SuAside said:
I'm familiar with the Eastern Front, thankyouverymuch.
The SS is pretty fucking dark grey.
Regardless, killing civilians is an unambiguously evil thing to do.
88 year old ex-SS soldier charged with 3 wartime murders
- Thread starter victor
- Start date
I'm familiar with the Eastern Front, thankyouverymuch.
The SS is pretty fucking dark grey.
Regardless, killing civilians is an unambiguously evil thing to do.
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=2788
SS is pretty GREY, not dark grey, not light grey, just grey.
SS is pretty GREY, not dark grey, not light grey, just grey.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Mikael Grizzly said:
hrm... i always thought it was ghengis khan...
cuz they would take pregnant women, nail them up to a door, slice their bellies, and let them bleed to death.
and other things worse than that.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Or take your pick at one of the random African rebel/militia groups who commits unspeakable atrocities on a daily basis.
The "ZOMG Evil Nazis!111!!!!". Thing does get extremely old.
The "ZOMG Evil Nazis!111!!!!". Thing does get extremely old.
Dragula said:
Nigga, puh-leaze, are you using foreign SS formations to back up your claim that the Schutzstaffeln of the NSDAP are ambiguous? Apart from the fact that they were composed of the same kind of fascist human detritus that populated the ranks of the core SS, the very notion that SS is anything but unambiguously evil is insane relativism.
Same goes for any other formation guilty of war crimes.
TheWesDude said:
Operative word: organization.
By the way, Russians did that too, to German women on the East front.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
yes, because ghengis khans army that walked from mongolia to europe had zero organization to it.
err rode on ponies. sorry.
err rode on ponies. sorry.
D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
Mikael Grizzly said:
Yeah, Niggah is, because the guy on trial was in a foreign SS unit.
Unless the Dutch were the real ones behind WW2 and it's all a conspiracy.
Are you going to persecute the Soviet Union's soldiers because they were the fist upon Stalin's hand? I think not.
NOT ONE STEP BACK!
*Commissar doesn't execute retreating soldiers.*
*Commissar gets executed along with soldiers.*
*His family is purged by Stalin*
Dopemine Cleric said:Yeah, Niggah is, because the guy on trial was in a foreign SS unit.
Unless the Dutch were the real ones behind WW2 and it's all a conspiracy.
Dragula tried to argue that the entire SS was grey. I can't possibly argue with Nazi-loving.
Yes, I am, if they commited war crimes. Such as raping German women or killing civilians.
You can't call the same action an atrocity when it's commited by Nazis, but claim it's just an error in judgement when i's done by, say, the Russians or Americans.
As usual, folk tales and myth replace actual knowledge.
Oh noes, other people did evil things, so now these people totally aren't evil anymore!
What?
What?
Mikael Grizzly said:
Hmm, did I say they were white or anything? No, I said they were grey, which means they were just as bad as they were good. But winners write history, which means some of the atrocities are exaggerated, and have changed throughout the history,
Dragula said:
Really? Just as? You might want to go over that statement on more time and think it through. Did the SS do as much good as they did harm?
So they were also posing to picture as badasses
Here we have "slaves" of ss:
Here we have victim of ss:
I think there is no need to comment:
Sorry for oversized pictures i'm kind of angry, and want to post it as fast as possible.
There was fu*king civilian massacre on eastern front, I really can't see any shade of grey in that black ink spot over history pages.
Here we have "slaves" of ss:
Here we have victim of ss:
I think there is no need to comment:
Sorry for oversized pictures i'm kind of angry, and want to post it as fast as possible.
There was fu*king civilian massacre on eastern front, I really can't see any shade of grey in that black ink spot over history pages.
Perhaps not, but they acted according to their time, it doesn't matter if one claim they were brainwashed of volunteers. We can't use today morals on something that happened 70 years ago. That's just arbitrary,Brother None said:
Because mass murder and genocide were considered A-OK back then.Dragula said:
Scorpius said:
It has been A-OK since the Roman empire, so yeah? Also most of the SS were not camp guards, but soldiers in the war.
Actually, most of the camp guards were SS. And I don't see your 'grey' point at all.
Yes most of the guards were SS, but not all SS were guards. The majority of the SS were regular soldiers. Which is my point, there were bastards there as in every other army. Gulag anyone? But a vast majority were just fighting for their homes, and not for their government. Also, before D-Day Soviet was considered the biggest threat to Europe, not Germany which says something about the mentality during that period.
This would be relevant if you were talking about slavery during the entiry history of man excluding the last 2 centuries, or, y'know, a lot of other things. But the second world war hasn't been ages ago. The world we're talking about still runs largely on the same Judeo-Christian morals. There definitely were differences, like eugenics and racial politics being somewhat accepted, sure. Mass murder, not even fucking close.Dragula said:
No, not just like 'in every other army'. 'Every other army' did not include death squads hunting for civilians. Other armies did not include running camps aimed solely at the extermination of an entire race of humans.Dragula said:
There's a reason why the SS was not a part of the Wehrmacht. It is a different organisation that indeed also had regular army tasks, but to pretend its actions as a racially motivated organisation of extermination were only a minor part of the organisation shows a gross ignorance of history.
Dragula said:
What? Do you have any idea about history at all?
Sure, there might have been a handful of good apples in the basket, but that's irrelevant, as every other fruit was as rotten as it could get.
Fact is, SS has been officially condemned as a thoroughly criminal organisation and for good reasons. SS-men were quintessential enforces of the Nazi regime, resonsible for most of the atrocities perpetrated by the Third Reich.
You would have a point if we were talking about the 13th century, but we're talking about the 20th century, in which morals remained more or less the same (sans elements Sander mentioned).
Organized genocide, massacres of the civilian population and POWs, abuse of civilians purely on the basis of their race or nationality are condemnable today and were condemnable back in the 1930s.
I really am surprised that you claim the SS was gray.
For the simple reason because you "had" the choice to disobey, even in the German army. Issue is. Enough didnt folowed it and just said it was some order later when they had to face the concequences. They did the things often enough with firm conviction. Many German soldiers even Generals refused to participate in the mass murder and genocide. They never got any punishment. You dont kill a large junk of your soldiers when you need every men on the frontline only cause he refused to kill prisoniers. The downside of this effect though was (and many men seen that during that time as issue) that comanders and leading officers would eventualy not grant you the honor in war cause to receive a medal you would usualy need a officer and comrades as reputation. Now if the Comander was a die hard believer of the Nazi party your situation in the unit would be serious. Nothing is ever "just" black or white. There is never a single reason.alec said:
For the case you did not wanted to participate in the war, yes for that you could be punished with death with law of war as enough people did deserted but here the German army was not in any case different then letz say the US or Soviet military during war no machinery takes desert lightly. There are stories from a soldier in austria (a pitty I dont remember the name anymore ...) which got in jail and killed by the German military for desertion he did not wanted to follow the conscription cause the war was no deffence but a attack and thus not right in his perception.
That is the main difference between the German Military and the Allied Military (including the Soviets). THey been in the defence from the begining. They have not been the agressors.
People should also not forget that in 1930s the Weimar Verfassung (constituation) was still in place Hitler used the Enabling Act to merge the office of Chancellor with that of President to create a new office and in 1934 the "Führereid" or Reichswehreid was used forthe oath of allegiance of the German Forces which have been all done contra to the Weimar constituation as it happend without the acceptance of the Reichstag (Parliament?) they did a popular vote but that was very questionable.
No soldier, officer or general had a reason to feel bound by the Reich or oath as it happend against the Weimar constituation. How many people knew about this or had the political sense to understand it is a question. And still many followed the whole machinery and stystem till the end. I dont believe in some collective guility. But no one could either explain his actions in the end by simply saying it have been "orders" or that he never knew about it.
Not every individual or member of the SS particularly the so called "Freiwilligen Divisionen" which had at some point even members from all across europe were criminals. The SS was probably the army with most different nations inside since the time of Atila. So it definetly can be discussed if the single Waffen SS soldier was a "criminal" or not as many certainly have been forced in to service by the German Military as anyone can see with the divisions that have been created after the occupation of poland. The W-SS had in the end aprox. 1 Million members in the end of 1944 and most probably have not been German in their origin. Enough have not even been able to speak German. For that case often enough German "historians" and "scientists" of that time would change the origin of a folk (see the Cossak divisions in the German army) so that it had for example not "slavic" but "goth" roots. Now probably any of those "divisions" have not been Nazis or ever even had anything to do with their Ubermensch/Rassen stuff.SuAside said:
But what can not be debated is the political motivations and indoctrination inside the SS or the whole system it represented and thus make it a criminal organisation. Alone the fact that Himmler was the leader of all SS units shows pretty well how much of a criminal organisatoin it was. Even if the individual was eventualy NOT a criminal cause today it is known that most of the German nazis served in the Wehrmacht (statisticaly) it can not be desputed that they suported a criminal subject. One can not discuss the SS without Himmler and his clear and obvious motivations just as one can not discuss the whole Nazi regime without its leaders and Hitler. Members of the Wehrmacht have the same fate. Even if they never been a member of crimes or never even "killed" anyone. They still been a member of the whole system and machinery. And and think no one wants to really dispute the wrongess in the motivations behind those that have lead all the organisations of the third Reich.
Yet, again. This are "individuals". From what I think Grizzly is thinking about the "Organisatoin" as whole. Just like the "Third Reich" as whole or the "Second World War" as whole.Dragula said:
One can always discuss the individual actions of soldiers, units or a whole army in the war. But one can not discuss the "gray" area of the organisation as whole cause the motivations behind it and the reasons why this organisation have been fund are obvious and clear to everyone. From the begining.
What ever a individual has done. Even if a W-SS General was Mother Theresa and Ghandi in one person and helped Millions it will not change the fact that Himmler was the head of the organisation and never made a secret out of his motivations or what the target of the SS was or in which direction it had to go. People remember what was needed to join the SS in the 1930's before the time the rules got slacked! You HAD to be "aryan" in to the third generation or so and you HAD to prove it or you could not be a member of the SS! The SS was meant by Himmler as a "Elite" formation inside the Nazi system itself consisting of the best men the German Reich has to offer, geneticaly seen. And even later the W-SS with German Soldiers as core was used as a elite formation inside the Military. The W-SS was one of the organisation with the highest looses which shows again the motivation of the soldiers. The SS was the army which loost most Generals. One per division on average! Most probably have not been die hard nazis. But they have been die hard fighters.
One can not exclude the one from the other. The members of the SS are a very gray area, just like every part of the war. But not the organisatoin it self
I dont accuse ANYONE here as a nazi member or something. But you hear this kind of the "W-SS (etc.)" was not a criminal organisatoin from many sides of the neo-nazi scene. But that is a wrong and sorry to say that wishfull thinking.
Again one has to make a difference between the "organisation" and its motivations since the SS as whole was lead by one single person only responsible to Hitler or if you want to discus the individual soldier/officer/general which happend to be a member in the SS.
Neither Rommel, Von Tresckow or Stauffenberg have been completely "black" or "white". But that doesnt make the whole war or the motivations of their leaders now suddenly gray either. John Rabe was a member of the Nazi party and seen Hitler as a good leader. Still doesnt change the Nazi party beeing a bad organisatoin