Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Totenkopf SS Division

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Totenkopf SS Division Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/3/2011 1:21:01 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

I certainly was not defending anything that was done on the Axis side during WWII - their crimes were especially heinous and beyond the pale of any past conflict, both in scope and depth of depravity.

Of course. I didn't imply you were.

quote:


I only point out that if the Axis had won, most of what did occur would have been swept under the carpet - and people like Winston Churchill and "Bomber" Harris would have been put on trial for "crimes against humanity" just like the Nazi leaders (and to a much lesser extent, Japanese leaders) were after the war.

Yes, this might be true. But would these post-war executions have been based on actual international law? Judging from what the Nazis actually did whey they thought they were going to win the war, I presume that what would have happened in case of a German victory would have been more similar to the "final solution" than to the Nurenberg trials.

quote:


History is written by the victors, and many of the instances where Allied forces acted in a somewhat similar fashion (though not anywhere close to what the Nazis did - though the Russians definitely had their fair share) were looked at as more of "heat of the moment" or necessary evils - shooting of prisoners, fire-bombing of cities (particularly Dresden). Of course, on our side, we have examined these incidents, and in some cases, held those responsible - but we didn't hang anyone for it (our guys).

As I wrote before, according to the international law, the bombing of a defended city was allowed. Therefore there was no legal reason for the Allied powers to prosecute Harris or other USAAF/RAF officers. It may be worth noting also that, consequently, no Luftwaffe member was prosecuted for the same actions by the Allies, so no double-standards.

For what concernes actual war crimes committed dy Allied servicemen (e.g. shooting of PoWs), well, there were instances of prosecutions and convition (for example Sgt. West was court martialled for the cold blood killing of Italian PoWs in Sicily). I'm not saying that the Allies were faultless in respect to the war crimes issue, but for sure, it can be shown that the numbers and the systematicity of the Axis violations were enormously superior. And this even taking Soviet Union into the picture. Yes, there were many of instances of Red Army soldiers killing prisoners and/or looting, but Soviet high command at least tried to stop this behaviour (I can quote the relevant orders, if needed). On the German side, not only nobody tried to stop the violation but these violation were encouraged if not ordered outright. See the infamous Hitler's "Barbarossa" directives implemented by Keitel allowing summary execution for civilian suspects and the non prosecution of German soldiers for crimes committed against civilians and PoWs.



(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 91
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/3/2011 2:38:30 PM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline
I can somewhat disagree with Soviet conduct, especially once the Red Army set foot on German soil. Of course, most, if not all, of the front line units were extremely well disciplined (they needed it, given the tenacity of the German defense) but the follow up forces weren't nearly as well-behaved. In most instances, it was felt that given what the Germans did to the Soviet Union, pretty much everything was fair game.

And, of course, see what happened to the Russian collaborators (and even prisoners) that were turned back over to the Red Army by the allies after the war - not exactly the conduct of a civil society.

Nothing can aleviate the horrendous conduct of the Nazis (and to a slightly lesser extent, the Japanese), but WWII was the first major conflict where civilians, on both sides, were targeted and died in overwhelming numbers compared to military losses. 50 million civilian dead is probably too low & I've seen good research that puts that final number closer to 100 million (due to famine, disease, etc that was a direct result of the disruption of international trade).

International law is only what we say it is - and under the circumstances, expediency can get in the way of justice.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 92
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/3/2011 7:39:42 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
As far as I know the Russians were not signatory to the Geneva conventions so from a strictly legalistic point of view, whatever happened was also partly their fault too. Red Cross was not allowed in the USSR either as far as I know and therefore it became impossible to monitor anything. Plus the Russians gave as good as they took. They didn't even have mercy on their own compatriots, let alone on foreign invaders. In fact there is a probability that Stalin's regime took a heavier toll of the Russians than the Axis invaders.

As to the war crimes, keep in mind that convention more than law, holds power in military circles. For example for a long time, an occupier had the right to keep (and if necessary shoot) hostages to terrorise the natives. That was accepted and no law/tribunal or what have you will ever change that, even today.

Secondly we must not see everything from today's perspective. If we did so, Nazi atrocities on the Eastern front, the bombing of cities in Germany, the obliteration of Carthage and the pyramids of skulls of Ghengis Khan can be roughly equated. Why? Because these were all state sanctioned acts of terrorism intended to cow an enemy which was portrayed as being barely human. They were nothing more than state sponsored acts of terror designed to break the enemy's resolve. WWII on the Eastern front was war to the knife, no quarter given or taken, since this war was more a clash of civilisations/ideologies/races than a mere limited war for definite objectives. On the Western front, combattants tended to adhere to accepted norms of warfare and the Red Cross acted as a neutral go between the warring powers.

Then there is the question of scale. We are talking about huge armies, millions strong. How do you police such a mass of men? Its clearly almost impossible to do so. Incidentally, as a previous poster has said, it is mostly rear echelons who perform most of these atrocities since the guys up front tend to see and shed enough blood already.

But no comparisons can be made with today. In essence, the bulk of warfare that takes place today are either guerilla warfare, which is by its very nature very messy or extended colonial campaigning. There is no comparison with WWII, with possibly only the Iran-Iraq war matching WWII in intensity and brutality since 1945. All these rules, laws etc mostly came in existence in a period of time when warfare is limited in scale and intensity. The next apocaliptic conflict, which I hope never to see, will see all these rules discarded without a second thought and the Hague tribunal being seen nothing more than a farce...

Besides throughout history there are many examples when civilised warfare reached a peak (with rules and what have you) to be suddenly set aside by new comers. Ex the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire, the arrival of the Mongols, the rise of the Swiss, the Thirty Years War and the French Revolution were all bloody shocks to the 'ritualised' legal forms of warfare. The same can be seen in other continents as well (the best example would be Shaka here who wrought a revolution in military thinking in his own corner of the African continent).

Personal perspective and time tend to colour our judgements. It is interesting to note that in our day and age, when there are strict laws on warmaking and so forth, the largest powers which have the highest probability to engage in any sort of warfare, tend to shun binding documents/declarations/international tribunals etc. Again, why? Because they write their own lawbook and do not feel bound by what lesser states want. This century, like every century before it, might still makes right...

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 93
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/3/2011 9:04:01 PM   
Bandkanon

 

Posts: 155
Joined: 4/25/2001
From: Hengchun, Taiwan
Status: offline
Wow...they look like hard men...they don't look too nice. Sometimes I wish Osprey would give their subjects a smile every once in a while in their colored plates.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Nothing different about their uniforms from other Waffen SS units, aside from the death's head replacing the SS runes:






(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 94
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/3/2011 9:15:25 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline
Yes, it's known that the USSR didn't sign the Geneva Convention. And this fact was also used by Germany to justify the appalling conduct of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front with regards to PoW, anti-partisan operations, treatment of the civilian population etc.
Of course this justification isn't a justification since the aforementioned Convention is binding for the signing State even when waging war against a power that didn't sign it (moreover the USSR let Germany know that it was disposed to follow the Convention anyway if the Germans did the same but this proposal fell on deaf ears...).

It's an undeniable historical fact that the USSR committed war crimes, sometimes recurring to some "gamey" rule-lawyering, sometimes because the units at the front acted in spite of the official instruction and sometimes just because, as was said, ending up in NKVD hands just meant that you could become dead meat in a second, regardless of being German, Russian, Pole, Ukrainian etc.

It's also obvious that there's no point in judging historical events out of contest. But, it's also evident (at least I think it is) that we can underline differencies between "players" in a given historical context.
For example, it's obvious that, from a modern point of view, the conduct of all Ancient armies in war was barbaric and bloodthirsty. Yet, I can say that Julius Caesar was more humane that many other Roman generals because, after the civil war, he sponsirized a policy of national pacification and spared the lives of all his former enemies (and, ultimately, paid with his life this clemency).

Likewise one can say that the USA and the UK committed fewer war crimes than Germany and Japan and with no sistematicity. And that Stalin's USSR lies somewhere inbetween these extremes. This doesn't mean that all Axis soldiers were bloodthisrty savages and all Allied soldiers were gentle knights in shining armour. Nor that everyone, utilately, was treated according to what actually deserved. But would be unfair and unrespectful for those soldiers that tried to behave chivalrously (in particular to German soldiers that refused to execute unlawful order) to say that, after all, they were all the same.

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 95
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/3/2011 11:59:06 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

The Nazi camps were not war crimes. They were simply crimes, period.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 96
RE: the deaths etc of Berlin - 1/4/2011 4:57:51 AM   
Theng

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/13/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

The number of women who 'died' after the Russian occupation of what was East Germany is highly politised. Any figure needs to be questioned because there were no statistics made at the time and much of the data was determined from 'witness' statements taken long after the event. I was in Germany in the 50's (my father was an officer in the British occupation forces) and was told that with the 'rejuvanation of Germany' (to fight communism) that all sorts of data was being 'brought together' to justify the changes coming into effect. Such as the new army, the recruitment of officers and men (including those from the Waffen SS, but carefully sanitised!) etc etc. The one fact that is clearly documented is that the rapes/murders/robberies were NOT carried out by the Russian fighting troops - the dates and reports make it clear that support troops, including the NKVD 'combat' units were very largely responsible. How anyone could calculate the number of suicides baffles me, since the statistics in this regard were retained by the pro-communist East German government.




There were reasons why the German forces on the East Front fought a lot harder in 1944 and beyond on the East Front than on the Western Front - and these reasons were clearly the women and children. And to be honest, I don't think the women cared if they got raped by combat troops, support troops, or NKVD troops, just like the Russians didn't care if the attrocities were committed by SS, SD, Waffen-SS or Wehrmacht.

_____________________________

Molon Labe!

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 97
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/4/2011 11:10:52 AM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Nazi camps were not war crimes. They were simply crimes, period.



Succinct and perfectly put. It should also be noted that the German camps were a political decision, taken befor the war had even started, whose scope expanded to encompass all the enemies, real or imagined , of the regime. There was little difference between them and Gulags. Camps per se had nothing to do with the war but were essentially the creation of bunch of criminally sick minds who held power at that time.

It should be noted that the British in the Boer war imprisoned women and kids to force their menfolk to give themselves up. Now would that be a war crime, because in a sense, these concentration camps were directly linked to the suppression of an indipendent people...

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 98
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/4/2011 1:44:59 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline
The decision to build the camps was taken before the war but the decision to use them as extermination camps was taken during the war. In this latter respect they were different from the GULag (not to speak of the British concentration camps!).

And, speaking of British concentration camps, it's worth noting that the Hague convention of 1899 was also prompted by "problems" arisen during the Boer war.

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 99
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/4/2011 5:07:58 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
Ok this may sound gross but it should be said. Extermination camps were a 'natural' progression in the minds of who came up with the idea.  

But my main point here is that Mynok pointed out a really important issue that has to be stressed. The camps of whatever designation were not a war crime - that crime had been planned and committed well before the war had started and was only exacerbated by the war itself. It was a crime against humanity in modern day parlance - and a crime committed by a government not the armed services per se. Not one of the armed forces was proven to have participated in throwing people in camps or anything of the sort. I'm not saying that war/military crimes were not committed. Far from it, and we probably know the tip of the iceberg. Yet for a long time there was a whole argument if one should brand the Waffen SS as a criminal organisation or not because of their association with the larger setup.

Shooting, torturing or mistreating POWs or innocents is a war crime, for example. Why? Because it was committed by an armed service against the conventions or rules of war. Many for example, consider German armed merchant raiders as basically war criminals, because of the methods used, but there are divergent views as well. Even such orders such as the Commissar order originated with the government, and therefore it was the government that was responsible for it, not the armed services.

In a sense the use of concentration camps agains the Boers was a war crime because innocents were incarcerated in order to suppress a rebellion. It went well beyond what was understood as typical hostage taking, and the camps were essentially linked to a failing military campaign.

I believe that even in Nuremburg the prosecuters made this distinction between a military crime and a criminal government. Unfortunately nowadays this distinction seems to have been forgotten, especially in certain high level trials that took place recently. 

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 100
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/4/2011 6:07:01 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline
Yes, there's a distinction between a war crime and a criminal government. But we have to consider that the German servicemen that carried out criminal (i.e. in violation of the international laws) orders emenating from the government or from their superiors were guilty as well because, according to the German Military Code itself executing and illegal order was a criminal offence.

In addition, there are many documented cases of German officers that refused to follow "criminal" orders and were neither prosecuted nor demoted for their refusal.

So, serving under a criminal government may explain but not fully justify the behaviour of many. Not that I'm implying that I would have had the courage and the moral resolution to make a stand against such orders, if I were in their place. Nonetheless, many had this courage and I'd be unfair to them id I'd say that the "right thing" couldn't be done.


(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 101
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/4/2011 6:38:09 PM   
Steelers708

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 12/7/2010
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

In addition, there are many documented cases of German officers that refused to follow "criminal" orders and were neither prosecuted nor demoted for their refusal.



And there are documented cases off German Officers and men being prosecuted also, and from the instances I've read about it all depends on two things:

Firstly, who your superior officers' were and their disposition towards such orders and

Secondly, regardless of the first, who was further up the chain of command and whether they found out or not.

As you say having the courage to refuse such an order may not lie in your own moral standing, but in what may have happened to others in your unit who previously disobeyed an order. Do not forget that it may not be only you who suffers but your family back home. I certainly think, I'm sorry to say, that If I was in a unit that always prosecuted men who disobeyed orders and it was between me and some poor Russian peasant, then the peasant would be on the losing side, after all in human nature one's first basic instinct is self preservation.

On the other hand if I was in a unit that never/rarely prosecuted then I dare say the peasant would have a good chance of dying of old age.


(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 102
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/4/2011 7:03:37 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline
I'd also add that making such a stand after the summer of 1944 might have been more difficult than at the beginning of the war...

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 103
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/4/2011 8:14:36 PM   
Steelers708

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 12/7/2010
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

I'd also add that making such a stand after the summer of 1944 might have been more difficult than at the beginning of the war...


You're quite right, when soldiers who had escaped after being cut off and who had lost contact with their parent unit were being hung from lamposts as deserters, the last thing that would go through my mind is "is this order legal".

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 104
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/5/2011 4:44:28 AM   
Theng

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/13/2002
Status: offline
quote:


As you say having the courage to refuse such an order may not lie in your own moral standing, but in what may have happened to others in your unit who previously disobeyed an order. Do not forget that it may not be only you who suffers but your family back home. I certainly think, I'm sorry to say, that If I was in a unit that always prosecuted men who disobeyed orders and it was between me and some poor Russian peasant, then the peasant would be on the losing side, after all in human nature one's first basic instinct is self preservation.


There is plenty of evidence that shows that officers in the same regiment where some followed and other's did not follow the Commissar Order were not treated differently. The same way, Ortskommandanten (the local Wehrmacht's Officer in charge) who did not cooperate with the SS to exterminate Jews on the East Front were also not subject to disciplinary action. The movie Der unbekannte Soldat (in English The unknown Soldier) based on the Wehrmachtsaustellung provides plenty of evidence. You can get it from Netflix pretty easily in the US. A lot of the Wehrmacht just went along or were active participants in the atrocities on the Eastern Front without the prospect of reprisals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmachtsausstellung


_____________________________

Molon Labe!

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 105
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/6/2011 8:33:53 PM   
notenome

 

Posts: 608
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xian

quote:

Normality never existed in the Eastern Front. Hitler clearly said it: the war in Russia would be an EXTERMINATION war. So Russians knew what to expect (slavs -Russians, Poles,etc.- would be the slaves of the Reich). That's why in the western front the Germans could seem -with some exceptions- 'gentlemen'

If I remember correctly, when the Soviets captured black uniforms they were shot on sight


And there is the Kommissar Order and other extermination orders that required all troops to either kill Soviet Kommissars upon capture and for the Wehrmacht to assist in the extermination and wholesale killing of Jews. The adherence to these orders were mixed throughout the German forces on the East Front. Many followed them, some delayed, some even refused to follow the orders. The very interesting thing is that nobody who refused to follow these orders were every court martialed or had other adverse consequences as documented by the Wehrmacht Exhibitions in Germany over the last 10 years, where many apologists and revisionists tried to keep the honor of the Wehrmacht clean.

Both sides were not "nice to each other". The treatment of Soviet POWs in German capitivity was despicable and the treatment of German POWs by the Soviets was not better. Of the 300,000 German solidiers that were captured by the Soviets in Stalingrad, 5,000 came back after the war. The rest "died."

All sides in World War Two, Germans, Soviets, Americans, even the British committed war crimes including the killing of Prisoners of War. Just look at the POW numbers that were captured in Normandy. Those were unmotivated, second line, soft troops, the POW rates were extremely low and not because they were such fanatical fighters.... It's just that history is written by the victors and their crimes get conveniently forgotten.

More than 600,000 women committed suicide in Berlin between May and December 1945 after the Soviets occupied Berlin and not because they were heatbroken because the Fuehrer was no longer with them. The wholesale, repeated rape and sexual abuse took its toll. Basically every female between the age of 12 and 80, east of the river Elbe suffered the same fate.

There are no heros in that war. Only shades of gray and some were better than the others, but all sides had black sheep just some had more than others, a lot more than others.



Guderian specifically states in Panzergeneral that he blocked the commisar order (amongst others) from ever being released to AGC troops, and couldn't for the life of him understand why the OKH hadn't done so to begin with.

(in reply to Theng)
Post #: 106
RE: Totenkopf SS Division - 1/6/2011 9:11:53 PM   
Pford

 

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline
Hehe. This thread reminds of that classical Mitchell & Webb routine: 'Skulls'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEle_DLDg9Y

(in reply to notenome)
Post #: 107
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Totenkopf SS Division Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.141