EU and US vote against SS motion

[sid guttridge]

Hi Reb,

How can there be a way of building a monument to the Waffen-SS without politicising it? The Waffen-SS contributed nothing original in military terms to justify its creation. The whole reason for the Waffen-SS's existence was purely political. Nothing done in its name now can escape that.

The main reason to believe that there was something particularly wrong with the Waffen-SS is that the German Army, which was so much bigger than the Waffen-SS and operated under identical operational conditions, was implicated in far fewer war crimes.

For example, although the Waffen-SS contributed only about 5% of the German armed forces passing through France, they were the perpetrators in three of the four massacres of civilians raised by the French at Nuremberg. A similar picture is presented in Italy and the Balkans.

I accept that prisoners were often killed close to combat on all sides and it is perfectly plausible that German soldiers were no worse than others and better than some. However, the picture for the Waffen-SS is different, its atrocities beginning earlier and embracing civilians more readily.

The German Army was already complaining about SS massacres of civilians in Poland in September 1939. As a result, the SS were removed from normal Wehrmacht disciplinary channels and their main accuser, General Blaskowitz, whose troops had occupied Prague and Warsaw, found his career stalled.

However bad the Russians were, it doesn't make the Waffen-SS any better.

There is no direct moral equivalence between terror bombing (a high risk and impersonal operation) and the personalised slaughter of civilians at no personal risk.

There is a vast difference between the German people's bloodless sin of ommission in letting Hitler gain power (they never gave him anything near a majority in freely contested elections) and the bloody sins of commission of the Waffen-SS. If the German people today recognise the awfulness of the Waffen-SS as an institution, then it is to their great credit. There is no hypocrisy involved. Anyone who voted in 1933 would have to be 90 or older now. Of them only a minority voted for Hitler. I would be very much surprised if 1% of the 2004 German electorate voted for Hitler in 1933. Where's the hypocrisy?

Come to that, where's the slight? SS men are already buried in Wehrmacht cemeteries. There they receive the same individual respect as any others for having fallen for their country. It is the institution of the Waffen-SS that is the criminal organisation, not the individuals. Therefore anyone building communal, as opposed to individual, memorials to the Waffen-SS is bound to have their motives questioned, because it looks like a celebration of the institution, not the individuals, who are already catered for elsewhere.

Cheers,

Sid.

[stab131]

If there are no monuments, how can we remember?

If there are no monuments, how can we remember the good and the bad, which soldiers in ALL armies, the world over do?

(Witnessed now by the humiliation the US army is facing in Iraq of the way a few treated Iraqi detainees – the good deeds that others do are not reported, because of the evil doings of a few.)

If there are no monuments, how can we honor those who fought for a cause they believed in?

(Let’s see, no monuments for the SS, no monuments for the Japanese on Iwo Jima, no monuments for Confederate soldiers, no monuments to the Revolutionary War soldier who fought for the colonies against England, after all weren’t the Revolutionary war soldiers traitors to the crown, or were they freedom fighters, and no monuments to Russian Partisans, after all didn’t they kill prisoners?)

If there are no monuments, do we not change history by omission, the same history we claim to champion and strive to accurately reflect on these pages?

(No monuments therefore these events didn’t happen.)

If there are no monuments, we will ever grow tired of war?

Funny isn’t it: that soldiers of the 101st who fought in the Battle of the Bulge can meet with their former enemies and talk about the fighting with more civility then has been displayed on many of the postings on this topic.

Gerhard, next time you are coming to North Carolina PM me, I know several of us who would gladly pay for your dinner just to listen to you talk about your experiences. We frequently get to see the war from the US side, but all to infrequently from the “other side."

[Herr Doktor]

Greetings Sid,

I found your last post to be excellent. Others bringing up such issues as other counties/other military formations also committing war crimes, etc does not make the WSS justified or correct in what they did, and the subject here is a WSS memorial, not what other countries armies did or did not do.

Reb wrote:

Consider the escalating atrocities in the Ardennes for instance - the SS shot some Americans - then the Americans shot rather a lot of SS. Is the one justified if the other is not? That stuff gets out of hand fast. Plus it was rough on the SS since Peiper's KG for instance was closely followed by some SD creeps with murder in their hearts

Reb, you make it sound like the SD did the killing at Malmedy. In fact, it was Peiper's Waffen SS men, the same people some of you want a see monument erected to... can you identify which unit of these "SD creeps" closely following Peiper's KG? I find no reference to SD units at the Dachau trial held after the war regarding the Malmedy massacre, and all the defendants were Waffen SS troops, so how was the SD involved?

List of Malmedy defendants found here:

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScr ... eList.html

HD

[Herr Doktor]

stab131,

So there should be monuments to everything? I don't see anyone saying "no monuments," simply pointing out the rather obvious fact that the WSS has a murderous, war criminal history and why should that organization be remembered with a monument?

The Japanese, the Confederacy et al, have nothing to do with it - unless you want to draw attention away from the beloved WSS, and why not? On closer inspection, they don't look real good.

HD

[Reb]

Doctor

Not actually - I stated that the "SS killed some prisoners" etc. That was Malmedy. The SD was following up behind them and did a substantial number of 'payback' killings of civilians in return for some partisan activity during the retreat from Normandy. As I recall on direct orders from Himmler. The SS got blamed for that too initially.

As to the SS men who shot the Americans: by all means - hang them. I still wonder though how we can blame the commander of a 5000 man KG for the acts of individuals. Not that Peiper was a saint - he didn't get his nickname ('blowtorch' peiper) for being all sweetness and light. How his attitude was different from Patton's eludes me. both were hard men trying to install their troops with the killing instinct.

But herein lies the rub - do we or should we, round up the American soldiers who did the payback killings? And according to the memoirs of many Americans that happened a good bit? If shooting prisoners is wrong (and I believe it is) isn't it ALWAYS wrong?

But again - why blame everyone for the actions of some?

cheers
Reb

[Reb]

Sid

"How can there be a way of building a monument to the Waffen-SS without politicising it? The Waffen-SS contributed nothing original in military terms to justify its creation. The whole reason for the Waffen-SS's existence was purely political. Nothing done in its name now can escape that."
----------------------------
The marine corps contributes nothing original that the Army couldn't do (please don't flame me marines) but we have a marine corps and they are essentially a fourth branch of the service. They are elite troops and often used in very tough missions. Should we not have them?

Yes - the SS was formed a political org - but the Waffen SS was a military unit. And aren't all military forces with the exception of state militias a political force, a tool for the political leadership?

The main reason to believe that there was something particularly wrong with the Waffen-SS is that the German Army, which was so much bigger than the Waffen-SS and operated under identical operational conditions, was implicated in far fewer war crimes.

"For example, although the Waffen-SS contributed only about 5% of the German armed forces passing through France, they were the perpetrators in three of the four massacres of civilians raised by the French at Nuremberg. A similar picture is presented in Italy and the Balkans. "
---------------------------------
Raised at Nuremburg is the key phrase. I have no objection to punishing the perpetrators of atrocities - as individuals. But since it was raised at Nuremberg it was addressed by law - why beat up the guys who didn't do that?


"I accept that prisoners were often killed close to combat on all sides and it is perfectly plausible that German soldiers were no worse than others and better than some. However, the picture for the Waffen-SS is different, its atrocities beginning earlier and embracing civilians more readily.

The German Army was already complaining about SS massacres of civilians in Poland in September 1939. As a result, the SS were removed from normal Wehrmacht disciplinary channels and their main accuser, General Blaskowitz, whose troops had occupied Prague and Warsaw, found his career stalled. "
-----------------------------------
Can't address that through lack of knowledge. I do know the Army was annoyed with SS early on due to high casualties.


"However bad the Russians were, it doesn't make the Waffen-SS any better. "
------------------------
True

"There is no direct moral equivalence between terror bombing (a high risk and impersonal operation) and the personalised slaughter of civilians at no personal risk. "
-----------------------------
I see your point but from the victim's perspective - dead is dead.

"There is a vast difference between the German people's bloodless sin of ommission in letting Hitler gain power (they never gave him anything near a majority in freely contested elections) and the bloody sins of commission of the Waffen-SS. If the German people today recognise the awfulness of the Waffen-SS as an institution, then it is to their great credit. There is no hypocrisy involved. Anyone who voted in 1933 would have to be 90 or older now. Of them only a minority voted for Hitler. I would be very much surprised if 1% of the 2004 German electorate voted for Hitler in 1933. Where's the hypocrisy? "
------------------------------------
In the matter of pensions for instance. And that started way back
in the fifties.



"Come to that, where's the slight? SS men are already buried in Wehrmacht cemeteries. There they receive the same individual respect as any others for having fallen for their country. It is the institution of the Waffen-SS that is the criminal organisation, not the individuals. Therefore anyone building communal, as opposed to individual, memorials to the Waffen-SS is bound to have their motives questioned, because it looks like a celebration of the institution, not the individuals, who are already catered for elsewhere. "
----------------------------------------
Again I see your point. But I'm just not offended by a monument to a military org like I SS Pz K. By all means, punish those who committed atrocities. No problem with that other than the unfairness of not punishing allied troops as well.

Shooting pows at point of contact is terrible but I wonder if it is a war crime per se? Shooting them five minutes later certainly is. What about shooting hostages after a partisan raid? I seem to recall that is not so illegal as we may think (may be wrong - haven't read the law on that in years) Of course, legal or not - it's wrong. But my outrage is tempered by how often I hear allied troops singing the 'just following orders' refrain. Sauce for the goose?

I saw an interview on Hist Channel with a French lady who was in Caen when it was obliterated. Her joy at being 'liberated' was somewhat tempered by the loss of her children to the bombing. The SS who did Oraduour were handed over to the French for punishment. but what about Sir Solly Zuckerman and his merry band of bombers? I know you differentiate the two kinds of killing and there is a difference. But try telling that French lady that.

Believe me I understand your point of view. Having the Totenkopfverband in 3 ss pz certainly mixed the metaphor when you try to separate W-SS from A-SS. The racial stuff is hard to stomach and that was tied into all it. But I'm simply too old for generalizations - I look at individuals. Punish the bad, praise the good and honor your comrades. That being the key thing.

As an off topic aside - I got an email from a comrade today I hadn't seen in twenty years. A medic from Rh. That sort of thing is so important to me that I simply haven't the heart to say 'no' to men who wish to honor their comrades.

cordially
Reb

[Gerhard]

Hi Sid:
This is getting repetitious, you and the evil Waffen SS. Every time we are mentioned you are up in arms, in effect you calling 5% (by your count) of the German Army war criminals.
Immediately you start to list all the massacres and atrocities which happened during the war. Also you will not acknowledge the fact by the end of the war the only recording and accounting was done by the Allies. As the accuser, judge and executioner dispensed justice, what did you expect ?
For a defence, anyone if allowed to speak up put themselves in jeopardy.
All along I have simply tried to point out, due to propaganda and exaggerations we were painted blacker then we actually were and when I am trying to tell you that most of my comrades and I were soldiers and did not commit or see those atrocities you either ignore it or start quoting incidences, some real some not.
Like you I was not there and only heard about it but unlike you I am a little more open minded and by experience learned what is fact and what is propaganda.
As a example excerpts of a report By Rudi Velthuis - Tracy Dungan - Ed Straten about my own unit (and me):
"Surprisingly, many local accounts of the German's stay in Hellendoorn and Dalfsen include statements to the effect; that the SS soldiers were not always cruel to the residents. Some tell of the Germans handing out food, glass for the shattered windows and good care of occupied houses."
"Some young children were free to go in and out of the restricted area. They would gather firewood for their families, and could go into the Sperrgebiet without being bothered."
A nurse said later, "You can say whatever you want to say about the Germans, but the Germans doctors really did their duty. One can be very anti-German, but what the Germans did to ease the suffering was extraordinary."

"On the other hand, the Germans were fanatical SS troops and fear was one of their main tactics for controlling the population. There were many other stories of brutality, destruction and cruelty."
As you can see one minute we were OK the next brutal, destructive and cruel.

And for the guy who could not find any reference to SD units at the Dachau trial - they did not live to ever see a trial. If our SS insignia and camo smock was reason enough for a bullet what do you think a SS insignia and SD patch was ?
By the way this is from a report of EDWARD L. VAN RODEN, a Pennsylvania judge
"The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four, and, five months. They were confined between four walls, with no windows, and no opportunity of exercise. Two meals a day were shoved in to them through a slot in the door. They were not allowed to talk to anyone. They had no communication with their families or any minister or priest during that time. This solitary confinement proved sufficient in itself in some cases to persuade the Germans to sign prepared statements. These statements not only involved the signer, but often would involve other defendants
Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him, and beat him with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken.
All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators.
Lt Perl admitted use of mock trials and persuasive methods including violence and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence thus received. But it all went in."
Some justice.
By the way Reb if you ask Sid how he got the name "blowtorch Peiper" he will probably tell you that's what he used to torch houses.
If you ask me - the blowtorch was the vehicle insignia of Peiper's unit carried over from Russia. That's what we used to start a vehicle, any vehicle during the Russian winter ? or gone to the bathroom (mostly in the snow) ?
We had two with our half truck, one issued the other one "found" and guarded them with our life.
Anyway like I said earlier on - That does not change the fact that those 20,000 men should be remembered for giving up their life, even if it was for the wrong cause and has nothing to do as being a memorial for the SS. The SS Panzer Corps happened to be their unit.
Sid, read and hear is OK but you need an open mind and allow for bias, exaggeration and omissions which of course cuts both way's.
I know I said this before but this is the end of this topic for me.

[Freiritter]

I would say that there is a conundrum in regards to the Waffen-SS and the IMT labeling of the SS as a criminal organization. It was documented that Waffen-SS troops were highly motivated and courageous fighters. On the other hand, Waffen-SS troops were also prone ( More so than the Heer. ) to the commission of war crimes. This creates a dichotomy in the perception of the organization.

The basis for such a perception has to be found in the training. The SS soldiers were indoctrinated into the National Socialist racial theories. Such a philosophy taught the men Nietzschean social ideals, that they were the superior race and that their enemies were less than human. This ideology created an atmosphere in which such a crime rate could grow.

The Allegemeine SS was around years before the creation of the first SS-VT units. Many of the initial soldiers in these units were drawn from previous SS formations and the Leibstandarte. The pre-war SS organization was supposed to be the instrument in which Germany was to be changed, in line with the National Socialist program. As such, the SS-VT ( Later the Waffen-SS ) were to prove their moral authority in this task through battlefield service.

This alone makes the Waffen-SS different from the Heer in outlook and mission. Later, as new recruits entered the Waffen-SS as the war went on, were given indoctrination in the pre-war ideologies. This reinforced the deadly atmosphere. Many young Germans had joined the Waffen-SS after years in the Hitler Youth, in expectation of the performance of national service as a matter of conscience, in line with social culture and what they were taught in the HJ.

This brings up another point in collusion with the above text. The Waffen-SS took in many basically good young men and encouraged them, through intentional training and practice in the field, to do things that were morally questionable. Such is the basis, I believe, of the criminal nature of the SS organization.

On the other hand, such training did produce troops capable of great bravery and esprit de corps. The fault, I say, of the SS organization lies with that it produced the necessary climate for a high rate of war crimes committed by Waffen-SS men. Not on the individual soldiers themselves. It was a choice up to many individual Waffen-SS men to actually commit any crimes, so there's the responsibility on both the soldiers that did commit crimes and the organization that promoted the commission of them.

Combat is the most highly stressful of situations. Of that, Sid, Reb, Gerhard, Roger Herbst and likely others can attest to that. War, the stress of seeing horrible things done to fellow soldiers and the drive to survive can cause people to do some quite outrageous acts. These acts of rage and revenge are of the moment, quite different from the acts inside the concentration camps.

I believe that such acts of passion are most regrettably, a normal part of war. These acts are probably fueled by minds trying to deal with the stresses that combat places on the human soul. Still, the moral responsibility of whether or not to commit a war crime rests with each individual soldier.

As much as I sympathize with the combat soldier's plight, how does responding in kind to the enemy's war crimes with one's own reprisals in turn, make it right? Such a response creates a brutal cycle, like a blood feud. I mean, all soldiers, not just the Waffen-SS or the Red Army. If an American soldier commits a war crime, he/she should face trial and punishment.

The law is the law. That is regardless of race, nationality or cause. It is a blemish and disgrace on the armed service of any nation if their soldiers lower themselves to brutalize and murder the helpless. But what makes the Waffen-SS different in this regard, is that those war crimes were encouraged by the organization's ideology to be committed.

As such, I believe that such an organization doesn't merit a monument. The soldiers were manipulated by the system. As such, the phrase, Good apples were put into a bad barrel, can apply. No one doubts that many Waffen-SS men fought for, and served, Germany.

Cordially,

Freiritter

[Gerhard]

Hi guys:
I have been posting for some time on this Forum to answer a few questions, exchange information and maybe connect with a former comrade.
That's why my unit insignia underneath my name.
Well I did not find any of my former comrades and most of my discussions degenerated into defending my comrades and myself, getting blamed, maybe not directly but accused never the less. Often my posts received sarcastic reply's or I was downright called a liar.
I don't need this.
I also heard from some of you who understood what I was trying to say and I thank you.
Otherwise understand this - blame only creates hatred and misery. After all these years it's getting high time we stopped accusing each other and perhaps try to see things trough the eyes of the other guy.
Take care,
Gerhard

[sid guttridge]

Hi Stab,

A monument is an aid to memory. It is not memory.

Are the Waffen-SS forgotten because there is no monument to them? Of course not.

Evidence?

Look at the number of hits on the Waffen-SS part of Feldgrau compared with any other section. Look at the enormous numbers of books on the subject.

The problem with the Waffen-SS is not that it is under-remembered but that it is over-remembered to the point of fantasy. Its military significance is greatly overplayed and its political origins are largely ignored.

Monuments are not of themselves good or bad. It depends on what they are dedicated to. The graves of individual Waffen-SS soldiers are their personal monuments and are tended like any other. However, unlike individual Waffen-SS men, the Waffen-SS was adjudged a criminal organisation and a communal monument has entirely different implications.

Cheers,

Sid.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Reb,

The US Marine Corps has a military specialisation to justify its separate existence that was not possessed by other services - amphibious warfare.

By contrast the Waffen-SS had no specialisation not already developed by another service. It simply duplicated existing army specialisations. It had no military justification for its separate existence whatsoever. Its justification for its separate existence was 100% political.

The Waffen-SS was the military tool of a political party. This makes it very different from the German or other armies, which represent the entire state. One would not expect the Democrats or Republicans to have no separate armies of their own.

Nuremberg specifically stated that membership of the Waffen-SS wasn't a crime. It was the Waffen-SS as an institution that was adjudged criminal. Like other troops, individual Waffen-SS men already have their own graves as monuments. A communal monument to the Waffen-SS is a different proposition, because the Waffen-SS was adjudge a criminal organisation. To oppose a communal Waffen-SS memorial is not to condemn or punish individual innocent Waffen-SS men. It is a comment on the Waffen-SS as an institution.

I presume you refer to the lack of Waffen-SS war pensions. This is because the Waffen-SS was a party political organisation, not a representative of the German state, and because it was adjudged criminal. To get a war pension it is necessary to belong to a state organisation not adjudged criminal. i.e. the Army, Navy or Air Force. This is, indeed, unfair to late-war Waffen-SS conscripts, but I don't feel it is unfair to earlier Waffen-SS volunteers, who were free to join genuine national military institutions if they had so desired.

I agree fully that Allied actions should be judged by the same standards. I see that Noam Chomsky reckons that every US president since the war is probably prosecutable for breaches of the Geneva Convention.

About 40,000 French civilians were killed by Allied bombing during the war. However, the bombing was accepted as a necessary sacrifice by the Free French Government if their country was ever to be freed. De Gaulle, whatever his faults, took some extremely courageous decisions. [A British officer (called Douglas-Home?) was courtmartialled for trying to prevent the bombing of one of the Channel Ports because of potential French civilian losses.]

Presumably one could oppose a communal monument to the Waffen-SS on the grounds that it does not differentiate between good and bad members and is therefore a "generalisation"?

Yup. I get dewy-eyed about old friends from Rhodesia. I also get over forgiving. But there are still some real b+@!*$ I would happily never meet again. Wearing the same uniform doesn't make everyone a comrade. I am not too proud of some of my own activities, copme to that.

By the way, in case this has got lost in the weight of posts, I am not actually opposed to a Waffen-SS memorial, just to a public one.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Gerhard,

Please do not misreprsent what I have posted.

I have repeatedly posted over the last two years on Feldgrau that the vast majority of Waffen-SS men never even killed anyone in combat, let alone in a war crime.

The problem is that you cannot separate your personal, apparently innocent, experience from the wider career of the more sinister institution to which you belonged. As a result you take attacks on the Waffen-SS as an institution as being personal attacks on yourself and immediate comrades.

Nobody has ever suggested on Feldgrau that either you, or your immediate comrades, committed war crimes. On the other hand, the better record of the German Army makes it absolutely clear that the Waffen-SS, as an institution, had a much higher likelihood of being accused of war crimes.

An attack on the Waffen-SS as an institution is not an attack on individual Waffen-SS men. This was made clear at Nuremberg, where membership of the Waffen-SS was not adjudged criminal, even though the Waffen-SS as an institution was adjudged criminal.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Freiritter]

All I can say is that, I didn't want to hurt anyone. I tried to describe the faults of the overall organization in relation to the common Waffen-SS soldier. I never said that Gerhard or his Waffenbrudern were all bad men. I tried to state that the responsibility for war crimes rested with the environment within the Waffen-SS and those individual Waffen-SS men that did commit crimes.

Anyway, best wishes, Gerhard.

Cordially,

Freiritter

[Reb]

Sid - re comrades. I tend to use that term to describe those that I consdered as such. There were certainly some I remember with distaste.

I was disgusted to see a web site recently with one of the arm chair heroes I'd known blathering on about his great counter terrorism experience and trying to capitalize on it for the latest wars. Last time I saw him he was weeping over a minor piece of shrapnel in the butt and complaining that the Rh. Army was trying to get him killed because he was British. (deserted not long after that)

And yeah, I'm over forgiving as well - but I was no saint either.

I confess though, that as I make my way around crowded noisy Atlanta I sometimes long for the smell of wood smoke and the sound of birds out in the wilds of rural Rhodesia. Conviently forgetting the sound of loud NCOs bellowing about my percieved character flaws...

best
Reb

[sid guttridge]

Hi Guys,

It is worth pointing out that the Waffen-SS is not alone in having its monuments opposed.

In the final chapter of Richard Holmes' "Redcoat", on the British soldier, we have the following:

"We ought not, perhaps, to be surprised that in 2000 the folks of Badajoz refused to allow the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers to erect a memorial to the storming of the city in 1812."

Badajoz was a key fortified Spanish city held by the French. In 1812 the British Army stormed the walls, suffering its heaviest losses of the Peninsula War in the process.

So why are today's Spanish not keen to comemorate their liberation? Because the British, having suffered some 50% casualties in the storming party, ran amok, looting, robbing, raping and killing the city's Spanish civilians as if they were part of the enemy.

In one way the Spanish attitude is irrational, in that the memorial would have been to the fallen, who could not have committed any of the crimes inflicted on the civilian population. On the other hand, the city had suffered grievously at the hands of the comrades of the fallen, and this resentment undertandably still lingers.

As one British soldier present, who lost comrades in the storming, wrote, "Many men were flogged, but although the contrary has been said, none were hanged - yet hundreds deserved it."

In the circumstances, who can begrudge Spanish reluctance to commemorate a force that, in today's parlance, committed a war crime?

If somewhere can be found that is willing to host a Waffen-SS memorial, then good luck to it.

However, if not, the Waffen-SS's apologists should have the humility to accept popular rejection. They have no inherent right to a public monument regardless of popular opinion, especially as the graves of fallen Waffen-SS men are already tended like those of other Wehrmacht dead.

Cheers,

Sid.