Why is SS so much better?

Why is SS so much better? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

frank1970 -> Why is SS so much better? (12/20/2000 6:39:00 PM)
In the OoB I found that the SS riflemen are much better than the regular rifles. I think this is historical not true: The early SS regiments consisted of volunteers and were under command of civilians who had a high party position. The experience of this units was zero, the experience of the leaders was zero and the combat performance was very bad. Yes, they caused heavy losses to the enemy but they took even bigger ones. The losses were about three times as high as in regular Wehrmacht units. Later in the war the SS formations were filled with conscripts, the training was shortened. What were the advantages of the SS formations? a) They got better equipment. b) The formations were larger. c) The early SS men were fanatics. d) The later SS men were in a kind of Guard unit and getting so a "moral bonus". At all you have to say that the main difference between the German and the Allied forces was the way they were trained and the way they fought: In the Wehrmacht all degrees of men were trained to do the jobs of their commanders (corporals that of sergeants and so on). The Wehrmacht didn´t tell their soldiers how they should do their job. The Bn commander said to his A-Kompanie chief take hill 322 and the company chief let his boys do it the way they wanted to do it. In the Allied forces the Bn commander had to tell all his formations what exactly they had to do. This leads to a major problem in SPWAW: the C&C rules. This rules are optimal to show how the Allied fought but they do not show how the Germans fought. So I play Germans with C&C rules off, all others with C&C rules on.

Belaja smert -> (12/20/2000 7:32:00 PM)
The question about the elite status of the SS has been discussed before. Main reason they are considered elite is that german army needs to have elite troops and the OOBs are already full so separate elite troops are not an option. Belaja smert

Fredde -> (12/20/2000 7:45:00 PM)
What I miss with the C&C rules (which I find very good anyway, and always use) is that a sergeant commanding a unit not in contact with the platoon commander should be able to get orders to spend "on its own" to simulate own initiative. Early war Germans (and other well-trained troops, commandos etc) should receive this more often. Of course, same for a platoon not in contact with the company commander and so on. It is not completely realistic that the platoon always tries to perform its former orders no matter how the situation changes around them. Of course, this is a bigger change.. which i don't expect to be implemented [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

Mark_Ezra -> (12/20/2000 9:24:00 PM)
US doctrine requires a high degree participation by junior grade officers and NCO's alike. When Higher command says "Take that hill". the units involved design and execute the attack. You may be thinking about the Soviet doctrine which require a rigid command and control structure as you described

AmmoSgt -> (12/20/2000 11:01:00 PM)
Having served in S3 positions at both Div and Corp level(Corp Arty only ) the way i saw it done was the highest HQ involved sends the mission down the chain and the execution plan comes up the chain the companies inform the Bn what they are going to do and what they need the Bn distributes Bn assets to the companies and send it's plan up to Bde Bde allocates and send plans to Div ect CO at any level can kick stuff back down for a better plan or override and issue direct orders but that was seldon done ...this was all in training and the teacher was experience for all the echolons Higher HQ would only intervien to prevent repeat mistakes ... Intergrated Corp Artillery Fires are an awesome thing to see on paper never ever saw more than an intregrated Bde fire with attached Div and Corp assets actually shoot .. well Corp additions wasn't that much cuz that was mostly missles so i guess in fact more of a Partial Div shoot with a few extra MLRS from some Arty Bde's attached to Corp . Not sure how it was in WW2 but we always were way over TO&E Strength with usually 1 addition arty Bde at Div and another "extra" and Corp .... In the 80's i saw "Brigades" with 7 battalions 2 of them Arty .. by the way being anywhere near MLRS (on the firing end) when it is shooting has to be a suppresion level of 49 minimun.. this may not apply to WW2 command control concepts ..I ain't that old

Tombstone -> (12/21/2000 7:11:00 AM)
The fact of the matter is that it is unrealistic to believe that any sargeant would have the battlefield awareness that a player would try and give him. The C&C rules as they are now are rudimentary at best, but its better than nothing. Giving more control over smaller units defeats that purpose. C&C is not there to simulate any particular nation's doctrine. It's there to give the player a system that reinforces good planning, and has some consequences when a formation gets disrupted. Tomo

Drake -> (12/21/2000 7:50:00 AM)
Like I do think the Weffen SS were better then the raguler troops and not becouse they were that much more skilled then the reguler units but becouse they got first choice of everything, supplys, new equipment and even men. For that reason alone I would give them that added bonus.

MindSpy -> (12/21/2000 7:57:00 AM)
quote: In the OoB I found that the SS riflemen are much better than the regular rifles. I think this is historical not true: The early SS regiments consisted of volunteers and were under command of civilians who had a high party position. The experience of this units [/B] MindSpy: Was therefore of even greater importance than regular army units. The NAZI's are not an elected government. Using Democratic standards to apply to a Totalitarian government's preferred troops is not going to produce the best frame of reference. Don't forget that the Army has it's Boys school. It's own set of predjudices. Asking to be sent without conflicts to an armed unit that is part of the Governments assorted weapons and strategic devices is NOT going to gain you much favouratism. On the other hand you could apply to a venerable Army unit and be lauded for it. So the Army and the civil service fight the growing powers of an SS unit ... uderstandable! They can pretty much delay the arrival of SS units to the category of Elite Armed Forces. However that is the point of having Party field officers. The units have a sworn statement of loyalty to the LEADER. They are represented at the expense of the army within the government. True, when Barbarossa starts the SS are rigidly held in place by the Army's chain of command but still manage to acquire significant postings! Overall this means that the only measure of significance of the SS is their loyalty (above and beyond army regular units) and the roles assigned them (crack units to restore and attack and be refitted whenever possible). Evaluating loses is difficult. Did they have the same quality of weapons and numbers as other Army units? Fielding a unit made up of volunteers is very difficult at all times. Were loses to the weaker elements part of the overall totals - meaning were they as strong as regular army units or was there a cadre that excelled and produced results. Definitively was the SS performance also largely influenced by the Army's frowning down on Political field forces. After these early performances, further opportunites for better training arose, as well, over time, as the roles assigned to the SS units grew, the resolve grew to allow them access to the pool of troops and weapons produced ... in essence they became larger to facilitate the roles they were required to fulfill. By definition most of the elite units promoted commanders with battle field experience only. And junior officers with better experience or ability are allowed to lead and with less resistance over senior officers and NCO's. Throw in party loyalty and you have a unit that will not only exceed regular line units they will perform beyond expected Army predictions. These units on both the Russian and German side can pretty much carry their forces even when significantly outnumbered. But it takes them time to achieve these roles and it is even tougher to keep them, while losing, while being undersupplied, while losing most of the unit time and time again ... .

PerryC -> (12/21/2000 8:16:00 AM)
Actually Hitler was elected. True they did use questionable tactics to get to that point but he was still elected. After he was in power he really started to get serious with the opposition. Perry pro patria

Charles22 -> (12/21/2000 8:56:00 AM)
Adolf Hitler WAS NOT elected, stop believing the myth. He was appointed chancellor by one man, that being Hindenburg, some time after Hitler lost an election to Hindenburg (this would be something of the equivalent of Bush appointing Gore to a cabinet position, and then Bush dying off, to be replaced by Gore, not exactly what we would call "elected"). If Hitler was elected, then so was Gerald Ford, and noone refers to Ford as having been "elected". BTW, this "Hitler was elected" myth, is often cited as a reason why every vote counts, because they say Hitler was elected by "one vote". It's really pathetic, because not only did Hitler not win an election by "one vote" but he was appointed instead. I don't know technically if Hitler was considered second in line in Germany or not, as long as Hindenburg was alive, but when Hindenburg died (actually when Hindenburg was on his sickbed), Hitler took the presidency for his own. Later, after he had assumed the power, his assuming power was put up to an approval vote (whether he should stay in power) and it was approved. I don't believe that this was what we would call a proper election, for it seems that the only thing to vote for was whether the people approved of his being the president, and not that he was actually running against someone, and certainly he did not win the approval vote by a single vote. I have a video at home called, "Waffen-SS Hitler's Elite Fighting Force" and here's a quote from a summary on the back of the box: quote: The SS has it's beginnings in the turbulent street politics of the Weimar Republic. It became Heinrich Himmler's personal power-base and under him the SS grew into a vast private army and state-within-the-state. It was a chaotic, corrupt and often grossly inefficient organisation. But one part of it - the "Waffen" or "Armed" SS, formed initially as a fighting force - achieved worldwide fame and notoriety. The Waffen-SS won a unique reputation for daring elan and unfailing professionalism in combat. Yet if their courage was unquestioned, so too was the fear and loathing which they elicted - even, eventually, amongst their own people, and in the regular soldiers alongside whom they fought. In many of the most signal triumphs of German arms they played a conspicuous role, one far disproportionate to their numbers. In the long period of decline and retreat, as the Germans were steadily pushed back from east and west, despite repeatedly sustaining horrendous casualties, their discipline remained unbroken, their fighting ardour unimpaired, almost to the very end. After the war, the Waffen-SS were burdened with the near exclusive blame for the most hideous crimes of the Nazi regime. It was only unfair insofar as many others were involved as well: and for all their unmatched undoubted bravery, the Waffen-SS bears a reputation which will remain forever stained with infamy

Viriato -> (12/21/2000 9:35:00 AM)
Hello all , as far as I know , the waffe ss had the first choice of everything ( agree with you Drake ) and also had one very good point to their favor , from the mid to the end of the war they were used like firemen on both fronts , they were allways sent to the hotspots along the line to hold it and to hold the line so they had A LOT of exp from constant fighting . Put together very exp soldiers with the latest equipment and you have elite units . About the SS folklore , remember people that history is writen by the winners , yes the ss had very bay units on their ranks , murderers , sadics , in units that went from town to town killing people and were responsible for the concentration camps all that is true , but that was not all the Waffen ss were . Go to some Waffen SS sites , pick those dedicated to the war ( forget those about the ideals ) and you'll find some good material . About the history writing part .... who were the units in the concentration ( oops , sorry , detention ) camps for japonese people in the US during WWII ? and what was the soviet unit responsible for the massacre of 10000 polish officers and senior NCOs in the woods ? and by the way the units guarding the siberian ( POW ,enemys of the state, and jews ) concentration camps were ...??? . history is writen by the winners .......... ------------------ A sorte protege os audazes

krull -> (12/21/2000 10:33:00 AM)
True there was ba dall over and history is always rewritten even bye the losers many ideas have been shall we say mythed bye the germans themselves. As for Japanese in camps it was bad. my uncle was half cherokee half japanese he was in one till the Nippon where sent to italy. But at least they just had bad food little doctors and no medicine. id drather starve than be gassed tortured and shot . He even has pictures of some of the camps from firends and relatives. But many where near indian reservations is why who contrary to popular ideas used to share there food with them. many will argue over this but its written in the tribal coucil books for those who would like to read them. One mans hero is another man's terrorist.

Charles22 -> (12/21/2000 10:43:00 AM)
Viriato: Right, and who has written the history of the Waffen-SS in regards to their combat ability? The winners, not the SS. In other words, their enemies were throwing compliments to their fighting elan, but just as justly threw condemnation upon any wrongdoing they may had done. Unfortunately, what I see going around in society today, is a number of people who for some reason or another want to oversimplify things to the point of stupidity. I see it all the time. I think this not regarding the SS as elite fighting groups fall into that category. Somehow people feel it's accepting and admiring someone by admitting that they did do a few things right in their life, when that person, or the SS in this case, are known to have been looney in other ways. This sort of thing is exemplified in America, and becoming more popular by a number of people in the minority communities, who are dead-set on accusing people of racism just because you were to even infer that one of the members of their race is in the slightest way imperfect. I think it's rather interesting, because for a given race with certain individuals that may feel they are disadvantaged or what not, the peculiar behavior which I described seems more to typify how some in the Master Race behaved. Interesting too because I recall many who believed they were the Master Race, were first led to believe that the world (or another race/races) were out to get them. So, there you have it. Some are so dim, that they conquer racism by just being bigger racists than the people who allegedly were racists to them (not exactly problem solvers - the word 'hypocrite' comes to mind).

victorhauser -> (12/21/2000 10:47:00 AM)
Several months ago this forum had a topic similar to this one. The solution I adopted back then is still the best solution I know of. You can go into the German OOB and edit the "SS" portion out of the unit identifiers. I used "EL" in place of "SS" where EL meant Elite. Now I don't concern myself about whether an elite unit was SS or not.

Alexandra -> (12/21/2000 11:44:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charles22: [B]Adolf Hitler WAS NOT elected, stop believing the myth. He was appointed chancellor by one man, that being Hindenburg, some time after Hitler lost an election to Hindenburg (this would be something of the equivalent of Bush appointing Gore to a cabinet position, and then Bush dying off, to be replaced by Gore, not exactly what we would call "elected"). Well, this is both right and wrong. By the American style of elections, no, he was not elected. However, most - perhaps all - European countries don't use our style of elections. What they do - and be warned this is majorly gross oversimplification - is that they hold national elections by party. The percentage of votes that each party gets determines how many representatives, from that party, go to the House of Representatives eqivalent. If a party has a clear mahority, it is called upon to form a Government. If none do, then a coaltion government has to be formed. Note, that in this style of Government, there are no terms, or term limits, as elections can be held at nearly anytime. What happened in '33, was there was an election, and NSDAP won a clear majority, and, per German law, President Hindenburg offered the Chacellor's Office to NSDAP's head, Hitler. Now, we all know that he misused the office, but, yes, he was elected, just not in the same way we American's do it.

Scipio Africanus -> (12/21/2000 12:42:00 PM)
I just want to point out something about the English verb "to elect." That is: it carries the same semantic value as Latin "legere" from which it is drawn (the past participle form)- it simply means "to choose." That being said, we must say that Hitler was elected for his office- of course, we must say the same thing about Caracalla and Julius Caesar (they elected themselves), all monarchs (for they are elected by their birth), Maximinus Thrax (his legion elected him). So too was Alexander the Great elected (by his mother, by an oracle he paid, by the occasion of the murder of his father), and on and on, etc. The argument on election is moot- all leaders are necessarily elected, yet this reveals neither the manner of election nor the nature of government. Therefore Hitler (like all other world leaders, even before a concept of nation existed) was elected, which fact evidences nothing. Cheers, ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

Hortlund -> (12/21/2000 3:05:00 PM)
OK, this is a discussion I have been hesitating to jump into, because there are alot of emotions still attatched to those two letters. However, I cannot stay out of it any longer. Perhaps I should point out that I'm from Sweden, but my dad is German, so I do have some personal ties to this question. Germany was a democracy in 1933, 1934, 1935 etc. The problem with Nazi Germany that you had the situation where a democracy dissolved itself. This is one of the basic flaws in a democracy, because what happens if the people votes to change the law and suddeny some of the things that are essential in a democracy is gone? Is it still a democracy? After all it was the peoples will to change these laws. Very simplified, what happened was that Hitler was appointed Reichskansler, by the Reichstag, in complete accorance to German law. Then the Reichstag adopted a law that gave the Reichskansler virtually unlimited powers to rule Germany, alone, without the "help" of the Reichstag in times of national chrisis. A state of national emergency was declared (I think it was after the burning of the Reichstag). And after that Hitler ruled Germany alone. Everything that happened in 1933-1945 was within the bounds of law. With that I mean that the law was not broken by all these manuvering to bypass the parlament, and indeed to dissolve the democracy. This could happen (at least in theory)in every democracy if a party, or a parlament should choose to adopt a law that would dissolve the democracy. The Waffen SS I thought their fighting abilities were beyond dispute. But that they have a "reputation forever shrouded in infamy" because of their close ties to the Nazi government. First, I'm not sure everyone understands the difference between the various "entities" of the SS. The organisation "SS" had 3 major bodys. The Allgemeine, or General SS. The Waffen, or armed SS, and the Totenkopfverbande, or the deaths head units. The allgemeine SS had various organisations under its command. Among these were the RSHA, a parent organisation for the SD (sicherheitsdienst, or security service), Gestapo (Geheimesstatspolizei, or the secret police) and the Kripo (the "regular" police). Under the SD you had the Einzatsgruppen that operated in the east, murdering pretty much anybody who came in their path. But you also had the Bundesmädel (Young womens organisation). The female switchboard operators in the Reichstag was also organised under the allgemeine SS. You had hotells, health retreats, and even the department of health were a part of the allgemeine SS. The Totenkopfverbande were responsible for the running of the concentration camps. Enough said about them. And then, the third entity of the SS, was the Waffen SS. These 3 organisations had pretty much nothing to do with each other, with some important exceptions. First, there were no troop rotations between Waffen SS units and the Totenkopfverbande, with one exception. There were regular troop rotations between the Waffen SS division Totenkopf, and the Totenkopfverbande. This because that division originally was created from members of the Totenkopfverbande. Second, a member of the Waffen SS could be transferred to the SD or the Totenkopfverbande as a diciplinary action if that soldier had severely neglected his duties as a soldier (falling asleep on his post etc.) This would give a good indication on how the Waffen SS regarded the Totenkopfverbande, it was a punishment. At the Nurnberg trials the SS was declared a criminal organisation, and membership of the SS was considered a war crime. In my opinion this was a bit too hard. After all it meant that the female phone operators in the reichskanslei shared the same guilt in the war crimes as the members of the Einzatsgruppen that operated in the east. There are a thousand things more that can be said about the Waffen SS, but this will have to do for now, otherwise this post will be way too long. Steve ------------------ Panzerjaeger Hortlund -=Fear is only a state of mind=-

Charles22 -> (12/21/2000 10:10:00 PM)
victorhauser: That's an interesting approach. At first, I didn't mind buying SS infantry, but now it's different, and your idea is an alternative. I may object to buying SS units, but it's not because they aren't elite, as sort of a protest, although, as the game seems to be laid out, I cannot buy Panther platoons without it being SS, I will forego my reluctance, if in fact the SS will continue to be the only formations with them (there are alternatives to SS infantry). Alexandra: Good points, but still, we weren't talking about electing parties, and even Hitler's party didn't win by one vote. As far as I can see, people over here seem to believe that Hitler ran for president and won by one vote - what a farce. I don't know though, I'm not sure just why Hindenburg 'appointed' Hitler in toto, but I do recall having the impression, through the documentaries I've seen, that Hitler actually ran for 'president' and lost to Hindenburg (in a very American sort of election in that sense, which is the only place that their "Hitler won an election by one vote" argument would make 1/2 sense [though he lost it], while the fact that he was "appointed", not elected, in the American sense. When Hindenburg appointed him, it really wasn't even a vote, nor was it in any form an 'election'. You have to remember that it is Americans who are saying that he won by one vote, thereby, you have to apply an American understanding, and for the life of me the "he won the election by one vote" is erroneous no matter how you look at it) in a very distant second place. It does seem however that the Nazis had the strongest party in the Reichstag, but didn't have a majority. They others seemed to think they could make their government civilised by taking the maniac to be appointed chancellor, but it only gave Hitler momentum when it came to Hindenburg getting deathly ill. Scipio Africanus: Perhaps you do not understand common American. In order for your comments to be valid you must have this data. I'm not saying, that knowing what "to elect" means isn't important, it's just that when Americans say that, that's not what they mean. Did you know that we VERY DISTINCTLY differentiate between "elected" and "appointed"? It may seem unimportant, but an "appointed" person, is NOT one who's been elected "by the people". Somehow, people aren't comforted by 'one person' picking someone out and then calling that a fair election, especially if you're not privy to the viewpoint of the appointer. So. understand context here. We, in America, are commonly told, that our vote counts, and the reason we're told that, is in the context of millions of votes, people get the feeling their vote doesn't matter. So, you see the context. The context is that you are 'one vote' among millions. So, when they tell you that Hitler won by one vote, what they aren't telling you is that Hitler's getting elected (actually appointed) wasn't put into the same circumstances of millions of other voters. If every vote I cast, was of the appointment nature, only a dumbbell would think their vote doesn't count. It's only when your vote is being made with millions of others that one may get that feeling. So you see how deceptive it is to tell us how Hitler won by one vote? I hope I make sense. Panzerjaeger Hortland: I agree, only we hadn't gone that far into Hitler's election/appointment aftermath. When people in America say Hitler won by 'one vote' they are talking about Hindenburg's appointment, right or wrong, because I can't see where anywhere else it would match the 'one vote' criteria (BTW, try to ask someone here what they mean by Hitler winning by one vote, and prepare to see them get hysterical, because: A) they don't know why and don't know the history of Germany or are getting caught in something of a lie, or B) Since their fabrication involves a 'sacred cow' believed very widely around here and how voting is such a 'sacred cow' for them, they're liable to explode). This 'one vote' appointment is so focused on, because of what some people might regard as the inevitability of Hitler succeeding, later, as you described, because Hitler had lost the election for president very decisively. In other words, his goose was cooked, but not the party's, after he lost that election. Of course the same people would've probably said Richard Nixon would've never recovered from losing to Kennedy either. Hitler was such a mainiac, and their armies so successful for so long, that people in America, and indeed Europe, have commonly always looked at the points where the madness could've stopped very easily (such as going to war with Germany when they crossed the Rhine, early on) and certainly one of those key points was Hindenburg giving him life, by appointment, when it looked like his goose was cooked.

Viriato -> (12/24/2000 3:26:00 AM)
hello all , Panzerjaeger Hortlund , you said it all , its not about ideals , its about the people . there are diferent people below the same uniform . ------------------ A sorte protege os audazes

Rhone -> (12/24/2000 4:23:00 AM)
First of all, nobody was any harder on the Nazi's than the Nazi's were on some of there "subjects". You want to talk about stereo-typing??? I'd rather not and say we did! And as for the winners writing history, you are correct, but not in a 1,000 years has such an questionably motivated nation been so praised for their elitism in the military field of battle. So we need to stop crying about that. I don't know a whole lot about the SS, I do know about the "Death's Head" stuff and that should be enough for people to ask no further. My German grandfather was a pilot in the Luftwaffe and he was not a Nazi or an SS. He was simply a German, and he didn't need to be apart of any organization to be the best he could be. Most of the folks that joined the Nazi's were cowards that feared Hitler, today they would be called ass-kissers! Of course, my American grandfather was a navigator on a B-17 and did much futher damage in the end.

Flashfyre -> (12/25/2000 10:34:00 AM)
I think what most everyone has lost sight of is that, in any organization, be it military or civilian, there are good people, average people, and bad people. Good people strive to uphold the rules of the organization, average ones just do what is asked of them, and bad people attempt to use the rules for their own ends. The SS, like all organizations, had all of the above. The same is true of the US Army and Marines in Vietnam, and yet the My Lai massacre occurred. Do we condemn the entire Army, or even the Division/Brigade/Regiment those men were members of? No. We condemn the actual men, those who pulled the triggers, for what happened. Stop making generalized statements....recognize that a majority of the SS units were soldiers. Elite ones, well-trained, motivated (albeit by an ideology that we find abhorrent), and fanatical in their defense of the Reich. Can we say that the Rangers, or the SEALs, are any less? Put yourself in the shoes of an Islamic nation, having been taught from birth about "The Great Satan". Would you admire these same US elite fighters, if they invaded your country? Probably not. You would call them "child-killers", and believe every bit of propaganda your nation broadcast about them. It's time to look at history with an un-jaundiced eye. There were both admirable and detestable acts committed by units of ALL nations during WWII. Applaud them, villify them, denounce them, but do so as individuals.....not as groups. To do so is to stereotype, a short step from racism. ------------------ The Motor Pool http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550 [email]kmcferren@cvn.net[/email]

sven -> (12/25/2000 2:08:00 PM)
They ate their Wheaties? Every serious nation needs elites and there were not enough Brandenburghers to justify it being the main elite body..... ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

Fabs -> (12/25/2000 7:25:00 PM)
This is a very complicated subject. The aspect of whether SS units deserve the "elite" rating or not is in itself controversial. The SS divisions after 1942 tended to receive the best equipment, and more of it. Some of the older panzer Divisions had very experienced cadres by then (Leibstandarte, Das Reich, Totenkopf, Wiking), other, newer formations performed well (Hohenstaufen and Frundsberg, Hitlerjugend). Some of the foreign units (the Belgians under Degrelle in particular) were also good performers. There were a large number of formations that performed from indifferently to badly for all sorts of reasons. So it is probably wrong to represent the SS in the way that they are represented in the game. Victorhauser's solution seems sensible enough, as it enables the representation of Wehrmacht elite units as well. These are not represented at all in the game, unless you select SS units and then change each name. As far as the wider, political discussion is concerned, I don't think that anyone disputes that the "elite" and not so elite SS formations were more frequently associated with combat atrocities than other Wehrmacht units. This does not mean that every soldier and officer was a criminal, but it probably justifies the charge that as an organization the Waffen SS were also criminal. It also does not mean that they were the only military organization that committed atrocities. These were committed by all combatants. The Western Allies differed from the Germans and Russians, who also committed atrocities liberally (although the records were suppressed, as they were on the winning side), because they did not condone them and tried to limit them. The Russians used the atrocities committed by the Germans against their population as the justification for some of the excesses they admitted to, although they were at it in Poland long before the Germans attacked in 1941. Waffen SS divisions that committed atrocities on the Western Front after 1943 blamed their men's experiences on the Eastern front for their excesses. There seems to be no justification for atrocities committed by the SS Totenkopf division in France in 1940. The attempts by Russian and German apologists to justify the behavior of their forces must be seen as mere propaganda. In both cases, the atrocities were motivated by political fanaticism and, in some cases, the need to brutalize in order to discourage hostile activity in occupied areas. Political, along with religious fanaticism, has often featured through human history where the greatest inhumanities have occurred, and is certainly not a German prerogative. Violent repression of conquered populations is also something that was not practiced exclusively by Germans, or the Waffen SS. The Second World War differs from most previous and some subsequent conflicts in the way in which the victors sought to criminalize aspects of the behavior of the vanquished. To the extent to which they took care not to behave in the same way while the war was being fought, I believe that this constitutes a positive step for mankind. More recent history suggests that the progress in this enlightened direction is far from steady, and that nations that participated in the war and managed to keep a clean record when they were "liberators" behaved differently and less honorably subsequently, when their role was more in line to that of "occupier". Even the victims of the most atrocious of the German's crimes are showing ruthlessness now that, through the accidents of history, they have become an occupying power. All my comments above refer exclusively to the behavior of soldiers in combat zones or in transit to and from combat zones. Topics like the Holocaust and how the Germans repressed the populations in occupied territories away from the front are entirely different and merit separate discussion in different forums. ------------------ Fabs

Fabs -> (12/25/2000 7:41:00 PM)
As to the way in which Hitler managed to wangle his way to total power, it is naive to base any argument on whether he was elected or appointed. Hitler was probably the best and most ruthless political manipulator that ever existed. He took advantage of a very volatile political climate and of any break that was thrown at him. However, there were two main elements that greatly helped him in his criminal enterprise: - the Weimar Republic's institutions were very weak and poorly balanced. - The German public was indifferent to how these institutions were being first manipulated and then removed by Hitler and the NSDAP. Strong, balanced institutions enjoying strong public support (to the extent that the public will go to any length and pay any price to defend them) are the only guarantee that a Democratic order can be preserved. ------------------ Fabs

Alby -> (12/25/2000 9:58:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Belaja smert: The question about the elite status of the SS has been discussed before. Main reason they are considered elite is that german army needs to have elite troops and the OOBs are already full so separate elite troops are not an option. Belaja smert I thought FJ troops were "elite".They get +10 experience bonus same as SS troops, so actually germans have 2 sections of "elite" troops

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.78125