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

Now, if we wanted to look at a similar list for towns and villages in the Soviet Union … well it's a pretty long list.
- Slowdka
- Borki
- Zbyszin
- Timkowiczi
- Studenka (all from one month)

Where did the evidence for these eastern atrocities come from? The Soviets manufactured evidence. The Nuremberg trial records have plenty of lies which came from the Russian side. They tried to blame the Katyn massacre on Germans. From the Yale archive I mentioned:

"report of the Polish Government …. Camp Belsen was founded in 1940; but it was in 1942 that the special electrical appliances were built in for mass extermination of people. Under the pretext that the people were being led to the bath-house, the doomed were undressed and then driven to the building where the floor was electrified in a special way; there they were killed."

link

"(Treblinka B) Late in April 1942 erection was completed of the first chambers in which these general massacres were to be performed by means of steam….After being filled up to capacity, the chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in. In a few minutes all was over."

link

Electrified floors? Steam chambers?

An American Army commission into prisoner abuse found that, out of 139 German prisoners investigated, all but two had their testicles kicked beyond repair. I think that people generally used to frown on any sort of torture but this has changed in recent decades (Thanks to Hollywood). Even so, if the evidence that made it OK in your mind for them to be tortured comes out of torture this is a circular justification.

There was a Donahue show bringing together holocaust survivors in the 80s. One old guy jumped up and down swearing the Nazis had killed his brother. It turned out the brother was also living in New York. A neighbor of the brother saw the show and they were reunited. The Russians had informed "their" brother that the other brother was dead. Later he emigrated to the US thinking he had no family left. It suited the Russians at the time to inflate casualties. How many others went to their graves thinking their relatives were dead when they were actually living in the SU?

The media you see daily Nazi stories in (Cat that looks like hitler, house that looks like hitler, ad infinitum) is dominated by people with a grudge against Germans.

My points are that at least *some* of this evidence is made up and that you get an increasing barrage of anti-German stories because of bias in the media.

What some of you don't realise is that we are in anti-Russian mode now. Switch over from anti-German mode. We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia ;-)
- Emmanuel G.

Holocaust Denial now? There are words for people like you, none of them pleasant….

Hey, I only pointed out that the Russians had introduced some now discredited evidence. Shrunken heads? Soap from people? Some things were just made up for propaganda at the time. It was actually disrespectful for the allies, especially the Russians, to make things up. Not to mention slander on the Germans. Fairly sick people used tragedy for their own purposes.

Sorry: late night = bad math. 100,000 per week = approx. 5 million per year = 15 million over the period Jun 41 – Jun 44. Certainly the industrialized Nazi extermination program (including the SS einzatzgruppen) must bear full responsibility for it monstrous and indefensible deeds, but the degree to which the combat arms of the SS were involved is far less clear. More objective post-Soviet scholarship presents a much more nuanced picture of events. Go here for example for a summary of recent Russian studies –

link

It's a complicated subject that IMO you paint with an unjustifiably broad brush.

B

I have no respect for anyone in the SS whichever branch they ostensibly served in. There was no need to volunteer for it and by volunteering, whether from ideological commitment, for the admiration and sexual favours anticipated from girls or boys, or in compensation for failings in their lives, they embraced an odious racism. For their fighting? Mad dogs fight well, I don't admire them for it.

Chortle, my history teacher was a Captain in the British Army in WWII and one of the people who liberated Belsen in 1946. It may not have been a death camp but what it was was bad enough. And the death camps were worse. So don't talk tosh about something you only seem to value third rate, third hand neo Nazi propaganda about.

Disrespectful! Give me a break. I respect Flecktarn who has bravely explained his family background and his commendable rejection of that ideology. I want to show disrespect to people who invaded most of Europe and brought about the death of millions, oh yes and murdered millions of Jews as a statement of ideology. Disrespect? They should be so lucky.

Where do those (many) non-Germans who flocked to join SS units fit into this rather unpleasant picture? Surely not even the (very strained) arguments put forward to try and explain / excuse some German SS volunteers can be applied to these loathsome individuals?
As far as I can see, they certainly did not join to defend their homelands – indeed, many were from countries which had been conquered by Germany, and others were from neutral nations.

"I have no respect for anyone in the SS"

The original question was ambiguous and bound to cause talking at cross purposes. One reading was whether troops were capable in their combat operations. The other was a moral question. People addressed whichever question they felt like. Hence pages and pages of drift.

"There was no need to volunteer for it"

As I understand it, they were drafted at the end. Most of them must have, as you say, embraced the ideology of the day. Very few people think individually.

"It may not have been a death camp but what it was was bad enough."

I agree. Conditions were terrible at the end of the war. The allies had bombed the **** out of the road and rail network. Food and medicine were short. This is a really good reason for avoiding wars. Some "modern" leaders seem to be mad keen to drag us into conflicts.

"So don't talk tosh about something you only seem to value third rate, third hand neo Nazi propaganda about."

Hello! Yale University web site links to the trial transcripts.

You don't think it was disrespectful to pretend that heads were shrunken in camps where people really died? It made the whole story seem silly.

Flecktarn follows the ideology of modern Germany. His ancestors followed contemporary ideology. What do you think he is going to go out and do? Steal a Panzer and invade Paris? Pat on the back for him for avoiding that tempting fate. If German soldiers were alive today probably none of them would associate with neo-Nazis. If his ancestor was born in this era he would likely feel the same.

Princeps remarks have been removed; he is a previously banned member.

"Where do those (many) non-Germans who flocked to join SS units fit into this rather unpleasant picture? Surely not even the (very strained) arguments put forward to try and explain / excuse some German SS volunteers cannot be applied to these loathsome individuals? "

People join ISIS. People do crazy things – especially when they are young. I am not sure what the opportunity was for backing out. There were volunteers from all over. I guess that some were anti-Communist, some were adventurers, some psychopathic people. If you go back to WW1 you can find people who stated they were looking forward to killing someone. Perhaps others have written about this. I didn't see it in another period.

I think there were also units from allies, like Estonia (from memory). Whatever their record I guess they have to be judged on what they actually did.

The Spanish Blue Division was composed of volunteers in thanks for Germany's help against the Bolshevik backed uprising in Spain.

With the Handscar division I think there was built in ethnic tension and rivalry between them and people in the region. But I don't know. I guess some terrible things could have between them and their rivals.

Chortle. In this and past threads you throw out questionable garbage and then stand back and say hey I am not anti jew and I and not a bigoted idiot I am just quoting the internet. Well I am calling you out. I think or perhaps you think it funny pubblishing this rubbish.

On the eastern front in WW2 both the regular and SS had and carried out orders for the elimination of the Russian people and carried out systematic massacres of people. It wasn't in the heat of battle it was government policy and happy indulged in by all branches of the military. It was a shameful thing and a disgrace to history and bringing up excuses or quoting holocaust denial information and websites is crap. What are you going to do next? Quote David Irving?

Chortle:

Hello! Yale University web site links to the trial transcripts.

Hello! Context, Interpretation, nitpicking idiocy aimed at diverting people from the main thrust of the facts – Nazi ideology, carried out by Nazis, murdered millions. Millions also died as a direct result of murderous way that war was prosecuted, thanks to poisonous ideology and the acquiescence, willing or otherwise of the German armed forces.
The people who died of starvation and illness as a result of allied action to defeat Germany, died because of the Nazis and their attempt to subjugate Europe and the need to defeat them.
But Belsen was a holding centre for extermination camps. They existed, they murdered millions and denial of their existence is an attempt to give a fig leaf to the ideology that spawned them. It is usually derived from snivelling cowardice by people who want it to have succeeded better than it did but haven't got the guts to say so.
I don't think Holocaust deniers should be tried and imprisoned I am in favour of free speech but their pathetic cherrypicking of odd bits of inconsistency should be shown up for what they are. Their poor or fabricated 'research' should be challenged as was David Irving's and treated with the contempt it deserves.

As for the original question – I think I answered that in the 'mad dog' analogy – why would I admire another human being for being able to kill people for a cause I find odious – whatever that cause may be?

Hello! Yale University web site links to the trial transcripts.

Yale is a premiers institution in the United States. They host an important archive on the charges brought against Germans at the end of the war. We are talking about those charges here. I quote that archive and then link directly so that you can check what I copied is right (I may make a mistake) and see the context.

One of the board members provided a list of massacres for just one month in the east. It turns out that the Russians lied at the Nuremberg trials. They made up absolutely horrific things that were used in evidence at the trials. People were on trial for their lives but the Soviets were prepared to lie. So the other things the Soviets provided become a question mark for me.

On the other hand if they tell me water is wet I am going to believe it. I believe Hitler was bad and I believe that terrible things happened on the eastern front. You are mistaking my precise way of talking for broad certainty that everything said about the Germans is false.

How long do you think I would last under the Nazi regime? I hardly agree with anyone. They would shoot me in a flash. The Nazi regime was huge. They were built up of "me too" men; people who just accepted what was said. Are they the kind of people who can look at points and evaluate them for themselves? I do not think so. If a new and terrible totalitarian regime arises it will be staffed by "me too" men.

The people who died of starvation and illness as a result of allied action to defeat Germany, died because of the Nazis and their attempt to subjugate Europe and the need to defeat them.

I think we should have gone for a quick peace after Dunkirk. Unfortunately many people who wanted peace, like Admiral Barry Domville, were jailed for the duration. The demand for total surrender was a mistake in my view. It cost a lot of lives. We don't know if the Germans would have attacked the Soviets. As it was the Soviets were our problem after we made the east of Europe, which we started the war to liberate, safe for Communism. At the end of the war it was like we changed the channel and freedom for those people wasn't the tune of the day anymore.

I don't think Holocaust deniers should be tried and imprisoned I am in favour of free speech but their pathetic cherrypicking of odd bits of inconsistency should be shown up for what they are. Their poor or fabricated 'research' should be challenged as was David Irving's and treated with the contempt it deserves.

Go for it. I think you are 1 in 100 in not wanting people imprisoned for denying the holocaust. That is pretty sure to come in everywhere. Its a free country!

This reminds me a little of an article I read in a British broadsheet in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. It challenged those on the left of the British political scene to simply condemn the attacks, rather than always adding a 'but…' at the end of their sentence: eg. 'of course, I unreservedly condemn these unspeakable attacks, but we must remember that America blah, blah, blah'.

Similarly, is it really that hard for some just to accept / admit that the SS were a bunch of evil bastards, without the need for adding a 'but'?

You can say that is a sweeping statement if you like, but are any of those who joined the SS – no matter what their reason for joining was or whether they personally indulged in mass-murder / gang rape etc etc – really worth your time to try and speak up for / excuse / explain? And, if so, why?

I have no doubt that there was a minority who joined out of stupidity rather than downright wickedness or who (largely for reasons beyond their control) were not directly involved in ethnic cleansing / genocide / war crimes (or perhaps even quietly disapproved of them) but I have zero interest in wasting my time sticking up for these only-slightly-less-contemptible people.

They were evil bastards.

The word "evil" suggests magical causes to me. I think things happen for understandable reasons. If you are forced to say something is evil it seems to me that you are being forced to close a box on understanding.

The war is long over but the Nazis are in the news every day. It causes each successive generation to jump when they hear the word Nazi. There is an agenda there. People are being played. They feel an emotional need to distance themselves from those events and this prevents them thinking through any aspect of what happened. GreenLeader is a nice person. Nice people say "they were evil bastards".

"[is it] really worth your time to try and defend? And, if so, why?"

We don't have to defend them. We can take the freedom to evaluate what happened for ourselves. We can take an issue and say, let us think this through. The difficulty now is that people have a deep emotional need to say that the Nazis were evil and close the conversation at that point.

GreenLeader is a nice person. Nice people say "they were evil bastards".

No – I simply call a spade a spade.

I accept your view. Thank you for talking.

"The Soviets were worse"
"It was actually the fault of the allies that people died in the camps"
"Anti-German conspiracy"
"Jewish conspiracies"
"All the evidence can be discarded because reasons"

Looks like the holocaust-denial checklist. Let me fill in the rest for you, just to save you some typing

"The west bombed Dresden so they are just as bad!"
"Actually a war to protect the west from communism!"
"England started the war"

Same old.

"But Ivan, you're a giant red traitor bastard, aren't you a total hypocrite?"

You have to look long and hard to find someone supporting Stalin outside of Russia today and they aren't supporting him for causing the deaths of millions. (If anyone cares, I can totally do the "Stalin-denial bingo" too but it's also utter tosh)

Chortle wrote

some stuff about Yale

No problem with the transcript – every problem with cherry picking small bits from massive documentation to suggest the whole edifice is false. It isn't. The Nazis policy was extermination. Of both Jews and Slavs (and Gypsies and homosexuals and people regarded as physically or mentally unproductive and likely to weaken the genetic stock).

Surrendering after Dunkirk would have been an invitation to introduce the death camp system to the UK and would have allowed a secure base to invade and destroy Russia. Something Hitler talked about in Mein Kampf and elsewhere long before his temporary 'holding' protocol of the Ribbentrop Molotov pact.

Hannah Arendt made a meal of the 'Banality of Evil' but it needs a lot of people going 'well I wouldn't want to kill them myself but …' rather than just pen pushing, to make a machine that big work. Like I said cowards who line up behind psychopaths. Just as guilty if not more so than the psychopaths they followed. After all psychopaths lack a sense of right or wrong – the others just put theirs on the shelf for the moment.

Don't challenge everything – challenge what is wrong. And frankly trying to undermine confidence in the truth of the Holocaust is wrong. It isn't received wisdom – its provable fact. You may be able to say it wasn't 6 million it was 'only' 5,999,995 but so what. And maybe not everyone who claims to have been in Sobibor was, but there were tens of thousands who were and a few survived and told us what it was like.

So good for you having a questing mind, but attach it to a sense of reality and rigorous analysis not a bunch of wannabe SS clones trying to rewrite history for their own nefarious and odious purposes.

You may be able to say it wasn't 6 million it was 'only' 5,999,995 but so what.

Actually, I think current research puts the number of victims at 11 million or so. 6 million is an estimate of the number of Jews killed. The other 5 million were homosexuals, the handicapped, Roma, political undesirables and about 3 million Polish christians.

We don't know if the Germans would have attacked the Soviets.

Have you read Mein Kampf?

It was stated clear as day there, and you know what? Hitler followed the plan he laid out in the book!

Admiral Sir Barry Edward Domvile KBE CB CMG (1878–1971) was a Royal Navy officer. He expressed pro-German and anti-semitic sentiments in the years before theSecond World War, and was interned during the war as a Nazi sympathiser.

Nice guy you picked there chortle. Wanted peace? No was just a stinking no good lousy human. His country at war with an unspeakably evil regime and this idiot likes and admires the enemy. Stop cherry picking your history and whitewashing it.

We don't know if the Germans would have attacked the Soviets.

Have you read Mein Kampf?

We don't even need to go so far back as Mein Kampf.

Carl Burkhardt, a Swiss diplomat and commissioner of the League of Nations, made note of the following quote from a Hitler speech of August 11, 1939:
All the steps I am taking are aimed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and too blind to understand this, I will have to sign a pact with the Russians, destroy the West, and after it falls, gather all the forces and turn them against the Soviet Union.

Two weeks later he signed the Molotov / von Ribbentrop pact.

Notes from Jodl and von Runstedt's staffs during military planning meetings in May and July of 1940 give a reasonable recounting of Hitler's intention to attack the Soviet Union as soon as possible, in 1940 if possible, and Jodl and Keitel convincing him that it would be impractical to attack before May of 1941.

Then we have the Generalplan Ost, which was drafted in 1940, providing a description of how territories containing 45 million people of eastern Europe were to be depopulated to make room for 10 to 11 million "ethnic German" settlers, and how the slavic peoples were to be cleared from Europe, surviving only in a preindustrial state in western Siberia.

This depopulation effort was not something to be accomplished through diplomacy. It required war.

Yes, we know the Germans would have attacked the Soviets. It was their plan all along. The only reason they attacked in the west first was that they thought they could hold the Soviets off diplomatically while they finished off the western allies in a quick campaign, allowing them to avoid the two-front war that they eventually fought.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

During the 1990s, when the internet was young, the holocaust denier movement made a deliberate effort to co-opt the new medium of discussion groups to promote their own agenda.

Their tactics are pretty well documented and understood at this time.

Rhetorically they taught and used 3 principal techniques:
1) Injection of doubt. Take a small detail, show how it might not be exactly right, and extrapolate to the whole of the story of the holocaust.

2) The calculus of moral equivalency. Examine some morally dubious action by one of the allies. Extrapolate that everyone did it, no one was blame free, the Nazi's were no worse than anyone else.

3) Blame shifting. Point out the misdeeds or unsavory characteristics or behaviors of the victims. Make them less likable and even suggest they bear some of the blame for what happened to them.

These were, and are, the tools of the holocaust denial movement. Repeated applications of these three techniques will inject enough doubt that some people will become open to their racially-driven revisionist views. As Bacon said: "Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true". Make people question the overwhelming evidence of history, and they will more willingly accept something that makes them feel good. Like "my kind of people didn't really do that stuff." Oh yes, they did!

The deniers generally will use multiple user names to build the "conversation" by posting replies agreeing with their own bovine excrement, building their story by repeated applications of the simple recipe of 3 ingredients. They more or less ruined the early usenet history chat groups, as their enthusiasm for re-writing history will eventually monopolize the discussion.

Oh no, I am not a nazi sympathizer! I am only examining history with an open mind. See here is one case were some evidence of a massacre seems dubious -- you can't really believe all that stuff. And what about Katyn? Huh? Who is the bad guy here? They probably had it coming, I think things happen for understandable reasons.

"It may not have been a death camp but what it was was bad enough."

I agree. Conditions were terrible at the end of the war. The allies had bombed the **** out of the road and rail network. Food and medicine were short. This is a really good reason for avoiding wars. Some "modern" leaders seem to be mad keen to drag us into conflicts.

I know one when I see one.

'nuff said.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Mark +1

Thanks, Mark 1.

Great post.

Good points Mark 1 …

Mark,

Regarding my vignette regarding rational, reasonable thinking, and evil:

"I am leaning towards disagreeing with that.
"All jews are greedy." That's not evil. It's closed minded, it's un-enlightened, it's prejudiced, and I might put it into the gray zone between good and evil. But I would not put it clearly on the other side of the divide."

I agree with what you're saying, but that's not what I was getting at. A guy's not evil for thinking XXX people are XXX way, he's just an . My point was that this is how evil people think, and when combined with capability and will, evil things happen, which I expressed with very simplified scenarios using Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

Gwydion,

"Mad dogs fight well, I don't admire them for it."
No one said anything about admiring anyone…

"…why would I admire another human being for being able to kill people for a cause I find odious – whatever that cause may be?"
Sir, now you are just willfully ignoring the whole point of this thread.

"…not a bunch of wannabe SS clones trying to rewrite history for their own nefarious and odious purposes."
Whooooooah! What!? Who is this? What did I miss? Is this directed at me?

Greenleader,

"You can say that is a sweeping statement if you like, but are any of those who joined the SS – no matter what their reason for joining was or whether they personally indulged in mass-murder / gang rape etc etc – really worth your time to try and speak up for / excuse / explain? And, if so, why?"

Yes, it is a sweeping statement, which, from a moral standpoint, is wrong. Is it worth my time, and why? the why is easy: the concept that a man is judged based on his actions and not someone else's is what we call JUSTICE.

And to be honest, I'm not worried about SS men, Waffen or otherwise, whatever evil was done is in our past. What I'm worried about is the very contemporary ability of some folks here to adopt the same line of reasoning/ thinking which allowed the Nazis to perpetrate such evil on the world.

See, you may be thinking of this as a purely academic exercise, i.e., "I can go on the internet and proclaim how morally superior I am by denouncing large segments of humanity based on a common trait (in this case, a uniform)." I worry that actions have consequences, since history seems to bear that out, and if we've reached a point where this line of thinking (the one where you can label a group of humans evil simply for being part of the group) is acceptable, we're not far from someone coming along that has both the capability and the will to act on it.

"I have no doubt that there was a minority who joined out of stupidity rather than downright wickedness or who (largely for reasons beyond their control) were not directly involved in ethnic cleansing / genocide / war crimes (or perhaps even quietly disapproved of them) but I have zero interest in wasting my time sticking up for these only-slightly-less-contemptible people."

Earlier in this thread I threw out some scenarios as a cautionary tale to try to show how 'normal,' 'good' folks can end up in a real bad place they never could have seen coming. Blanket condemnation is a good step down that road.

As I stated before, this is all really pretty simple. You're evil if you do evil stuff, don't blame/lump in the family/tribe/country/organization/religion/race/ethnicity/sexual orientation.

V/R,
Jack

(nitpicking)…. every problem with cherry picking small bits from massive documentation to suggest the whole edifice is false.

People were put on trial for their lives and accused of mass murder by steaming and death by electric floor. Such facilities didn't exist. They were made up. I haven't looked the camps up, but Gwydion says at least one of them wasn't a death camp at all. I have a problem with people being put on trial for murder when they didn't murder anyone. Other people used to have a problem with this too. Real crimes should have been enough for the tribunal. If I can find these serious problems in 20 minutes I have to wonder how much of the rest is rubbish.

Surrendering after Dunkirk… introduce the death camp system to the UK

You watch too much Sci Fi. The Germans weren't magic. They couldn't have taken the UK. Royal Navy, RAF, and home forces would have stopped them.

Where do you get the idea of surrendering rather than a negotiated peace?

Have you read Mein Kampf?

No. Is it a page turner? I guess you are saying Hitler wrote that he was going to invade Russia. War means death, so I can't say I'd be in favor of his attacking the Soviet Union (or vice versa). But the Soviets had a brutal regime, having murdered tens of millions of their own people. Would it have been better for the Germans to spend their blood and treasure fighting such a regime? Two bad guys beat each other up? I am undecided.

Admiral Sir Barry Edward Domvile KBE CB CMG (1878–1971) was a Royal Navy officer. He expressed pro-German and anti-semitic sentiments in the years before theSecond World War, and was interned during the war as a Nazi sympathiser. (no citation for this)

Nice guy you picked there chortle. Wanted peace? No was just a stinking no good lousy human.

Admiral Barry Domvile was Director of the Department of Naval Intelligence from 1927 to 1930. He had a distinguished Naval career. Is is likely that such a man wanted his country to be controlled by another country? People can admire the United States without wanting to be controlled by that country. Is it likely that such a man was anti-semetic for random, unexplainable, reasons?

From that time onwards I had a strong suspicion that there was some mysterious power at work behind the scenes controlling the actions of the figures visibly taking part in the government of the country. I had not the least idea whence this power emanated, nor could I gauge its influence. I was in far too humble a position to make such lofty discoveries. Still, the feeling persisted. We always vaguely referred to this hidden control amongst ourselves as 'The Treasury.'
Admiral Sir Barry Edward Domvile in "From Admiral to Cabin boy"

I found "From Admiral to cabin boy" online here in a zip file: link

Anti-semitism is an invention to stop people thinking about genuine conflicts of interest. Do Jewish interests always align with the United States, for example?

There is a quote from the Black Dwarf political magazine circa 1817 which goes something along the lines – In setting out to win the late war with France, through repression at home, it was ourselves who were conquered.

Under regulation 18B habeas corpus was suspend and thousands of British men and women were jailed. No charges were ever filed against Barry Domvile.

"To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight.".

And to be honest, I'm not worried about SS men, Waffen or otherwise, whatever evil was done is in our past. What I'm worried about is the very contemporary ability of some folks here to adopt the same line of reasoning/ thinking which allowed the Nazis to perpetrate such evil on the world.

No kidding! Welcome to the new fascism.

Maybe we can just jump straight to the point.

Chortle – Do you believe that the holocaust was real and took place or manufactured and made up?

Would it have been better for the Germans to spend their blood and treasure fighting such a regime? Two bad guys beat each other up? I am undecided.

It perhaps would have been better if they didn't fight at all. Hitler and Stalin were not young, and eventually they would have died, leaving power vacuums that would be filled only after the top leadership engaged in mutual slaughter, sparing the average German and Russian. Instead of launching genocidal invasions that killed millions upon millions and shredded their economies and infrastructure.

50-100 million died in WW2. It was a disaster. Yes, better never to have had the conflict.

Chortle – Do you believe that the holocaust was real and took place or manufactured and made up?

I never questioned it until I found out that some things were made up. The "shrunken head" people did a disservice to humanity. It would take a life time for me to go through all the evidence. At this point I don't know. The particular claims are a question mark for me. Hopefully the claims are substantially correct. If it was possible to make a hoax on this scale we are screwed.

Holocaust denial is a crime in most of Europe, for good reason. If you put it in print or any other media you are liable for arrest and imprisonment. The countries who have the most severe penalties are the ones who shipped off their Jewish and gypsy populations to be murdered. I would invite anyone to join me in a visit to the Roma population and you can discuss with them how the estimated 60 thousand people in my country who were rounded up, entire villages at a time, are just making it up. If there's anything left, I'll take you to the Jewish quarter in Budapest where you can discuss it with the relatives of the estimated half million were murdered. Note I say murdered. Genocide based on religion, sexual preference or skin colour is not the same as civilian deaths caused by living in proximity to a military target.

I would hope people consider the views of businessmen before placing their orders in the future.

This has got to be a joke… albeit a joke in very bad taste.

Is Chortle a Frother by any chance?

I never questioned it until I found out that some things were made up. The "shrunken head" people did a disservice to humanity. It would take a life time for me to go through all the evidence. At this point I don't know. The particular claims are a question mark for me. Hopefully the claims are substantially correct. If it was possible to make a hoax on this scale we are screwed.

This is a reductive cycle of stupidity which leads to questioning the validity of everything based on the most irrelevant criteria (it's a conditional – 'If it WERE possible… that doesn't render your argument nugatory.)
What does render your 'argument' invalid is this inability to weigh the evidence of millions of participants, photography, written, aural and visual records and common sense that have stood up to expert analysis and legal process for 70 years against the self serving nitpicking of the deluded and/or the odious and discern the obvious truth. Utter folly.

To realise the evidence points only one way is not 'me too thinking' it is adhering to Enlightenment methodology of reason. Thank God some people still realise the truth.
Racism murdered millions of people and would do again given half the chance – don't give it that chance – make a choice.

Etranger, that's interesting. I just can't believe this thread is for real!

"Yes, it is a sweeping statement, which, from a moral standpoint, is wrong. Is it worth my time, and why? the why is easy: the concept that a man is judged based on his actions and not someone else's is what we call JUSTICE."

Not sure what part of my standpoint you fail to understand. I AM judging them by their actions: joining the SS is an action. This is more than enough for me to hold them in the deepest contempt – just like I do those who chose / choose to join the IRA, ISIS, AQ, the KKK or whatever. I am not adopting this view because they wear 'a uniform', but rather because they (for whatever reason) have joined a group I find abhorrent. I really have no interest in adopting some sort of 'right-on, touchy-feely / let's understand rather than condemn' attitude, and delving deeply into each individual case to see if he might possibly be some sort of one-in-a-million-exception to the rule.
For all your talk of 'justice', you might be interested to learn that being a member of (or even just to encourage support for) certain groups is a criminal offence (there are 58 such groups in the UK today) – so perhaps you have a different definition of the word.

That said, of course any SS member who suddenly saw the error of his ways, and who was proven to have bravely stood up against his comrades / prevented a mass murder / saved some prisoners / children etc, would obviously deserve to be judged more much favourably – indeed, I would probably even admire him in some ways. You are welcome to provide examples. But as for the rest of them? No – I have no interest in dreaming up ways to defend and excuse them.

Of course, you are more than welcome to act at a cheerleader for the poor, down-trodden, misunderstood members of these sorts of odious organisations if you wish.

Greenleader,

"Not sure what part of my standpoint you fail to understand."
I understand, I just can't believe you're okay with blanket condemnation.

"I really have no interest in adopting some sort of 'right-on, touchy-feely / let's understand rather than condemn' attitude, and delving deeply into each individual case to see if he might possibly be some sort of one-in-a-million-exception to the rule."
So, it sounds like you're just running your mouth on the internet then, i.e., a cause with no effect. You'll sit behind your computer screen and condemn folks as evil, with no expectation anything is done about it. Because if you were actually going to do something about it, you'd either have to change your ways to account for individuals' actions, or carry out a genocide.

"For all your talk of 'justice', you might be interested to learn that being a member of (or even just to encourage support for) certain groups is a criminal offence (there are 58 such groups in the UK today) – so perhaps you have a different definition of the word."
Is this true? You don't have to have done anything illegal, you can be jailed for saying "I support this group"? So thought crime has arrived, congratulations.

"I AM judging them by their actions: joining the SS is an action. This is more than enough for me to hold them in the deepest contempt – just like I do those who chose / choose to join the IRA, ISIS, AQ, the KKK or whatever. I am not adopting this view because they wear 'a uniform', but rather because they (for whatever reason) have joined a group I find abhorrent."
First, I have no idea what the KKK is doing amongst this group. The rest are soldiers, whether you like it or not, and to disagree only shows you know nothing about what it is to be a soldier, or why men fight.

Indeed, we may disagree, or even find odious, that which opposing soldiers are fighting for (and pretty much always do, which is why there is a war to begin with), but the opposing forces are men just like us, at the individual level fighting for the same things we are. But we seem to (once again) be conflating an issue: when opposing soldiers meet on the battlefield, you don't have to hate your opponent to kill him, you just do your job, protect your country.

All this talk of 'evil' has no battlefield application, it is purely a civilian construct used to manipulate masses to do unspeakable things (which is not to say evil doesn't exist, it's just not necessary to get soldiers to do their job). The US, British, French, Polish, and Soviet forces that faced the SS didn't care if they were evil or not, they killed them because they were the enemy; 'evil' was only useful for Hitler and his cronies to label the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc…, in order to mobilize or pacify people in order to 'take care of the problem.'

"…I have no interest in dreaming up ways to defend and excuse them… Of course, you are more than welcome to act at a cheerleader for the poor, down-trodden, misunderstood members of these sorts of odious organisations if you wish."
Hilarious! We're arguing on the internet; I must be cheerleading, whilst you're having a reasoned debate, right? I'm envious of your 'one size fits all' outlook, it makes the world so much easier, despite the collateral damage it causes.

Back to justice, I've got no problem with people being killed, I just prefer it's the right ones. You seem to have less restrictive rules of engagement.

Jack

'blanket condemnation' of the SS? Yes – I am perfectly OK with that.

I am hardly 'running my mouth off' on the internet – I am responding to your comments.

Yes it is true. I am glad you have been able to learn something from this debate. Again, however, you seem to fail to understand that 'encouraging support for' IS doing something. It is not a thought crime. It is an action.

The KKK is in that list as they too are (in most people's eyes) an unpleasant group who indulge / indulged in unspeakable acts. I assume you disagree on that as well?

I know a great deal about being a soldier, as I was one. So not sure what your point is.

Equally I have no idea what you are talking about re. killing people. I have no problem with any members of the SS being killed as long as the war was on-going – they were enemy combatants. Surely you cannot be arguing that some should not have been viewed as such?

I note your envy of me. Thanks – I get that a lot.

The SS were part of the Final Solution & instrumental in the Holocaust. No-one can credibly deny that. There's no "wiggle-room", no prevarications, no half-truths on that fact.

This puts them in that "special category". We can wargame all we like & enjoy ourselves with the hobby but we should remember the history behind it. This is unequivocally one of those things we should all remember.

This is a hobby site & I'm fine with letting a certain amount just wash by me. Not this.

The battlefield application of 'evil':
link

There are lots & lots of examples that the average WW2 Tommy & GI regarded the SS as evil.

First, I have no idea what the KKK is doing amongst this group.

The KKK was a fraternity of Confederate veterans, but instead of buttchugging and spanking, they spent their evenings lynching and intimidating Freedmen, Northerners and Republicans. They were soldiers at one point, and since the organization was started by Forrest, a man known for guerrilla/partisan warfare and the ability to command fierce personal loyalty, the first members were most likely former irregular warriors, cavalrymen, and so on.

To answer the questions of a few: Chortle is being allowed to express his opinions since he has not broken forum rules, and in recognition of the principle of free speech.

Those who disagree with him are welcome to express their views.

A questionable decision there Boss. Just sayin'.

This thread is too hot for my tastes. Back to the more sedate Moderns board for me!

Perhaps it's about time that you had a rule about Holocaust denial/doubting then?

And why can't you mention the fact that someone has been banned? It's a fact. It happened. What rule does that break?

I suppose recognition doesn't mean the same as application.

Greenleader,

"'blanket condemnation' of the SS? Yes – I am perfectly OK with that."
You and others have made this about the SS, when I have continuously spoken about any group(s) of people. Just wanted to point that out with all the flying around here.

"I am hardly 'running my mouth off' on the internet"
You're brandishing your tough guy credentials on the internet, to what end exactly? You can call ISIS evil, and either that means something or it doesn't, i.e., something needs to be done about it or it's just internet hotair.

I say that ISIS is evil and that the ideology must be discredited by completely destroying its capability and desire to make war, i.e., killing its soldiers on the field of battle. To me, that doesn't make its foot soldiers evil, only the ones that do something evil, and waging war might be terrible but is not evil, unless you believe the Allies shouldn't have fought back in WWII. To me, this means that I don't need to chase down everyone of them after the war is over to bring them to justice, which is what we do with actual evil folks (i.e., war criminals).

You seem to mean that ISIS is evil, and that everyone affiliated or supportive of it should be killed (or at least imprisoned), battlefield or otherwise. I suppose the 10-year old sister of an ISIS soldier who wrote him a letter is a 'supporter of ISIS,' thus making her evil and eligible for a bullet or chains?

I am not accusing you of saying this, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. The above sentence reflects my understanding of what you're saying, and I'm respectfully asking you to take a look and let me know if I'm on track, or where it diverges, as it's possible I'm not understanding you correctly.

"The KKK is in that list as they too are (in most people's eyes) an unpleasant group who indulge / indulged in unspeakable acts. I assume you disagree on that as well?"
You once again assume incorrectly, likely on the basis that you didn't read what I wrote or are purposefully manipulating it in order to assassinate my character.

You act as if I don't believe evil exists; I promise you it does, I've seen it with my own eyes (I've previously discussed on TMP a bit about my time in Iraq and Afghanistan, but nothing in that regard compares to my time in Liberia). My opinion of the KKK is that they were truly evil by virtue of what they stood for and, more importantly, what they did. The first is not actionable so long as long as one does nothing with it (which may be unfortunate from a decent human's standpoint, but I'm not willing to vilify thought, no matter how disgusting).

However, the second certainly is, and whilst I am aware of my country's spotty history regarding institutional racism (meaning it's likely not all perpetrators paid for their sins), I imagine they're rotting in hell by now (and new ones will get their turn, as well as having a much better chance of justice here on earth in the interim).

My quibble with KKK being on the list is that, in my opinion, this was not/is not a group of soldiers. Upon founding they may have been comprised of former soldiers, but they are no soldiers.

Unlike the vast majority of people responding to me, I can see the opposite side of the argument, even that I could be wrong. I have done nothing but agree that the SS, as an institution, is/was evil; my difference in outlook seems to be with the fact I don't automatically condemn everyone associated, and I errantly tried to show how a 'good, normal' person could have ended up there, having no desire to commit, nor actually committing any atrocities himself; I should have been smarter and realized that the internet tough guys would come out to declare me a 'cheer-leader.'

So, I could be wrong: every single man that served in the SS during WWII could indeed have committed atrocities and be dubbed evil. What have we lost by doing things my way (judge each man on his own actions, understanding that this has nothing to do with his battlefield treatment of 'an enemy is an enemy,' it has only to do with post-war treatment of 'should he be imprisoned/put to death?')? Nothing.

But going your way (condemn everyone who wore the uniform for their action of joining the SS), might there be just the teensiest, tiniest possibility one of them might not have committed an illegal act? If so, we're imprisoning/ putting to death someone improperly (in the United States, illegally). Judging a man by HIS actions is justice.

"I know a great deal about being a soldier, as I was one. So not sure what your point is."
My point is that you apparently missed the concept of being a force for good. And I notice you left out answering the part about why men fight.

"Equally I have no idea what you are talking about re. killing people."
I'm sure you don't.

"I have no problem with any members of the SS being killed as long as the war was on-going – they were enemy combatants. Surely you cannot be arguing that some should not have been viewed as such?"
Well goodness sake, do you mean we've been in agreement on this the whole time!? Well shucks, 'cause it's seems that this has been my consistent position, while you (and others) have been accusing me of apologizing/defending/ cheer-leading for the SS…

"Surely you cannot be arguing that some should not have been viewed as such?"
You're correct, I surely am not. Never did. My issue has been with the treatment of 'evil' and its practical application off the battlefield, as it does not apply to what happens on the battlefield because soldiers kill each other regardless of whether one is evil or not. I thought at least that much would be understood by wargamers (and former soldiers!); it's kind of what war is about.

"I note your envy of me. Thanks – I get that a lot."
No sweat, I do what I can. We used to joke about the "Kill'em All, Let God Sort'em Out." But we understood it was just a joke, and we actually had folks sacrifice their lives in attempts (sometimes in vain) to safeguard non-combatants, even in the worst of fighting.

Ochoin,

"The SS were part of the Final Solution & instrumental in the Holocaust. No-one can credibly deny that. There's no "wiggle-room", no prevarications, no half-truths on that fact."
See above, all of it.

"This puts them in that "special category"."
Which special category? The one stating they weren't soldiers, but evil beings that deserved to be hunted down to the man after the war was over, simply for wearing the uniform, as opposed to being tried for their own actions?

"The battlefield application of 'evil':"
I've got nothing but respect for General Eisenhower, but how many men did Ike kill in close combat? Their goes your 'battlefield application' argument. If we speak in generalities, many US WWII vets describe joining the military because they wanted to be a part of something bigger than themselves, fighting the oppressors (and, once again, there is no denying the Nazi regime was evil), and safeguarding their homes/families/ideologies/way of life. But, invariably, when they speak about killing, the reasons are much different: it was him or me/I had a job to do/I did it to save my buddies. I'm not saying evil cannot play into it, but certainly it's not commonplace nor necessary.

As an aside, regarding my own statement of "many US WWII vets describe joining the military because they wanted to be a part of something bigger than themselves, fighting the oppressors, and safeguarding their homes/families/
ideologies/way of life," I can't believe so many of you can't see that as a universal reason why people join the military, and how so many of you think it's impossible that a young German might end up in the Waffen SS as a result of this thinking, as opposed to him wanting to help out with The Final Solution (again, for the simple folks out there, let me qualify: if he ended up doing something evil, he's still evil, regardless of how he got there).

"There are lots & lots of examples that the average WW2 Tommy & GI regarded the SS as evil."
There are plenty of average Tommies and GIs that thought it was overblown as well. By pure luck, on the flight home last night I was reading about one 'Serjeant' Jariepy (sp), Canadian Army, who fought in Caen who stated exactly that, and that he believed it was used by officers to motivate the men, but that it didn't really matter as 'the boys were going to do their jobs regardless.' Please note that Sgt Jariepy was not denying the holocaust, just reflecting his belief that the men he faced (12th SS and later 1st SS) were simply soldiers like he and his men.

Qualifier: this is not to deny the fact Germans in general and SS in specific committed horrific atrocities during WWII, only that seeing the enemy as evil was not necessary for soldiers to do their jobs on the battlefield (man, that's getting tiresome writing that everytime I type something, no wonder I didn't do it before; must be tiresome reading it too, so I'm sure it will do me no good).

"This is a hobby site & I'm fine with letting a certain amount just wash by me. Not this."
This is exactly what's wrong with us. You'll not stand for this, eh? Not stand for what? For an anonymous guy on the internet saying we should judge men for what they do, not for their associations?

Are you wagging your finger at your computer screen, because it doesn't hurt. We get all up in arms, in a huff, and can't seem to read what people actually wrote, we want to jump into the (internet) fray and show how brave and noble we are. And if we're to show how brave and noble we are, we just might have to misrepresent what someone said so that we have a 'bad guy' to jump on. No reasoned debate for us…

Jack

Gentlemen.

It is obvious what is going on. No one needs say it.

When you are dealing with a semantical "tar baby" the only recourse you have is non-engagement by the use of non-acknowledgement. That is ignore them, not by using the "ignore button" but continue the conversation -- go on talking on the subject but not with them. You completely ignore the comments of the tar baby as if they weren't even there. or decline to answer questions even when directed specifically at you.

By answering you only strike the tar baby and get tar on yourself by giving credit to the spurious points of the tar baby as if they even deserved and answer. If you engage them, eventually you will have tar all over yourself and be indistinguishable from the tar baby.

I really have not the time nor the inclination to go through all the twists and turns of your latest reply, as we really are getting no where.
But perhaps you can just explain where I have 'brandished my tough guy credentials'?

GL,

You know, I was about to chide you about dodging me, but then I realized, you're absolutely right.

We're not getting anywhere, thanks for your time. I believe your question is answered if you read all of my previous post.

Owing to the fact there is no ability to reach a decisive conclusion/decision/finish on the internet, I have always held the opinion it was a great idea that we not get into stuff like this, and simply talked about wargaming. I wish I'd followed my own advice; I didn't need the hassle, the suck on my time, and I was so much happier when I didn't know the politics/morals of my fellow TMPers. I'm sure there are a lot of folks that feel the same about me.

In an attempt to get us back on track about wargaming, I extend an olive branch to all and say come visit my blog. I haven't posted in few months due to a new baby, but I'll try to fix that either this weekend or next, provided I get some painting finished.

On the blog you will find almost 70 solo battle reports featuring Germans (vs. US legs and paras, and Brit infantry), VC/NVA (vs. USA infantry), and Islamic Extremists (vs. French Foreign Legion) pretty consistently getting their asses whooped. Almost everything is in 10mm (my various forces, many of whom have never seen the tabletop, are also catalogued there), with a mixture of rules, mostly my own (borrowing heavily from others), though there is some Chain of Command, Blitzkrieg Commander, Some Corner of a Foreign Field, and Five Men in Normandy.

My plan is to get into some USMC vs a whole bunch of different bad guys in a MEU campaign using No End in Sight in 10mm (99% finished painting/basing), and some NATO vs. Warsaw Pact using LNL's World at War rules in 6mm (85% finished; I've got Eisenbach Gap, Death of 1st Panzer, and the Compendium).

blackhawkhet.blogspot.com

V/R,
Jack