""You have to respect them for their fighting skill"?" Topic

So when the talk comes to the SS, a lot of times, you get the argument that "regardless of what they believed in, you have to respect them for their fighting skill" or some variation thereof.

The OFM has ranted about that a few times, but I am curious:

This mostly gets brought up with ww2 Germans but it's pretty well established for Romans of course and Confederates.

What about NKVD units resisting the nazi's? ISIS types in the middle east? Viet Minh resisting French colonial troops? Iranians storming through clouds of gas against Iraqi trenches? Chinese in Korea?

What is your call, good TMP?

Should we respect bad people who are good at fighting and if so, who?

Not all SS organizations were well oiled fighting machines; some of them got their ass handed to them when they had to do more than terrorize the local civilian population.

full metal jacket mentioned something along those lines:

YouTube link

I'm afraid I don't think any respect is possible. The SS crossed a line.

This isn't purely about SS, though they are the poster-children for the trope.

I can only speak to those I fought in Northern I Corps, the North Vietnamese Army. IMHO, the finest light infantry in the world, bar none.

I think you can respect the quality someone has without having to sympathize with the people as people or their cause.

In the case of Germans in WWII, any of them, I can respect their fighting ability (if they had it and we are talking about the ones that did here) without respecting anything about why or what they were fighting for.

I don't really see it as that much different than liking an actor or musician for their ability while you might despise their political views, life style and many other things about them.

Echo Pictor – I think you may be misplacing the "respect."

I would not respect bad people for their skills, I would respect their SKILLS; THEY are still bad people.

Their skills were nothing to respect, even professionally, early in the war. The Army complained that while they were motivated, they were clumsy and took more casualties than they should have. Their morale wasn't all that iron early on either, the SS Totenkopf routing at Arras and SS Nord in Finland in 1941.

They got better, of course, due to the infusion of a lot of Army officers (join the SS, get a promotion and paid more than the Army equivalent rank). After years in Russia, a lot of them were pretty good by Normandy, so they fought well.

They still totally deserved killing, though.

They were clumsy and took more casualties than they should have.

Couldn't the same be said for green American troops in Normandy. They achieved a lot but at a high cost.

I have an easier time respecting the more distant examples than I do respecting the DAESHbags.

I'm thinking about playing Jordanians in Fate of a Nation, though Egyptians are another option.

The VC were excellent soldiers. I might not like who they were fighting for, but they were excellent troops.

The DAESHbags aren't even good soldiers.

Technically, I play SS in Flames of War. My Weird War 2 force uses the SS rules because I wanted the force to be Fearless Veteran. They're the Kerberos Panzerjager of the 808th Propagandakompanie. I also play some pretty die-hard Nazis in the form of my Fallschirmjager (Luftwaffe was very pro-Nazi). I'm not sure about the political standing of the Panzer Lehr.

I also play the Imperial Japanese Navy in WW2 naval gaming. Decent ships, if lightly armored. I know what the Japanese were attempting to become, they were a generation late to start building their own colonial empire.

Neither the Brits nor the Pathans are exactly angels on the Northwest Frontier, given that the Brits would intentionally trample fields and burn entire villages until the tribes would cough up whatever the amount of rifles the Brits decided they owed.

NO.

Are we talking about fighting skill here?
They were better than your average russian thats for sure.
They were excellently equipped as well.
LAh, das reich, hitlerjugend divisions stand out.
The volunteer ss formations as well.
17th ss were generally considered to be poor.
I highly recommend reading leon degrelles book.
Most of you are way to into the anti SS propoganda on here.
fallschirmjager and panzer lehr are much better than ss.

They were excellently equipped as well.

Equipment was in short supply (for the Germans on the eastern front) and was moved around as needed. Lots of their equipment had problems e.g. Panthers/Tigers on introduction.

The Russians had plenty of good kit. People have argued that the T34 was the best tank of the war. They had better cold weather gear, some good rifles/smgs.

Their infantry rarely demonstrated superlative fighting skills but often attacked very aggressively or defended desperately. These attacks could cause local disruptions and possible chances for exploitation or hold a position against the odds. Often they carried on attacking or defending when other units would have retired, causing them excessive casualties.

In short morale can give an edge, but as for tactical skills, no different to the Wehrmacht and in some cases considerably poorer.

Are we talking about fighting skill here?
They were better than your average russian thats for sure.
They were excellently equipped as well.
LAh, das reich, hitlerjugend divisions stand out.
The volunteer ss formations as well.
17th ss were generally considered to be poor.
I highly recommend reading leon degrelles book.
Most of you are way to into the anti SS propoganda on here.
fallschirmjager and panzer lehr are much better than ss.

We are well into anti-SS propaganda but should read Degrelle!! It would be hard to find a more self serving piece of propaganda than this.
Some Fallshirm were great but by the end many were re trained ground crew. I've never seen anything that said Panzer Lehr was great even in Normandy and it was a huge waste of a massively valuble resource.
The volunteer SS were generally poor, I give you Handchar or Skanderbeg both broken up because of desertion issues.
As for better equipped? look at 2nd Panzer and Panzer Lehr in Normandy, both were better equipped in many respects than there SS counter parts.

I think 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 12th perhaps a few others fought well generally but overall the legend out weighs the actual truth of their prowress without even considering the war crimes issues.

Germans as a rule tend to put up a good fight. Our history is littered with foes who become legendary warriors to make the victory look stronger. The SS would certainly fit into that category, though due to their atrocious record we tend to lionise Heer troops more.

"Should we respect bad people who are good at fighting and if so, who?"

I think a fundamental flaw with the OP is the idea that the world can be divided into 'good' and 'bad'.

The Viet Minh are an excellent example, frothing communist stooges or heroic anti-colonialists fighting for independence? I seem to recall something similar happening around 1776.

Similarly our good pals the Israelis were a bunch a murdering terrorists in the 1940s. Saddam Hussein? The Mujahadeen?

Were ALL the SS 'bad'? so were all the Heer 'good'? How about the Luftwaffe?

Anyway, assuming we can go with a digital view of the world, then yes of course you an respect the fighting qualities of anybody, however odious the regime/cause/culture they are fighting for. Hats off to Genghis Khan, but I'm not sure I'd like to have met him.

As for the Romans. Well, what have the Romans ever done for us?

They gave us candles.

Curiously, the question starts out, "Should we respect bad people…"

There are a lot of interesting things there. I'll try to be brief.

I don't think that "we" have an obligation to think in any specific way.

I know what "bad people" is when I see them, but the OP includes some of what I would call "bad people" with some that I would not. The PAVN was an enemy, but I don't see them as inherently "bad people".

And lastly, I don't respect "bad people". Part of being "bad", is that you can't be respected. I may respect the threat that they pose, but not the person, who stands for that which is wrong.

I don't respect the SS in any way. They are an interesting fighting force for WW2 games. This goes for the Soviets as well.
If I were playing an RPG and had Vampires in it I would not respect them. They represent evil. Or would in any game of my design.

Is respecting your enemy the same as knowing your enemy? To quote Sun Tsu…

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Should we respect rabid dogs for their biting skills? Should respect sociopathic mass-murders for their killing skills? Should we respect rapists for their raping skills? Should we respect lynch-mobs for their swarming skills?
NO!
We should be wary of such beasts and beastly groups and we should fear their bestial behaviour.
The measure of the SS is not what they did against their military foes but what they did to the unarmed and terrified civilian populations which they encountered. Is it bravery to slaughter innocents? Is it heroic to line up hundreds at a time and shoot them in the back after you have forced them to dig their own mass graves? Is it valorous to burn women and children in buildings in order to punish elusive partisans who you cannot catch? Was it noble for Roman Legionaries to butcher and slaughter people who resisted the expansion of their empire? Was it laudable that NKVD barrage battalions machine-gunned their own soldiers to stiffen the resistance against the Nazi invaders?
NO!
The only group worth any kind of recognition in the OP's list is the Viet Minh. I do not think they should be included with all the others as they were trying only to defend their homeland from outside invaders and brutal and corrupt Vietnamese. They were brutal but they had to be because of the power and destructiveness of their foes.
Rod Robertson

I used "bad" as a short hand for "groups that liberal democratic western nations tend to consider bad in our dominant cultural rhetoric". A bit shorter to write, if a lot more simplistic.

You were correct to call it out.

:-)

You are only as good as your competition … Daesh vs. Iraqis … do the math …

Legion – wouldn't that apply to a lot of people in history though? Were the Romans great or were they fighting guys who weren't as organized?

It depends … like most things, varies with the situation … In early Roman history, generally the Romans were "great" and they were fighting guys who weren't as organized. And now, as usual on TMP, some one like John OFM will site 2 or 3 situations where what I said, they believe does not apply …

+1 on 1D6 versus -1 on 1D6 ? :)

As for the Viet Minh, the french general Bigeard had a lot of respect for them, but it changed with the treatment of the prisonners of Dien Bien Phu (higher death rate than in Dachau !).

Still, after the war he visited Dien Bien Phu, and had all the military honors given by Giap. Something the vietnamese have not done yet for any american …

A skill at being better at killing than others is hardly a virtue to respect.

You don't have to respect the fighting skills of unsavory armies and units, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used in historical wargaming. Because miniature wargaming is about the historical battles, not the ideology or atrocities of the participants.

Sorry, that's just the way I and many others feel about this subject, which repeats quite often here on TMP.

"but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used in historical wargaming"

I don't know that anyone suggested we drop them from our rosters. I read there's a type of wargamer who cryptically worships Nazism.

I wouldn't know: I've never met anyone like that. If I game against someone who has SS units in his army, it wouldn't worry me per se.

Again, the topic is not about the toy soldiers. I'm pretty red and I've played Nazi's as often as any other army.

Still, after the war he visited Dien Bien Phu, and had all the military honors given by Giap. Something the vietnamese have not done yet for any american …

Maybe not but Vietnam is very glad to have US trade, aid, tourism, etc. … And the firepower that the US deployed in Vietnam, dwarfed anything the French could. Not to mention the Agent Orange legacy. And France had colonized Indo-China around 1863. The US was there for only a couple of decades if that. Bigeard's war vs. other US commanders' are similar. But in the long run are two different paradigms …

If we focus on the enemy aspect, we see in our world two primary behavioral patterns for dealing with enemies. The first is that we hate, hear, loathe, scorn our enemy, are oppressed by the enemy, and then continue our lamentations and scorn (on a mental level). The second is that we learn to know our enemy, respect the enemy, triumph over the enemy and then respect the former generously.

link

I think it becomes much easier when you separate things down to 2 different categories: respect and admiration.

I respect the skill that several of the notable SS units in WW2 displayed… I do NOT admire the ideological beliefs of some of those unit members.

In the same line of reasoning…

Just because you respect someone's ability, doesn't also mean that you admire them.

There are others that I admire their character, but I have no respect for their ability and wouldn't trust them with a burned out wet matchstick…

For me they are two separate things.

1) Respect is merely acknowledgement of someone's proficiency.

2) Admiration is acknowledgement of someone's character/leadership.

Frank

You can "recognize" as, be aware, that you are encountering a fanatic or determined enemy without the need to show them any respect.

Trevor Dupuy, based upon his statistical analysis work, made some interesting arguments regarding the relative combat value of German soldiers in general. Where the SS fit into that scheme can be inferred by examining the tactical roles that the SS formations played: they served as the spearheads in German offensive operations and as the fire brigades in German defensive operations.

B

"A skill at being better at killing than others is hardly a virtue to respect."

Really??? That just strikes me as an odd thing to say, that is, does anyone else believe this to be true?

Maybe times have changed, but it seems to me that man has admired martial skill and ability since pretty much the dawn of time.

Regarding the SS, I have to agree with the admire/respect post above by Zaevor2000. I imagine we'd have to look pretty hard to find something to admire regarding Germany from 1933 to 1945 (maybe a German general officer surrendering instead of fighting scorched earth in a town or something like that), but I don't really care how heinous a regime is, if it's fighting elements are ass-kickers, then their fighting elements are ass-kickers, and there are men that respect that (including me).

Now, before this gets blown out of proportion, what does that really get us? Am I going to write a book, make a documentary, or start a civic campaign to get them a holiday complete with parade? No, it's really only banter for conversations with buddies (when already knee-deep into military topics) or on wargaming forums…

So, regarding the Waffen SS combat capability, I respect it, and I find Blutarski's line ("they served as the spearheads in German offensive operations and as the fire brigades in German defensive operations.") factual and prescient.

Also, regarding the "SS Worshippers" (amongst wargamers), my humble opinion is that this may be overblown as well, though it is admittedly not provable by me. I think the guys that show up at clubs/tournaments with the SS troops are not generally Nazi/SS worshippers (never seen one myself, maybe I don't get out enough), they're usually just guys that are trying to max out the points/capabilities of their tournament army.

Because the SS are generally 'respected' in wargames rules, they tend to have big morale and capability advantages, plus get all the cool/best equipment, plus they have the cool camouflage instead of boring gray, and probably have automatic rifles if it's late war. Our club/tournament guy may even have some general, wafting concept that someone thought the SS were bad-asses, and so he may like them for that as well, but if you told him Das Reich really earned its fierce reputation for its victory at the Surigao Strait when it 'crossed the T,' he probably wouldn't argue with you ;)

I will say that, while obviously competent, I'd never really placed the Vietminh or NVA in the 'respected' (when I say respected, I mean it in terms of standing out as exceedingly more capable than their contemporary peers), but I'd love to have the opportunity to share an adult beverage with Dennis0302 (0302 is the Marine Infantry Officer MOS designator) and hear about his run-ins with the NVA.

When I joined the Corps there were still quite a few senior Staff NCO Vietnam vets around, and I once had the incredible good fortune to be in a group of Marine Sergeants that caught General Frank Libutti (when he was III MEF CG) after hours and get to listen to stories about Operation Buffalo.

Real quick, I'll answer the OP:
WW2 Germans – As a whole no, but certain units, yes.
Romans – Yes
Confederates – No
NKVD units – No
ISIS – Really? Watch some videos of them in action and tell me about their martial skills. Hell no.
Viet Minh – No
Iranians storming through clouds of gas against Iraqi trenches – No
Chinese in Korea – No

I don't have time right now to explain all my answers, but the vast majority of my negative replies is due to the fact I don't believe willingness to die (for example, the willingness to conduct human wave attacks or blow yourself up) is simply that, a willingness to die, and many times is done because of a lack of martial ability.

In any case, there's my 2 cents.

V/R,
Jack

Is there an element in historical distance in this? I read Just Jack's response above with interest, and found myself in general agreement with his closing remarks (apart from a sneaking admiration for the Confederate forces)… but why do we find it easy to admire the Romans but not more recent examples? Historical distance?

Will this change in another few hundred years, and there will be an 'acceptance' / 'grudging admiration' of regimes that we currently still find abhorent?

The whole admiration for terrorists / freedom fighters is a whole other can of worms and, I would suggest, rather depends on your personal / family experiences at their hands, and your world view. Many today (or even at the time, looking on from afar) will consider ZANLA terrs or Boer bitter-einders to have been gallant freedom fighters, standing up to the 'evil' Rhodesian regime / 'vile' British Empire. If you were a farmer in the Rhodesian lowveldt in the 1970s, or a loyalist in the Orange River Colony in 1901, you would have a very different view of them. Neither is right or wrong, as such, and there is little to be gained by arguing the point.

This has been done – redone and overdone ad nauseum…

But it essentially comes down to the ability to think logically and dispassionately rather than react at an emotional level only.

You can – and indeed have to – distinguish between dedicated Nazis who were into the cause and those who went along with it because it was their duty, or for self preservation, or because they were fooled into it. Plenty of conscripts or foolish volunteers in the SS. And once 'in' you had to run with the crowd or you'd trampled by it.

I'm not feeling sorry for these reluctant SS criminals or saying they should go unpunished – but you have to accept that they existed.

Likewise – there were plenty of die hard Nazis in the Heer, Kreigsmarine and above all the Luftwaffe. It was highly convenient to blame it all on the SS, Gestapo etc.

This all goes for any army in any war really. Wars are fought for 'national interest' – not to liberate except in the slang meaning to 'misappropriate'.

WW2 is always trotted out as the ultimate crusade against evil but as far as I understand this was mostly after the fact justification for the cost, losses and crimes of the allies.

I offer the following comment with great trepidation, as I have no wish to become embroiled in a debate over something that will not ever be conclusively resolved to anyone's real satisfaction.

For every dedicated fire-breathing, 'Mein Kampf' carrying Nazi serving in the German armed forces of WW2, how many men and women were simply serving in defense of their homeland? How many enlisted in the SS simply because it was perceived as an elite organization? The war was not marketed to the broad German public as a means of advancing the greater interests of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Workers Party, it was sold as a struggle to save the German homeland. Exactly the same methodology was employed by the USSR. After Germany invaded, mention of the principles of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and the advance of worldwide Communism disappeared and was replaced by the "Great Patriotic War to save Mother Russia" as a rallying cry. I doubt that more than a small fraction of those serving were actually card-carrying communists.

Strictly my opinion.

B

WW2 Germans – As a whole no, but certain units, yes.
Romans – Yes
Confederates – No
NKVD units – No
ISIS – Really? Watch some videos of them in action and tell me about their martial skills. Hell no.
Viet Minh – No
Iranians storming through clouds of gas against Iraqi trenches – No
Chinese in Korea – No

Based on my study of history, serving in the Infantry, etc., I totally agree … And as the Ed. Bill noted from Sun Tzu … Know your enemy …

Skarper 19 Oct 2014 4:56 a.m. PST
This has been done – redone and overdone ad nauseum…

I agree … the second you mention SS, it usually goes beyond just their tactical employment, effectiveness, etc. … And that is probably understandable. And here in the US, the Rebels that fought for the Southren "Cause" is still a "touchy" subject among some … and most likely justifiably so …

Gurkhas.

B

As a practical matter, won't we run out of games to play if we start excluding "bad" armies? No WW2, since the Soviets, Nazis and Japanese were vile. (The Italians were a little less vile, but generally fielded poor armies). No ACW -- the Confederates were fighting for slavery, No colonial, since in many people's eyes, all colonial powers were bad. Given the monstrous barbarism of the French Revolution, shouldn't we exclude Napoleonics as well? etc., etc.

In any case, I am easily able to separate a technical appreciation for the fighting abilities of (say) the WW2 Germans, the tenacity and strategic competence of the post-1941 Soviets, the superb training of the Kido Butai, etc., from admiration for them as human beings and as cultures. As a wargamer, I tend to like smaller, more capable armies. This leads me to play the armies I do, not some juvenile sense of identification with their real world counterparts. I think that virtually all wargamers I know feel the same way. So the navel-gazing angst found in these kinds of discussions is pointless, in my opinion.

I also suspect that such discussions are often launched by people who are mostly interested in appearing morally superior. Not necessarily the OP in this thread. However, these discussions invariably devolve into "who was the worstest" debates and attempts to argue that some vile groups (the WW2 Soviets or the Viet Cong for instance) somehow were not as bad as the Nazis, despite the fact that these groups routinely engaged in the exact type of barbaric conduct as the Nazis. And then, to argue that the so-called "good guys" were somehow just as bad. It's as though a sense of proportion is something that happened to other people…

Having looked at some comments, probably will regret replying as it is indeed a can of worms but one idea does need correcting.

No one would have joined the SS on the grounds it was an 'elite fighting organization'. It saw itself and was seen as an elite, but as a Nazi Elite, first and last. Any attempt to cast parts of it as being or being seen as separate from the rest of the SS and being a 'German fighting elite' defending the homeland is post hoc . Death camps to commit systematic genocide, massive economic empire built on slavery, enforcement of rule through terror and torture, recruitment and equipping of troops, all the same SS, all part of Himmler's vision, all morally equivalent.

Anyone who volunteered to join the SS would have know what it was and must have been willing to accept its ideology.

So no, the word 'respect' does not deserve to be put in the same sentence as the SS.

I respect stinging insects for their sting and biting insects for their bite*, and then I splatter their guts everywhere.

I see no conflict.

Dan
* Respect the sting and the bite, lest you be stung and bitten.

Dan:
Study and understand the sting and bite so that you can spot them and stop them, but never respect them or you may not want to splatter their guts.
The could be a conflict.
*Be vigilant and mindful of the sting and the bite, lest you be stung and bitten. Respect the sting and the bite and you may become a stinger or biter.

I can respect what something can do to me without loving it.

Respect a storm, means don't turn your back to it. Doesn't mean you have to love it either or like what it does.

Dan