. Thucydides wrote what is generally regarded as the first military history: "A History of the Peloponesian War". He was an Athenian defeated in battle during that war and was on the losing side at the end. Some victor! And is there some sort of shortage of sycophantic Waffen-SS books today? Hardly!
Cheers,
Sid.
What I actually wrote was "How can a relatively small number of right-wing, treacherous renegades serving a foreign totalitarian dictatorship be the prototype for an alliance of sovereign liberal democracies?" (A question, incidentally, that has not yet been answered).
Which bits do you object to?
1) "Relatively small number"? Not a single western European nationality was able to maintain a single Waffen-SS division continuously in the field. Compare that with their mobilisable national manpower pools. There really was only a "relativelt small number".
2) "Right-wing"? Were any Western European Waffen-SS volunteers Left-wing or even Centrist? They virtually all came from their national equivalents of the Nazi Party. They really were "Right-wing".
3) "Treacherous renegades"? They had almost all betrayed their countries in order to serve under the Axis flag at a time when, for the most part, their governments were in the Allied camp. Indeed, if the north-west Europeans really were ideologically in favour of Hitler's "Germanic Reich" they wanted to extinguish their own nations' separate identities! They really were "Treacherous renegades".
4) "Foreign totalitarian dictatorship". What else was Nazi Germany to other Western Europeans? It really was a "Foreign totalitarian dictatorship".
It might be upsetting to some to see all these things strung together in a single sentence, but which ones are actually inaccurate?
It is no good saying that some of my statements were on weak ground if you (1) don't specify which and (2) don't even attempt to offer a viable alternative explanation.
Who said anything about "history is written by the victors"? It certainly wasn't me. What I wrote was "Of course who is right or wrong is not defined by the victors. It is defined by the actions of all the participants as measured against universal values". Are you suggesting that the so-called "Holocaust" would be righter or wronger depending on who won? Genocidal mass murder is genocidal mass murder is genocidal mass murder, regardless of who commits it, and Nazism was not alone.
But to pick up on your "History being written by the victors". This is self evidently untrue and always has been. Thucydides wrote what is generally regarded as the first military history: "A History of the Peloponesian War". He was an Athenian defeated in battle during that war and was on the losing side at the end. Some victor! And is there some sort of shortage of sycophantic Waffen-SS books today? Hardly!
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Cees Kleijn
- New Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 3:53 am
- Location: Amsterdam
Hello Sid,
Thank you for your reply. I feel that I am already too much involved in this discussion, but will take the time to react to your post more in depth. For convenience's sake, I will quote some of your remarks.
'1) "Relatively small number"? Not a single western European nationality was able to maintain a single Waffen-SS division continuously in the field. Compare that with their mobilisable national manpower pools. There really was only a "relativelt small number".'
I have never opposed this view. It is absolutely true that a relatively small number of foreign volunteers deciced to enlist in the Waffen-SS. Relatively few if compared to the total population of each country, not compared to, for example the resistance. I think one should be careful to use a word as relative to describe the numbers of volunteers. Compared to the Dutchmen, for example, who fled to England to enlist in the 'Prinses Irene Brigade', there were relatively many Dutch volunteers in the Waffen-SS.
2) "Right-wing"? Were any Western European Waffen-SS volunteers Left-wing or even Centrist? They virtually all came from their national equivalents of the Nazi Party. They really were "Right-wing".
This is another example why I adviced you to talk with these foreign volunteers themselves. A lot of Dutchmen were very young, wanted to be a soldier, go on adventure, and so on, and didn't have the slightest idea of what politics meant, actually. Besides this, I have talked to many hundreds of foreign volunteers, and it is my experience that quite some of them were actually born in a socialist or centrist environment.
3) "Treacherous renegades"? They had almost all betrayed their countries in order to serve under the Axis flag at a time when, for the most part, their governments were in the Allied camp. Indeed, if the north-west Europeans really were ideologically in favour of Hitler's "Germanic Reich" they wanted to extinguish their own nations' separate identities! They really were "Treacherous renegades".
You can see them as treacherous renegades, as everyone is entitled to have his own opinion, but, my experience after talking with all those volunteers, is that many felt the governments in exile betrayed them, actually. Although I don't have an in-depth knowledge of the Danish volunteers, the Danish king allowed many Danes to serve in 'Frikorps Danmark'. Were they betrayers then? Certainly, they didn't feel themselves like that. Besides this, many volunteers in the 'Freiw. Legion Niederlande' enlisted, served and fought for their own country. They certainly didn't want to extinguish their own nation's identities. Another reason why I want to advice you to speak with such volunteers themselves.
4) "Foreign totalitarian dictatorship". What else was Nazi Germany to other Western Europeans? It really was a "Foreign totalitarian dictatorship".
I agree. It was a totalitarian dictatorship.
'It might be upsetting to some to see all these things strung together in a single sentence, but which ones are actually inaccurate?'
I am not the one who can judge if this sentence was accurate or not. I only feel that a reliable historian should never expres himself in this way. That was the point I was making, not whether it was accurate or not. You are the one using this word and I think that tells a lot about your approach to his part of our history.
'It is no good saying that some of my statements were on weak ground if you (1) don't specify which and (2) don't even attempt to offer a viable alternative explanation.'
Again, I don't know if this is good or not, but of course I can offer you my view on these history pages. It is therefore that I gave you some advice. Study the history of the Dutch foreign legion, the friction between the NSB, NSNAP and 'Nederlandsche SS', and the differences between the legion at one side, and for example the volunteers who served in "Wiking" and 'Standarte Nordwest' at the other side. I am sure that this will change your point of view.
'Are you suggesting that the so-called "Holocaust" would be righter or wronger depending on who won?'
I am not suggesting this and please don't ask if I do, you should know better. History is written by the victor. If Germany had won the war, we shouldn't have the knowledge about the Holocaust we have today. In fact, a lot of things should have been published in the frame works of propaganda, and in this case you can say that history is indeed written by the victor. As I suggested in my former post, I do not want to fall in a discussion about moral standards and value. I have never suggested that such a thing as the Holocaust would be righter or wronger depending on who won. It is not the place here to discuss this. Please, read my writing carefully before you are going to make remarks like this.
I hope this helps you something further.
Cees
Thank you for your reply. I feel that I am already too much involved in this discussion, but will take the time to react to your post more in depth. For convenience's sake, I will quote some of your remarks.
'1) "Relatively small number"? Not a single western European nationality was able to maintain a single Waffen-SS division continuously in the field. Compare that with their mobilisable national manpower pools. There really was only a "relativelt small number".'
I have never opposed this view. It is absolutely true that a relatively small number of foreign volunteers deciced to enlist in the Waffen-SS. Relatively few if compared to the total population of each country, not compared to, for example the resistance. I think one should be careful to use a word as relative to describe the numbers of volunteers. Compared to the Dutchmen, for example, who fled to England to enlist in the 'Prinses Irene Brigade', there were relatively many Dutch volunteers in the Waffen-SS.
2) "Right-wing"? Were any Western European Waffen-SS volunteers Left-wing or even Centrist? They virtually all came from their national equivalents of the Nazi Party. They really were "Right-wing".
This is another example why I adviced you to talk with these foreign volunteers themselves. A lot of Dutchmen were very young, wanted to be a soldier, go on adventure, and so on, and didn't have the slightest idea of what politics meant, actually. Besides this, I have talked to many hundreds of foreign volunteers, and it is my experience that quite some of them were actually born in a socialist or centrist environment.
3) "Treacherous renegades"? They had almost all betrayed their countries in order to serve under the Axis flag at a time when, for the most part, their governments were in the Allied camp. Indeed, if the north-west Europeans really were ideologically in favour of Hitler's "Germanic Reich" they wanted to extinguish their own nations' separate identities! They really were "Treacherous renegades".
You can see them as treacherous renegades, as everyone is entitled to have his own opinion, but, my experience after talking with all those volunteers, is that many felt the governments in exile betrayed them, actually. Although I don't have an in-depth knowledge of the Danish volunteers, the Danish king allowed many Danes to serve in 'Frikorps Danmark'. Were they betrayers then? Certainly, they didn't feel themselves like that. Besides this, many volunteers in the 'Freiw. Legion Niederlande' enlisted, served and fought for their own country. They certainly didn't want to extinguish their own nation's identities. Another reason why I want to advice you to speak with such volunteers themselves.
4) "Foreign totalitarian dictatorship". What else was Nazi Germany to other Western Europeans? It really was a "Foreign totalitarian dictatorship".
I agree. It was a totalitarian dictatorship.
'It might be upsetting to some to see all these things strung together in a single sentence, but which ones are actually inaccurate?'
I am not the one who can judge if this sentence was accurate or not. I only feel that a reliable historian should never expres himself in this way. That was the point I was making, not whether it was accurate or not. You are the one using this word and I think that tells a lot about your approach to his part of our history.
'It is no good saying that some of my statements were on weak ground if you (1) don't specify which and (2) don't even attempt to offer a viable alternative explanation.'
Again, I don't know if this is good or not, but of course I can offer you my view on these history pages. It is therefore that I gave you some advice. Study the history of the Dutch foreign legion, the friction between the NSB, NSNAP and 'Nederlandsche SS', and the differences between the legion at one side, and for example the volunteers who served in "Wiking" and 'Standarte Nordwest' at the other side. I am sure that this will change your point of view.
'Are you suggesting that the so-called "Holocaust" would be righter or wronger depending on who won?'
I am not suggesting this and please don't ask if I do, you should know better. History is written by the victor. If Germany had won the war, we shouldn't have the knowledge about the Holocaust we have today. In fact, a lot of things should have been published in the frame works of propaganda, and in this case you can say that history is indeed written by the victor. As I suggested in my former post, I do not want to fall in a discussion about moral standards and value. I have never suggested that such a thing as the Holocaust would be righter or wronger depending on who won. It is not the place here to discuss this. Please, read my writing carefully before you are going to make remarks like this.
I hope this helps you something further.
Cees
Hi Cees and Sid,
Looking at the latest contributions to this side-track of the original topics' theme (Dutch SS veterans in Korea), I see a lot has been written.
Cees, thank you for your indepth reaction and information, your knowledge about the foreign (Dutch) volunteers by far exceeds mine on many others.
Sid, it could be you're right in your thoughts / guess why Paddy states the Waffen SS (and not the foreign volunteers as you have written) is the blueprint for NATO, my guess about the source of his remark is the same as yours, but the "guess / thoughts" can only become fact if he gives his comment, that is, if he wants. If not, I respect that and would like to go on with the topic about "Dutch SS veterans in Korea".
And thank you for giving your opinion towards history and especially towards foreign volunteers, otherwise stated by you as "right wing, treacheres renegades serving a foreign totalitarian dictator".
You have made your thoughts clear I think, I respect your opinion too.
Relating to my remark about the victor dictating right or wrong:
If Germany would have been the victor, which as I am glad to say they have not as we all know, we would have been told different stories, different truths, maybe even frightening stories about the opposers and we would not know what to believe.
We would not get the truth behind the stories, although, as we have witnessed in the last decennia, this also applies to the sovereign liberal democracies. Universal values change with time and are liable to those who lay down the rules. From the Spanish inquisition up until this moment.
But this is all getting a little fylosophical and political, the first no problem but the second is, as this is a non political site.
The only thing I cannot figure out though is why an "alliance of sovereign liberal democracies" (NATO) allowed "right wing, treacheres renegades who served / represented Nazi Germany", as you call them, within their force.
Maybe the fact that it was never published could be a clue?
Would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Cheers.
Looking at the latest contributions to this side-track of the original topics' theme (Dutch SS veterans in Korea), I see a lot has been written.
Cees, thank you for your indepth reaction and information, your knowledge about the foreign (Dutch) volunteers by far exceeds mine on many others.
Sid, it could be you're right in your thoughts / guess why Paddy states the Waffen SS (and not the foreign volunteers as you have written) is the blueprint for NATO, my guess about the source of his remark is the same as yours, but the "guess / thoughts" can only become fact if he gives his comment, that is, if he wants. If not, I respect that and would like to go on with the topic about "Dutch SS veterans in Korea".
And thank you for giving your opinion towards history and especially towards foreign volunteers, otherwise stated by you as "right wing, treacheres renegades serving a foreign totalitarian dictator".
You have made your thoughts clear I think, I respect your opinion too.
Relating to my remark about the victor dictating right or wrong:
If Germany would have been the victor, which as I am glad to say they have not as we all know, we would have been told different stories, different truths, maybe even frightening stories about the opposers and we would not know what to believe.
We would not get the truth behind the stories, although, as we have witnessed in the last decennia, this also applies to the sovereign liberal democracies. Universal values change with time and are liable to those who lay down the rules. From the Spanish inquisition up until this moment.
But this is all getting a little fylosophical and political, the first no problem but the second is, as this is a non political site.
The only thing I cannot figure out though is why an "alliance of sovereign liberal democracies" (NATO) allowed "right wing, treacheres renegades who served / represented Nazi Germany", as you call them, within their force.
Maybe the fact that it was never published could be a clue?
Would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Cheers.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Cees,
1) To compare the Princess Irene Brigade with the Dutch Waffen-SS is to compare apples and oranges. Of course the Princess Irene Brigade was smaller than the number of Waffen-SS volunteers from the Netherlands. The Germans had the entire manpower of the Netherlands at their disposal and were able to facilitate recruitment in a myriad of ways. All a Dutch volunteer for the Waffen-SS had to do was to saunter up to a recruiting office. Volunteers from the Netherlands for the Dutch government in London first had to escape from German-occupied Europe. Compared with the Dutch manpower resources within its control, Waffen-SS recruitment compared poorly with that of the Dutch Government.
2) Actually I have had some exposure to Right-wing Dutch collaborators. In Zimbabwe in the early 1980s I worked with a man bearing a name very similar to yours - If I remember rightly his name was spelt Cees Kolijn. I believe his grandfather or father was the "foreign minister" of the Dutch collaborationist "government". In the 1980s at university I also had a Dutch girlfriend, whose surname is so rare that I think it would be unwise to repeat it here, as she has her own website. All her uncles and aunts were arrested for collaboration at the end of the war. Only her mother, who was the youngest, escaped this. However, I saw for myself how rabid her mother's anti-semitism still was forty years later.
I very much doubt that many Dutchmen had little idea about politics in WWII. The Dutch were a highly politicised and highly educated nation. It was blindingly obvious to all of them that they were under occupation because they saw foreign soldiers on their streets every day. They knew perfectly well that their monarch and government were in London in the Allied camp. The idea that anyone volunteered for the Waffen-SS without being aware that they were enlisting with the enemy is implausible. It is also implausible that they were unaware of the right wing nature of that enemy. The Netherlands were the most highly propagandised occupied country being readied for absorption into the Reich.
So what if some volunteers were from socialist or centrist background? Hitler was raised a Catholic. Stalin was trained as a priest. It is where they ended up that is important. Your volunteers from socialist and centrist backgrounds must all have made conscious political journeys to the right, because they can hardly have been under the impression that the Waffen-SS was anything else but very right wing.
3) We all tend to think well of ourselves and our motives, so I am not suprised if the volunteers do as well. However, the simple fact is that they consciously enlisted with the enemy. This makes them treacherous renegades. Them trying to rationalise that it was their government and the overwhelming majority of their countrymen who were traitors is like a soldier on the march claiming that everyone else in his company is out of step!
Ignorance, if there was any, is no excuse, but I doubt that there was any ignorance. It was illegal under Dutch Law to serve in a foreign army. The Dutch who joined the Anti-Bolshevik Legion to fight in Russia were automatically given German citizenship. Such Dutch volunteers can hardly have been under any illusion.
The Danish King allowed volunteers to join the Waffen-SS? I think not. The fact that he couldn't do anything to stop it doesn't mean he allowed it. Nazi support in Denmark was minimal. In the March 1943 elections Danish Nazis polled just over 2% of the vote!
Must go temoporarily.
Sid.
1) To compare the Princess Irene Brigade with the Dutch Waffen-SS is to compare apples and oranges. Of course the Princess Irene Brigade was smaller than the number of Waffen-SS volunteers from the Netherlands. The Germans had the entire manpower of the Netherlands at their disposal and were able to facilitate recruitment in a myriad of ways. All a Dutch volunteer for the Waffen-SS had to do was to saunter up to a recruiting office. Volunteers from the Netherlands for the Dutch government in London first had to escape from German-occupied Europe. Compared with the Dutch manpower resources within its control, Waffen-SS recruitment compared poorly with that of the Dutch Government.
2) Actually I have had some exposure to Right-wing Dutch collaborators. In Zimbabwe in the early 1980s I worked with a man bearing a name very similar to yours - If I remember rightly his name was spelt Cees Kolijn. I believe his grandfather or father was the "foreign minister" of the Dutch collaborationist "government". In the 1980s at university I also had a Dutch girlfriend, whose surname is so rare that I think it would be unwise to repeat it here, as she has her own website. All her uncles and aunts were arrested for collaboration at the end of the war. Only her mother, who was the youngest, escaped this. However, I saw for myself how rabid her mother's anti-semitism still was forty years later.
I very much doubt that many Dutchmen had little idea about politics in WWII. The Dutch were a highly politicised and highly educated nation. It was blindingly obvious to all of them that they were under occupation because they saw foreign soldiers on their streets every day. They knew perfectly well that their monarch and government were in London in the Allied camp. The idea that anyone volunteered for the Waffen-SS without being aware that they were enlisting with the enemy is implausible. It is also implausible that they were unaware of the right wing nature of that enemy. The Netherlands were the most highly propagandised occupied country being readied for absorption into the Reich.
So what if some volunteers were from socialist or centrist background? Hitler was raised a Catholic. Stalin was trained as a priest. It is where they ended up that is important. Your volunteers from socialist and centrist backgrounds must all have made conscious political journeys to the right, because they can hardly have been under the impression that the Waffen-SS was anything else but very right wing.
3) We all tend to think well of ourselves and our motives, so I am not suprised if the volunteers do as well. However, the simple fact is that they consciously enlisted with the enemy. This makes them treacherous renegades. Them trying to rationalise that it was their government and the overwhelming majority of their countrymen who were traitors is like a soldier on the march claiming that everyone else in his company is out of step!
Ignorance, if there was any, is no excuse, but I doubt that there was any ignorance. It was illegal under Dutch Law to serve in a foreign army. The Dutch who joined the Anti-Bolshevik Legion to fight in Russia were automatically given German citizenship. Such Dutch volunteers can hardly have been under any illusion.
The Danish King allowed volunteers to join the Waffen-SS? I think not. The fact that he couldn't do anything to stop it doesn't mean he allowed it. Nazi support in Denmark was minimal. In the March 1943 elections Danish Nazis polled just over 2% of the vote!
Must go temoporarily.
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Cees,
Surely accuracy is the measure by which historians, (of which, incidentally, I am not one in any acadmic sense), should be judged? Your objection to my turn of phrase is an irrelevant diversion. The words "treacherous renegades" have specific meanings and were, I would submit, used accurately.
I am not familiar with the details of infighting between the NSB, NSNAP,, Nederlandsche SS, the Legion, Wiking or Standarte Nordwest. However, it seems unlikely that any were acting constitutionally under existing Dutch law, were not right wing or were not acting in the German enemy's interest. I imagine such squabbles were over a tiny piece of turf on the far right of Dutch politics. To an outsider I would imagine that they all looked pretty insdistinguishable. However, I would be interested to know more.
I did read your post carefully. It was not clear to me in every detail, which was why I put the so-called Holocaust-related question (not remark). You have now made your position clearer. Thank you.
"History is written by the victor" always strikes me as an intellectual cop-out. It allows the proposer to avoid addressing evidence and details by using an airy and insupportable generalisation to dismiss the messenger without even looking at his message.
Take WWI. All the participants of both the Allied and Central Powers issued official histories, with the possible exception of Russia. Even Austria-Hungary had one prepared by post-war Austria. Numerous private memoirs are available on all sides. There is no shortage of alternative versions of events for those who wish to find and compare them and no shortage of archives for those wanting to do primary research.
It is remarkable how many Waffen-SS researchers are under the illusion that the Waffen-SS is ill served by historians and wish to make good an ommission that doesn't actually exist. They seem blind to the fact that the Waffen-SS is already probably the most over publicised military force of WWII. What is needed, if anything, is more on the German Army, not its polticised SS clone. However, I suspect that this will not occur because most Waffen-SS researchers seems to be more motivated by personal or political empathy than by the pursuit of military history.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. Thank you for a considered post in a subject area where ill tempered exchanges are all too common. I don't much agree with you, but I do appreciate the tone in which you are conducting the discussion.
Surely accuracy is the measure by which historians, (of which, incidentally, I am not one in any acadmic sense), should be judged? Your objection to my turn of phrase is an irrelevant diversion. The words "treacherous renegades" have specific meanings and were, I would submit, used accurately.
I am not familiar with the details of infighting between the NSB, NSNAP,, Nederlandsche SS, the Legion, Wiking or Standarte Nordwest. However, it seems unlikely that any were acting constitutionally under existing Dutch law, were not right wing or were not acting in the German enemy's interest. I imagine such squabbles were over a tiny piece of turf on the far right of Dutch politics. To an outsider I would imagine that they all looked pretty insdistinguishable. However, I would be interested to know more.
I did read your post carefully. It was not clear to me in every detail, which was why I put the so-called Holocaust-related question (not remark). You have now made your position clearer. Thank you.
"History is written by the victor" always strikes me as an intellectual cop-out. It allows the proposer to avoid addressing evidence and details by using an airy and insupportable generalisation to dismiss the messenger without even looking at his message.
Take WWI. All the participants of both the Allied and Central Powers issued official histories, with the possible exception of Russia. Even Austria-Hungary had one prepared by post-war Austria. Numerous private memoirs are available on all sides. There is no shortage of alternative versions of events for those who wish to find and compare them and no shortage of archives for those wanting to do primary research.
It is remarkable how many Waffen-SS researchers are under the illusion that the Waffen-SS is ill served by historians and wish to make good an ommission that doesn't actually exist. They seem blind to the fact that the Waffen-SS is already probably the most over publicised military force of WWII. What is needed, if anything, is more on the German Army, not its polticised SS clone. However, I suspect that this will not occur because most Waffen-SS researchers seems to be more motivated by personal or political empathy than by the pursuit of military history.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. Thank you for a considered post in a subject area where ill tempered exchanges are all too common. I don't much agree with you, but I do appreciate the tone in which you are conducting the discussion.