Valhalla's Warriors -Waffen-SS Eastern Front

[michael kenny]

[quote="Paddy KeatingAh! Here we are! [Note to mates: I won the bet!] [/quote]

And I won mine. As soon as I saw the book introduced I knew Terry was going to get a good kicking.

[phylo_roadking]

This thread will stay on topic or ALL attempts to take it off-topic will be dealt with.

Terry's career as both an author and the cultural/social/intellectual influences on him, Terry's book, the manner in which he announced its publication, the thesis that the associated website says it's based on...are fair enough for on-topic discussion. But commenting on the nature of the discussion and its course are verging on off-topic. There's enough to be discussed here WITHOUT that.

[phylo_roadking]

Personally, I'd be more interested In finding out from Terry why he couldn't get this book taken up by a publisher? As a dedicated haunter of remainder shops and cutprice outlets...let's face it "Waffen-SS" on the cover is the magic password to any publisher's inventory, let alone the equally magical W** C**** words.

[John P. Moore]

I find it hard to take a book like this seriously when it starts out with such a nonsensical title, “Valhalla’s Warriors”. I have the book “Dietrich’s Warriors” about the LAH, but Sepp Dietrich was not “Valhalla” nor was Himmler or Hitler. Most people know that “Vahlhalla” is actually a mythical place for heroes killed in battle and not a place associated with SS war criminals.

The book is reviewed on Amazon by several people who have read it. Even among the more favorable reviews is the criticism of the author’s reliance on secondary sources of information with little new information to offer.

http://www.amazon.com/Valhallas-Warrior ... 442&sr=1-1

I’ll save my time and money and avoid this publication.

John

[Paddy Keating]

In response to Phylo's request that this discussion be confined to this thread, which is entirely reasonable, I am reposting my last set of questions here.

Terry,

Have you thought of discussing your book in greater detail in order to persuade readers here that it might be worth buying it rather than just downloading the thesis from the internet? After all, your publishers have quoted verbatim from the thesis on their website. Has it occurred to you that fielding and rebuffing my critical challenges to some of the assertions you made might be a more effective way of dealing with me than hurling invective about? Don't just tell me that I am uninformed. Show me why I am uninformed. More to the point: show everyone else why I am uninformed. My opinions, inconvenient though they seem to be from your viewpoint, are based on years of study in several languages, as well as interaction with people who were there, on both sides of the fence, so to speak. I don't pretend to be an historian but I think I know bluffing when I see it. A bluffer is a bluffer. Tell me, for instance, how you reconcile your apparently absolutist position on Waffen-SS apologists with Konrad Adenauer's 1953 statement about the Waffen-SS. In short, would you describe Konrad Adenauer as an apologist...or do you intend to continue ignoring this question, and others?

PK

[valhalla]

Hi Tom,
fully agree with your comments. Let's just get some constuctive feedback happening.

[valhalla]

[quote="John P. Moore"]I find it hard to take a book like this seriously when it starts out with such a nonsensical title, “Valhalla’s Warriors”. I have the book “Dietrich’s Warriors” about the LAH, but Sepp Dietrich was not “Valhalla” nor was Himmler or Hitler. Most people know that “Vahlhalla” is actually a mythical place for heroes killed in battle and not a place associated with SS war criminals.

The book is reviewed on Amazon by several people who have read it. Even among the more favorable reviews is the criticism of the author’s reliance on secondary sources of information with little new information to offer.

http://www.amazon.com/Valhallas-Warrior ... 442&sr=1-1

I’ll save my time and money and avoid this publication.

Regarding the title. Is it that much worse then titles such as "Men of Steel", "The Devil's adjutant", "Tragedy of the faithful", the list goes on. Titles are meant to catch a person's eye.The word Valhalla was chosen due to the obvious nordic aspect that was evident in the Waffen-SS and also Himmler as any cursory examination will reveal. This kind of stuff is fairly open to people to see. Perhaps john you haven't read this review from a vine voice on Amazon

"Within history there are basically primary and secondary sources. This book is based around a majority of secondary sources with little new information to offer. Having said that, I must emphasis that in today's world new original primary research is a great thing to find and read through but I believe that so much has been written about the Waffen SS, and the Eastern Front in general, that it is time to take a step back and take some of that secondary research to see where it takes us. New research is always nice but gaining a new understanding and comprehension by analyzing and comparing/contrasting existing accounts is also something that needs to be done from time to time. This is what I believe the author did here and I commend him for a job well done. I can easily admit to have read quite a few books from the bibliography but there were still many books I had never heard of or wasn't familiar with and just for that this book was worth getting.

The author is quite fair to the Waffen SS; he presents both extremes to the reader and chooses to walk in the middle showing that those who believe the Waffen SS to be a criminal organization are not basing it on fiction but rather on fact. The book is short, a little over 200 pages, goes over the history of the SS, the composition of the SS, and the ideology behind it before diving into the activities of a variety of SS formations on the Eastern Front. While not all SS soldiers were ideologues hunting Jews and Commissars enough of the SS officer corps was, which in turn influenced a large number of those under them. These men were not the `fourth' part of the Armed Forces but more so the political tool with which Hitler and Himmler could unleash their genocidal plans with throughout the Eastern Front.

A plethora of divisions are gone over as well as the atrocities and criminal actions they were involved in throughout the Second World War, mainly on the Eastern Front. Personally, I had always heard that the "Wiking" SS division had 'clean hands' when it came to atrocities, apparently that's not true and I have this book to thank for gaining that knowledge. A worthwhile investment of your time and money, definitely recommended. Lastly, the reason for the 4 stars instead of 5 is because the bibliography is fully English, would have been nice to go into some of the new literature out there in German that deals with the crimes of the Waffen SS."

[valhalla]

Personally, I'd be more interested In finding out from Terry why he couldn't get this book taken up by a publisher? As a dedicated haunter of remainder shops and cutprice outlets...let's face it "Waffen-SS" on the cover is the magic password to any publisher's inventory, let alone the equally magical W** C**** words.

Sorry, this is so inaccurate. Most publisher's in fact consider these topics done to death. And the specialist publishers generally won't touch you for fear of upsetting the adoring hordes who think that the relevant subjects were just poor innocents who happened to commit a few crimes here and there. The proof is in the pudding I say. You can see from the attacks I have had on this forum alone how defensive people are of this topic. However, I stand by my conclusions and whilst I really do admire the Waffen-SS as a military force, without doubt the committed systemic genocide.

[Tom Houlihan]

...without doubt the committed systemic genocide.

But there is a doubt depending on how one defines "systemic genocide."

Was X.SS-Division ever assigned strictly to genocidal warfare? No.

Were some sub-units of some Waffen-SS Divisions ordered to participate, or to assist SD Einsatzgruppen and Polizei units in rounding up Jews, Roma, and other so-called Untermenschen for transport to the camps? Yes.

Did Waffen-SS units execute partisans, real or alleged? Yes.

Was there an organizational difference between the SS units assigned to the Camps and the Waffen-SS? Yes.

Was there a blurring of lines between the two? Definitely, as has been shown on other threads here and in other fora many of us belong to.

Was there an organizational difference between the SD Einsatzgruppen and the Waffen-SS? Yes.

A blanket statement that the Waffen-SS committed systemic genocide isn't viable. The Waffen-SS was designed for, and spent nearly all their time in armed combat against an organized armed opponent. That was their primary function. It was not the Waffen-SS, though, that was specifically assigned to commit acts of genocide.

Some people are labeled apologists, revisionists, neo-Nazis, or "fan-boys" for minding these distinctions. In point of fact, most of the men who belonged to the Waffen-SS were combat soldiers. Did many of them violate the Laws of War? Yes, that has been proven. Most of them, however, fought an armed enemy in normal combat, with varying degrees of efficiency. Lumping together every man who wore a Feldgrau uniform with an eagle on the sleeve is invalid.

It's quite akin to holding me accountable for all the unlawful arrests, excessive use of force complaints, and wrongful deaths committed by other cops, just because I wore a similar uniform during the same time-frame.

[sid guttridge]

Has anyone noticed the startling similarity between attacks on this book and those on "The Myth of the Eastern Front" and Westermeier's book on Jochen Peiper?

In all three cases the attackers, often the same posters, hadn't read the book when first posting and preferred to attack the authors' background by implying either that they were Jewish (regardless as to whether this was true or not) or prostituting themselves for career advancement.

The credibility of Feldgrau is deeply damaged by its continued tolerance of a such "playing of the man, not the ball".

I have absolutely no idea whether this book is any good or not, but it is very clear that the attacks on it so far have no almost no value because nobody has actually read it.

Come on guys, at least read the thing first.

Cheers,

Sid.

[valhalla]

Tom,
It is called organisational responsibility and a surrender of your moral responsbility to the organisation. I deal with this specifically in the book. I was always going to come under fire for labelling the organisation as a whole, so I put some effort into justifying why I did this. Suffice to summarise I think that the Waffen-SS as a whole are morally responsible for their actions as a group (note I am not saying legally). I do in fact devote an entire chapter to dealing with this vexing question.

[valhalla]

Hi Sid,
I just went and had a look at the Westermeier topic and it made for interesting reading and I can understand what you are saying.

I get the feeling that any books that dare to challenge the accepted view of the Waffen-SS come in for sustained attack on this forum, which is a shame as I would have thought that the truth would have been the most important issue here.

None the less I shall battle on and answer those challenges where there is a shred of logic.

[Paddy Keating]

None the less I shall battle on and answer those challenges where there is a shred of logic.

I wish you would! Once again, you describe anyone who sees the Waffen-SS as a branch of the Wehrmacht as "Waffen-SS apologists" so how do you reconcile this viewpoint with Konrad Adenauer's 1953 description of the Waffen-SS as "soldiers like any other"? Do you think Adenauer was "a Waffen-SS apologist?"

Moving onto Sid's contribution: several people here have read the thesis on which the book is based, Sid. Dr Goldsworthy claims that his book differs from his doctoral thesis. Yet the book extracts chosen by his publishers for several of their website pages match the relevant parts of the thesis word for word. Dr Goldsworthy says:

Sorry, this is so inaccurate. Most publisher's in fact consider these topics done to death. And the specialist publishers generally won't touch you for fear of upsetting the adoring hordes who think that the relevant subjects were just poor innocents who happened to commit a few crimes here and there. The proof is in the pudding I say. You can see from the attacks I have had on this forum alone how defensive people are of this topic. However, I stand by my conclusions and whilst I really do admire the Waffen-SS as a military force, without doubt the committed systemic genocide.

OK. You want some "constructive feedback"?

Mainstream publishers with military history book departments are usually looking for writers of the calibre of Trevor-Roper, Carrell, Beevor and Hastings, to name a few. They tend to prefer balanced historical reportage. A doctoral thesis, although it has a certain merit in its own right, really falls more into the category of editorialising than reportage. Gitta Sereny was able to write about "evil" - the "banality of evil" - because she invested the time and effort in spending time with men like Franz Stangl and because she brought something new to the bookshelves at the time.

You have to see this from the viewpoint of the average editor at a publishing house, who doesn't have enough hours in the day to read all the manuscripts thrown at him. Put another way, you have to understand the rules of the arena and to pitch yourself accordingly. When you send in a manuscript about the Waffen-SS and war crimes or "evil", the editor's eyes are glazing over before he gets to the end of your covering note. Yes, it's all been done before and, what is more, by people who can actually write. Apart from anything else, Terry, someone whose business is the English language is going to take one look at, for instance, your misuse of apostrophes and hurl your manuscript or your CD-ROM towards the bin just for that alone. I'm not saying this to be cruel. I'm just trying to tell another publishing virgin the facts of life.

There is nothing new in your thesis. Telling us that the Waffen-SS was an evil organisation is a non-revelation. Well, no, let me be more precise: it tells us, in fact, that your knowledge of the subject is not sufficiently profound to justify buying your book. Vanity publishers aside, publishers in general will reject a proposal if they suspect that the author doesn't know enough about his or her subject. This is for various reasons, not least of which is a desire to avoid embarrassment and perhaps even legal problems should the book be exposed as a duffer. They are in it to make money, after all. Telling us that ordinary men commit terrible crimes if ordered to do so is not a revelation either.

Coming back to the thorny question of establishing your credentials with publishers and editors, let's look at this statement:

...and whilst I really do admire the Waffen-SS as a military force, without doubt the committed systemic genocide.

This smacks of the kind of simplistic, sweepingly general approach to the subject that would discourage any serious publisher or editor. Were you to say, on the other hand, that whilst the fighting spirit of some Waffen-SS units is admirable, there is no doubt that various Waffen-SS units were deeply involved in implementing genocidal policies, followed by, perhaps, one of the aims of my book is to remind people that perfectly ordinary, decent men can be persuaded to commit the most terrible crimes on behalf of a regime, you might get a better hearing.

There is some truth in what you say about specialist publishers. Some of them are committed revisionists, apologists, deniers and extremists. The ones who fall into that category are well-known and quite readily identifiable. However, there are also some very serious-minded specialist publishers whose presence fills the gap between commercially-focused mainstream publishers and the lunatic fringe. However, these publishers and their editors tend to be quite well-versed in the topics covered by their lists and they have no shortage of good, professional writers to provide them with material. As you seem to have discovered for yourself, you are not really the kind of author in whom they would be inclined to invest.

This is not because of any "fear of upsetting the adoring hordes who think that the relevant subjects were just poor innocents who happened to commit a few crimes here and there." Just that statement alone indicates your inability to face up to the demonstrable fact that you simply do not know enough about the subject in question to be elevated to the level of some of the writers and historians you yourself quote and cite. The shortcomings of your prose style could be overlooked if, to put it bluntly, you knew what you were talking about and you were bringing some kind of fresh perspective to things.

You can scream and stamp your foot at me all you like, Terry, and you can tell me that I don't know what I am talking about, but you are merely sidestepping my counterpoints. There is nothing wrong with the basic premise of your thesis, that it is usually very ordinary men who commit the worst crimes against humanity as opposed [my qualification] the drooling comic book monsters of Hollywood lore. It's not an original opinion. But why go the lazy route and fall back on the Nazis when you could, for instance, focused more on the Balkans in the 1990s, where white people once again demonstrated that they are capable of bestial savagery? The Australian Army was, and is, in the Balkans so you could have interviewed veterans. You could also have interviewed Yugoslav veterans: there are quite a few in Oz, some of whom are in criminal gangs, which is quite relevant to your job, isn't it? And then there is also the unpleasant situation involving Howard's government and refugees.

If you're so concerned by white collar crime, you could have written a thesis on the Alan Bond affair. White collar crime at that level involves the kind of sociopathic detachment displayed by people like Eichmann. These white collar criminals cause untold misery for people, misery that lasts a long time. At least the victims of genocidal maniacs are not condemned to long-lasting misery. It is usually over for them quite quickly. But then, as I said, Bond University might have balked at such a thesis. But you might at least have been able to sell it for development as an airport paperback to a mainstream publisher. People may be suffering from "compassion fatigue" when it comes to the Holocaust and other appalling crimes but they love reading about the dodgy businessmen who lead us all a merry dance.

Anyway, if I give you any more advice, I will have to start invoicing you. Good luck, Dr Goldsworthy. But do try to develop a thicker skin if you are going to hold yourself up to the slings and arrows of critical attention.

PK

[phylo_roadking]

Terry, it would probably be a much better idea if you replied to ALL the challenges put to you, for otherwise you'll be leaving yourself open to the question of why you're cherrypicking and choosing to avoid some areas. I'm sure you have answers, so why avoid giving them?

It's also not the greatest of ideas to post up a review by a reviewer with a noted reputation for being a Stalinist apologist. But I WOULD note that "Y.Mann"/kunikov answers Sid's earlier question regarding new sources...

the bibliography is fully English, would have been nice to go into some of the new literature out there in German that deals with the crimes of the Waffen SS

[phylo_roadking]

Moderators' Note;

For all the participants in this thread, let's be very clear about what environment this discussion is taking place in.

Terry arrived on the forum some days ago and "spammed" the board with four duplicate postings. This forum has very specific locations for the private marketing of products and discussing books.

One of those postings was in the War Crimes section - the rules on which are VERY clear, especially the prime rule - Sticky'd for FULL visibility to all new posters in that section - of not posting new threads without clearing with Site Management. When this was drawn OFFICIALLY to Terry's attention - Terry is aware of the answer he gave, and the level of respect for the site rules it implied. Terry posts on Feldgrau at the Management's pleasure for now.

In subsequent discussions he made three unfounded allegations of anti-Semitism. This was drawn to his attention publically and thus to all other members of the forum.

implying either that they were Jewish (regardless as to whether this was true or not)

One more hint of this and any party concerned has an Official Spring Break of appropriate duration. There was no anti-Semitism implied in the form of words used. As stated elsewhere on this matter, this forum neither permits anti-Semitism NOR unfounded allegations of same.

All posters are advsed to note that the author's own website says

He later undertook his PhD at Bond University focusing on the concept of evil and its relevance from a criminological and sociological viewpoint. In particular Dr. Goldsworthy looked at the link between evil and armed conflicts using the Waffen-SS as a case study.

Unlike "The Myths of the Eastern front" that case study, and Terry's thesis, is available online for consultation. The availability of Terry's background material is thus several orders of magnitude greater than is the case with Smelser and Davies.