Waffen-SS POWs

German SS and Waffen-SS 1923-1945.
User avatar
Freiritter
Associate
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:56 am
Location: Missouri, USA

Waffen-SS POWs

Post by Freiritter »

Waffen-SS soldiers captured on all fronts, were they treated as soldiers under international law or were they trteated differently?
Reb
Patron
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

pow

Post by Reb »

Freiritter

They were treated much differently. The allies viewed the SS as one giant institution lumping Waffen / Allgemeine / TotenKopf etc all together.
The SS was condemned at Nuremburg as a criminal organization in fact.

Courageous SS fighters were simply written off as "fanatics." On the western front Allied soldiers were astonished that the SS expected to be treated like any other soldiers and in some cases treated them quite brutally. The Western allies worried for a long time about WereWolf coming to life as well which may have had something to do with it.

There were of course, exeptions but I believe they were anecdotal.

In the East - well, the Russkis had a lot to be pissed off about, and they were living under a vicious communist regime themselves who treated their own people worse than the Germans had treated them. They hired some of the more sinister Gestapo types but were quite cruel to Waffen SS - often shooting them out of hand.

It should be noted that subsequent to WW I wars became much more ugly and I trace that to the rise of ideology and propaganda. No more 'After you, my dear Alphonse.' Modern war is a gutter fight.

I was disappointed that my own countrymen didn't pick up on the story of a brave Iraqi Colonel who single handedly manned an anti-tank gun after his troops fled and fought until serously wounded. He may have served a wicked regime but we don't get to choose what country we live in - to me he was a brave soldier. Our press wrote him off as a fanatical Baathist.

I guess I'm saying I view the Waffen SS that way in many cases though I never could stomach the TotenKopf Div or Dirlwanger's merry boys. Which of course presented a conundrum for the Allies as well - Papa Eike versus Kurt Meyer? I see a lot of difference there but apparently they didn't.

cheers
Reb
User avatar
Christoph Awender
Patron
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
Location: Austria
Contact:

Post by Christoph Awender »

Hello!

The overall treatment of W-SS soldiers after capture was way rougher than the treatment of other soldiers. Of course this was partially "propaganda" on the german side and for sure partially true.

I know veterans which told me that the members of armoured formations throw away their deathhead insignias because they were often confused with W-SS.
My grandfather and his brother told me their stories. My grandfather who was a radio operator in the "Prinz Eugen" was captured in italy on the way from his radio-school to austria. He and his comrades were marching along a road towards austria. As a british or US (he can´t remember any more) advance unit overtook them. The soldier on the scout vehicle just said that they should throw away their weapons, turn around and march until they meet other allied soldiers.
The next allied soldiers they met ignored them completely as they just drove by north.
At a road junction they met some fieldpolicemen and were officially taken prisoner. He didn´t tell me something about violence.

His brother was a AT-gun ammo soldier and came in jugoslavian captivity. As he spoke the language he had no major problems. Well... a kick with the rifle shaft sometimes but no major violence.

I am sure it is also a difference if they got captured in a combat situation of not.

\Christoph
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Reb,

In the West Waffen-SS POWs were treated very similarly to any other German POWs and were subject to the same rules. It is probable that they were more roughly handled on occasion by Western Allied troops immediately after capture, but this was not policy.

Waffen-SS men also tended to be repatriated later to post-war Germany because they were more likely to hold unreconstructed Nazi views. Yes, some really were your "fanatics".

Furthermore, although the Waffen-SS was declared a criminal organisation at Nurenberg, the ruling specifically declared that mere membership was not regarded as criminal. To be prosecuted, a Waffen-SS man had to accused of a specific crime.

The Western Allies very definitely did try to discriminate between culpable Waffen-SS men and others. This was done to the point that there were far fewer war crimes trials than war crimes Waffen-SS men were accused of.

Cheers,

Sid.
User avatar
Freiritter
Associate
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:56 am
Location: Missouri, USA

Post by Freiritter »

Interesting points, folks. To add: I have heard that Waffen-SS men were separated or marked for surveillance in the POW camps for political purposes by the Western Allies. However, Waffen-SS troops were singled out by Yugoslav partisans and Red Army troops for what appears to be vindictiveness.
Rob - WSSOB
Supporter
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 1:06 pm
Contact:

Post by Rob - WSSOB »

Hmmm...
Papa Eike versus Kurt Meyer? I see a lot of difference there but apparently they didn't.
Kurt Meyer:
NSDAP# 316714 (joined 1930)
Brownshirt Stormtrooper
SS # 17559 (joined 1931)
Joined Hitler's bodyguard unit 1934
convicted war criminal for the execution of Canadian POWs during Normandy campaign

Corageous soldier or fanatic Nazi? Or both?
Reb
Patron
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by Reb »

Meyer was convicted of crimes I'd have to call bogus. Calling a regt commander (as he was when the crimes occurred) responsible for the crimes of some of his men is something of a stretch. Where does it end? Apparently the courts felt so too as he was ultimately released. One can of course raise the question too about Carpriquet airfield and the notion of 'justice' starts to get all confused.

No officer likes it much when his men get 'out of hand' but in the end, can he be everywhere? Ask a modern day special forces type what they do when prisoners become 'inconvenient.' Ask him in a pub, not in front of the PR officer. I'm not defending this - simply pointing out that war is much uglier than commonly believed.

The war crimes trials did little honor to the allies - many vicious criminals walked away while others, like Meyer, took the fall. Even having the Soviets at Nuremburg invalidated much of the proceedings for me. Very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. (an exception in the war crimes proceedings was Skorzeny where allied commandos spoke in his defense which to me was an honorable thing to do)

Since the allies had murdered close to a million German civilians in the terror raids it feels a little hollow in my throat. I agree that they should have hung the camp guards and party big shots but all in all - they embarrassed themselves.

Meyer's nazi affiliations pale in comparison to Eike who came from a Totenkopf background. I believe Meyer was one the 'idealists' as opposed to the outright thugs. Just my opinion but all I've read points that way. Simply suporting Hitler is a big jump from working in a KZ.

I certainly don't hold with shooting prisoners but have seen with my own eyes how difficult it is to stop shooting once you start. Reading the memoirs of allied soldiers, particularly enlisted men, suggests that I'm not alone in that observation. See Alan McKee's marvelous 'Caen: Anvil of Victory' (also called Last Round Against Rommel) for an insightful look into 'atrocities' from the point of view of the men who were there. The accounts of the allied soldiers will curl your hair.

How to prosecute? Who to prosecute? Damned if I know - would be nice if each side took care of its own but how likely is that?
cheers
reb
User avatar
Freiritter
Associate
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:56 am
Location: Missouri, USA

Post by Freiritter »

There's no doubt in the words of General Sherman: " Boys, war is hell. " I can't understand truly from a combat veteran's point of view why these horrible acts occur. War is a high intensity nightmare that doesn't let up and it certainly doesn't help when hatred wells up inside a man and drives him into the fire. Unfortunately, this stress must express itself or the man implodes. But, this doesn't excuse it, it only helps to try to understand why these things happen. True, the Soviets sitting in on the Nuremberg trials was hypocritical and the Soviets tried to find anything they could to get German soldiers for their vendettas. But, war in insane and no one is innocent. We must learn from the past, and hope the future remembers.
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Freiritter,

Unreconstructed Nazis of all services were separated from the bulk of the POWs. I would imagine that, given its political ethos and selection criteria, the Waffen-SS would have contributed a high proportion of these.

Cheers,

Sid.
User avatar
101stDoc
Associate
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 7:55 pm
Location: Midwest, United States of America

Post by 101stDoc »

Sometimes they were, sometimes they wern't. It mostly depended on who captured them, and who ran the POW camps they were in.

Christopher - Yes, soldiers did try to hide their unit affiliations (re: SS). They also tore photos out of ID books etc. Can't say as I blame em.

Rob - Probably both (re: KM). Every army has them. Sometimes they're the leaders, sometimes the poor bastards in trenches.

Reb - There are honorable Iraqi soldiers as there are of nations at war. If he was truley a fanatical Baathist...who knows. But he was the enemy, wearing the uniform of our enemy, and he paid the price for his allegiance. War is hell (well and true). I disagree on the country bit (chosing), but I'm a Yank, so. Oh...the German civilians that died...if you want to call that murder, we can certainly add the civilian casualties from the Soviet Union and the UK (and France, And Italy, and...). I disagree that they were murders, but we're all entitled to our opinions.

Doc
Reb
Patron
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by Reb »

Reb - There are honorable Iraqi soldiers as there are of nations at war. If he was truley a fanatical Baathist...who knows. But he was the enemy, wearing the uniform of our enemy, and he paid the price for his allegiance. War is hell (well and true). I disagree on the country bit (chosing), but I'm a Yank, so. Oh...the German civilians that died...if you want to call that murder, we can certainly add the civilian casualties from the Soviet Union and the UK (and France, And Italy, and...). I disagree that they were murders, but we're all entitled to our opinions.
Doc

I don't regret that we took the guy down, believe me. him or us it has to be him. (I'm American too but hardly a yank!). I just feel that fanatic or not - I honor a brave enemy for his courage if nothing else since it is to me, a manly virtue.

Murder - yes I do call bombing civilians that. And Yes I add in all the other nation's losses and call that murder too. When they get hit by accident it's tragic but morally I can deal with it - been there. Sadly it's not even a particularly effective tactic.

Churchill's terrible (in the sense that it was a horrifying thing to have to do) decision to bomb Berlin and provoke Hitler into bombing London (and other civilian targets) probably saved England and bought precious relief to the RAF bases but it sure opened Pandora's box. The Germans had already peaked inside at Warsaw and Rotterdam.

Dresden, London, Rotterdam, Stalingrad, Tokyo - I have a problem with all that. I also understand that the Germans were the scariest enemy anybody had ever encountered and a lot of folks would do anything to stop 'em. Fear is a real motivator. There was a revenge element too which I understand even though I don't like it.

And I must admit, for all my moralizing I know very well from hard experience that when a sniper has me pinned down I will call a nuke strike on him if I can get one. A soldiers world is a terrible place in some ways but I'm guessing from your handle you know all about it. It has a good side too and some men are born to do it. They say God must love his soldiers since he made so many of them...

best
reb
WT
Supporter
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:57 pm
Location: USA

Post by WT »

A late business acquaintance of mine served as a German paratrooper. He was captured in Brest in Sept. 1944, and then sent to a POW camp in Mississippi. The camp held Waffen SS and paratroopers only. They were considered "hard core Nazis".

My acquaintance said that the paratroopers and SS were treated decently at the camp. They had adequate food, clothing and shelter, library, English language training, etc. They were NOT allowed to visit the nearby towns to see movies or have a soda, unlike some other German POW camps in the USA. They did not work on nearby farms.

He finally returned to Hamburg, Germany in 1948. He came back to the USA with his new family around 1954.
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi WT,

It is a pleasure to see a "no news " story.

It is almost always the case that if something sensational happens, (i.e. Abuse of German POWs), that there are a number of "newsworthy" stories to support it. Feldgrau is full of this, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

However, it is very rare that a story is put up of nothing happening (i.e. Someone had an uneventful time as a POW) even though this is almost certainly the more typical experience.

Thank you for restoring some balance.

Cheers,

Sid.
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Reb,

The only truly principled position on any form of killing is that of the pacifist, whose opposition is absolute.

If one accepts that any form of violence is justified one immediately enters the minefield of "the greater good", moral relativism, pragmatic compromise, etc..

I don't feel morally qualified to condemn as murderers those engaged in mounting the bombing campaigns from Guernica to Nagasaki because I am not the one charged with pursuing a war with blunt instruments at high personal risk.

However, I do feel qualified to condemn the people running the extermination camps as murderers. They looked into their victims' eyes and killed only the defenceless at no personal risk.

Cheers,

Sid.
Reb
Patron
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by Reb »

Sid

I'd agree for the most part. I wrote somewhere when the lastest Gulf War started that I was glad I was not in charge of target aquisition.

And while I'd disagree about pacifism being the only true moral stance on killing, well... I myself wrote in a recent commentary about voting 'lesser of two evils' that the only possible result then has to be 'evil' since there are no degrees of evil - it is like virginity. Yet I'll contract myself blithly here and say defending your family with deadly force seems to me to be more moral than not doing so. But pretty soon we bog down in philosophical discussions that lead nowhere.

I've given a lot of thought to the professional soldier, as opposed to the conscript and the folks who join up for job training, and most of them I've met feel pretty much the same way. Almost all hate killing but feel that since they are able to do the hard stuff, the dirty deeds if you will, it is their duty to do 'em. Someone has to do the job of being those 'rough men' who keep the dragons away. I felt that way. Better me than some 'decent' kid who will go through life having nightmares.

Don't know if I explained that well but I tried.

best
reb
Post Reply