Americans you have just started to discover that y

[Black Dog]

This:

Yes. And I'm not saying it's a phenomenon limited to Germans, given the number of atrocities committed on a daily basis by military personnel

Was a response to this:

Are you suggesting that all germanies troops knew what they may have to do in the way of killing innocent people and chalked it up to service for there country....and embraced it as all part of being a soldier....does not say much for the german people does it...that they are all stone hard killers....

What my reply stated was that, yes, german atrocities were commited in the sevice of the German state and the Nazi ideaology. In other words, the Wermacht was simply "doing what they believed in". the Yugoslav Army was doing "what they believed in' when it perpetrated massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Red Army was doing what it belived in when it crushed the Prauge Spring. And so on. Conclusion?

The same principles which guide the Canadian soldier (that is: service to country and cause) have, historically, led to great crimes. That is in no way comparable to saying "Canadians are evil", but an acknolwedgement of the ultimate moral bankruptcy behind the enterprise of war.

I did not once indicate that Canadians kill any SS that were in the process of surrendering. ( I said little SS prisoners were taken by Canadians after troops heard of the excutions during D-Day.) They did not afford the enemy time to surrender, by bringing overwhelming firepower to bear in all situations...wiping them out before they had a chance to do anything....

See "To the Victor the Spoils" by Sean Longden.

Yes history is full of examples. but that does not prove that all soldiers are willing commiting these crimes all it proves is that some are or some countries are....And yes it is a matter of faith that i believe that Canadian troops in todays era would not willing kill women or children or carry out atrocities, like those that the Nazi did, it has to be a matter of faith as my life depends on other Canadian soldiers and thier actions.....

No not all soldiers are willing. But obviously, given the prevelance of atrocities committed by armed forces, I think there is something to the theory that once the social prohibition on killing is removed, the door is open to other acts of inhumanity.

The military spends alot money in training, to get a soldier to fire his wpn agains't an known enemy....But to kill a unarmed women or child i can not think of a circumstance that would convince me. which leads me to believe your the same. but i'm curious what that circumstance would be

Interesting you mention the resistance to firing weapons. There's a book I highly reccomend called "On Killing" by Dave Grossman, a retired US Army Ranger and psychologist whose thesis is that taking another human being's life is a highly unnatural act which can only be overcome through conditioning designed to break down existing mores and norms and to accept a new set of values that embrace destruction, violence, and death as a way of life. The same psychology that enables killing in combat also enables the commission of atrocities, even by "civilized" soldiers acting according to the accepted norms and rules of war. I don't discount the possibility that anyone, you and me both included, can be conditioned to kill.

[Hugo]

Thank you very kindly for your reply. It is edifying to encounter a poster who is willing to expand on his position and provide details. I appreciate this very much.

You are more than welcome.

I'm saying that Germany could have stop all the carnage any time it wanted to by simple pulling it's troops back to the orginal borders.

Germany had no indication that this would be followed up with anything less than an invasion of Germany. Since the two alternatives seemed to be losing conquered ground or losing German soil, they picked the former, as anyone would.

And why in good god's name would have anyone allowed Hilter go unpunished for his deeds and allow the nazi's peace.

That wasn't the point. You claimed that Germany in both world wars would have fought on regardless of anything. This is not true.

Again what has that got to do with Germany attacking France and Belguim. It was not part of germany agreement with Austro-hungary.

Yes, it was. A Serbian national attacked an Austro-Hungarian prince. Austro-Hungary therefore delivered an impossible ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia appealed to Russia, her ally, for protection. Russia mobilized its forces. Austro-Hungary appealed to Germany, her ally, for mutual defence against Russia. Russia appealed to France, France declared war on Germany, Germany struck at France through Belgium, Britain activated her guarantee of Belgian neutrality.

It's hard to make the claim that Germany was any more irresponsible than any other European State in this tragic comedy of errors. Germany struck at Belgium because it was faced with a two-front war and Belgium refused German troops passage. Realpolitik, not war guilt.

NO, the fact remains that the WAFFEN SS was made up of several different types of units,which included Concentration gaurds, labour camp gaurds, etc,etc

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You can't prove any of this and you have no evidence. Why? Because it's a lie.

Most if not all had testified that they themselfs were afraid for there own lives and being killed for not carry out any orders.

But you just told me that soldiers do what they do because they believe in their cause. If what you say was true, it doesn't make sense that so many volunteered for the Waffen SS and threw themselves into battle heedless of the risk to their personal safety, does it?

Your story runs completely counter to historical fact. This, again, is because it is a tissue of lies.

To answer your question again, i am very confident that the goverment of Canada would not ask me to intentionally commit the type of crimes that the Nazi did.

Yes, and in 1930 a German soldier could have said the same thing.

[Hugo]

This is false. Except for the crazy bit. Not once, even when everyone around him (with the exception of Goebbels) was begging him to sue for peace, or even surrender, Hitler refused.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Hitler instructed von Ribbentrop and afterward, his successor Goebbels to propose a ceasefire with the USA, France and Britain to be followed by a joint attack by all four on the USSR. In his last days he comforted himself, encouraged by his cronies, that acceptance of this deal would soon be forthcoming. Review the last few chapters of your William Shirer.

[Army Guy]

Hugo:

Germany had no indication that this would be followed up with anything less than an invasion of Germany. Since the two alternatives seemed to be losing conquered ground or losing German soil, they picked the former, as anyone would.

You are reversing your argument, Germany had a serveral chioces Not to invade in the first place, or once germany or the allieds had bled dry to offer a peace accord then pulling troops back to the orginal borders. Germany was looking at only one thing the conquest of France and Belguim and for that it was punshed.

That wasn't the point. You claimed that Germany in both world wars would have fought on regardless of anything. This is not true.

History proves you wrong.

Yes, it was. A Serbian national attacked an Austro-Hungarian prince. Austro-Hungary therefore delivered an impossible ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia appealed to Russia, her ally, for protection. Russia mobilized its forces. Austro-Hungary appealed to Germany, her ally, for mutual defence against Russia. Russia appealed to France, France declared war on Germany, Germany struck at France through Belgium, Britain activated her guarantee of Belgian neutrality

Hugo you do have good debating skills but when it comes to history you suck, or to use your words "an intellectual gaint you are not" Germany declared war on france first, on the 3 Aug 1914....france responded on the 4 Aug...Germany took the first step, by taking offensive operations against Belguim then into france.

It's hard to make the claim that Germany was any more irresponsible than any other European State in this tragic comedy of errors. Germany struck at Belgium because it was faced with a two-front war and Belgium refused German troops passage. Realpolitik, not war guilt.

Theres an excuse for going to war. Not providing passage so Germany can strike at france....give me a break, Germany had it's eye on both countries for along time and used the Austro-hungary alliance as a reason to go to war.

NO, the fact remains that the WAFFEN SS was made up of several different types of units,which included Concentration gaurds, labour camp gaurds, etc,etc

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You can't prove any of this and you have no evidence. Why? Because it's a lie.

Your story runs completely counter to historical fact. This, again, is because it is a tissue of lies.

Waffen SS

waffen SS

Waffen SS

www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachau/FiringSquad.html

Your right it's all lies ,an elborate scheme made up by myself just to prove a piont. Hugo before you call me a lair read some of those web sites. reread your own sources....

Again when it comes to History you suck...

[Army Guy]

Blackdog:

What my reply stated was that, yes, german atrocities were commited in the sevice of the German state and the Nazi ideaology. In other words, the Wermacht was simply "doing what they believed in". the Yugoslav Army was doing "what they believed in' when it perpetrated massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Red Army was doing what it belived in when it crushed the Prauge Spring. And so on. Conclusion?

The same principles which guide the Canadian soldier (that is: service to country and cause) have, historically, led to great crimes. That is in no way comparable to saying "Canadians are evil", but an acknolwedgement of the ultimate moral bankruptcy behind the enterprise of war.

My piont, is that before these guys entered the service, they are subject to the states media machine, to entice these guys into volenteering they make no mention of killing civilians, women or children etc, etc, The media machine glorifies war making it sound like a game , to serve thier country and cause was honourable undertaking.... However once they are on the battle field or in the SS as we were talking about a soldier quickly finds out that war is not glories or full of honour....and that his orginal intentions change....he never signed up to kill women and children but does so out of fear.....

No not all soldiers are willing. But obviously, given the prevelance of atrocities committed by armed forces, I think there is something to the theory that once the social prohibition on killing is removed, the door is open to other acts of inhumanity

That is just my piont in todays Canada do you think that the social prohibition over killing would ever change keep in mind Canada is a very liberal country.

Interesting you mention the resistance to firing weapons. There's a book I highly reccomend called "On Killing" by Dave Grossman, a retired US Army Ranger and psychologist whose thesis is that taking another human being's life is a highly unnatural act which can only be overcome through conditioning designed to break down existing mores and norms and to accept a new set of values that embrace destruction, violence, and death as a way of life. The same psychology that enables killing in combat also enables the commission of atrocities, even by "civilized" soldiers acting according to the accepted norms and rules of war. I don't discount the possibility that anyone, you and me both included, can be conditioned to kill.

I've read the book we actually still use many of the training methods mentioned...However they've added alot into that training as well...such as the genva convention training, and through computerized training sims the who to target, and when to shoot seris...much like the police use....

One of the reasons it was modified was soldiers where having a hard time re adjusting to regular life...

[Black Dog]

My piont, is that before these guys entered the service, they are subject to the states media machine, to entice these guys into volenteering they make no mention of killing civilians, women or children etc, etc, The media machine glorifies war making it sound like a game , to serve thier country and cause was honourable undertaking....

Isn't that exactly what you said? To wit:

There is alot more to it than just believing in a cause, their goverment, Thier Country, thier patriotism, thier moral values, and thier up bringing all plays a big role on thier decision to join up and serve thier country. And it does make them a better person....

Besides, its not the media machine, but the state itself that offers up such a glorified view. Here in Canada, the Canadian Forces portrays military service as just another career option (though most ads neglect the "our job is to kill people" aspect, as articulated by the CF's leadership). The U.S. tries to make military service look like a Xtreme sport. So, although state propaganda is disseminated through civilian media channels, it's not really accurate to say the media (which I take to mean civilian medza such as movies and TV) entices people to join and kill.

However once they are on the battle field or in the SS as we were talking about a soldier quickly finds out that war is not glories or full of honour....and that his orginal intentions change....he never signed up to kill women and children but does so out of fear

You're still trying to prove the unprovable, that all SS and German troops committed atrocities against their will. Sure there were probably SS members who commited atrocities out of fear of what might happen to them. But there were undoubtebly those who committed atrocities because they felt such actions would keep the Aryan race pure, or otherwise serve the Reich. And I'm sure sometimes atrocities are committed out of simple bloodlust.

That is just my piont in todays Canada do you think that the social prohibition over killing would ever change keep in mind Canada is a very liberal country.

The prohibition on killing (Grossman again) isn't dependent on nationality, but is rooted in our very humanity. Animals very rarely kill other members of their species. Humans are no different. why the process of military training and indoctrination is so utterly dehumanizing: people need to be destroyed and rebuilt so that they can go forth and kill.

So, it would be very difficult to overcome that barrier across a whole society. But what can be done )through intensive propaganda) is to convince the majority to turn a blind eye to terrible crimes on the principle that the crimes are just and necessary (Nazi Germnany, Rwanda, the war on terror...)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Review the last few chapters of your William Shirer.

I have not had the pleasure of reading much of Shirer (only a few dozen pages of "The rise and fall of the Third Reich"), but I understand he was a respected journalist. I will quote some of Albert Speer's book "Inside The Third Reich: Memoirs by Albert Speer" (1970) to offer evidence contrary to

Sorry, but you are wrong. Hitler instructed von Ribbentrop and afterward, his successor Goebbels to propose a ceasefire with the USA, France and Britain to be followed by a joint attack by all four on the USSR. In his last days he comforted himself, encouraged by his cronies, that acceptance of this deal would soon be forthcoming.

I prefer Speer's account because he was there. The highest ranking 'nazi' (though he wasn't really a 'Nazi-ist") to both live, and give an account.

During February and March of 1945, Hitler occasionally hinted that he was contacting the enemy by varuious means, but would never go into any details. My impression was that he was trying to create an atmosphere of utter irreconcilability which left no roads open. At the time of the Yalta conference, I heard him giving instructions to Lorenz, the press secretary. He was dissatisfied with the reaction of the German newspapers and demanded a sharper, mor aggressive tone. "Those warmongers at Yalta must be denounced-so insulted that they will have no chance to make an offer to the German People. Under no circumstances must there be an offer. That gang only wants to separate the German people from their leadership. I've always said: Surrender is absolutely out of the question!"  He hesitated "History is not going to be repeated!"

Further, Hitler later ordered the evacuation (forcibly, on foot) of every German on the western front.

As to the 'succesor bit', the telegraphs from the FuhrerBunker read as follows;

*the first radio message, dated april 30, 1945, 6:35 pm read:

Grand Admiral Doenitz:

In the place of the former Reich Marshal Goering the Fuhrer has designated you as his succesor. Written Authorization on the way. Immediately take all measures required by this situation.

Bormann

The radio message sent on May 1, 1945, at 3:18 p.m. read:

Grand Admiral Doenitz: (Top Secret! Only via officer.)

Fuhrer deceased yesterday at 3:30 pm. Testament of April 29 appoints you Reich President, Minister Goebbels Chancellor, Reichsleiter Bormann Party Minister, Minister Seyss-Inquart Foreign Minister. ......blah blah blah...confirm receipt."

(sarcasm mine)

[Hugo]

Germany was looking at only one thing the conquest of France and Belguim and for that it was punshed.

But your point that Germany initiated the war is false. Serbia (or Austro-Hungary) actually started the war. So why was Germany made to admit guilt for the whole thing?

Germany declared war on france first

I've already addressed this, so I will just quote myself.

A Serbian national attacked an Austro-Hungarian prince. Austro-Hungary therefore delivered an impossible ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia appealed to Russia, her ally, for protection. Russia mobilized its forces. Austro-Hungary appealed to Germany, her ally, for mutual defence against Russia...

So, who was responsible for WWI?

give me a break, Germany had it's eye on both countries for along time and used the Austro-hungary alliance as a reason to go to war.

Yes, and Russia had it's eye on Eastern Europe for a long time, Austro-Hungary had its eye on Serbia, France wanted to retake Alsace-Lorraine, etc. So what does that prove?

Hugo before you call me a lair read some of those web sites.

The first site you quote says that the Waffen-SS and concentration camps were merged in 1944. Source two mentions that conscription and rotation into the SS from other disbanded combat units also began in 1944. Source three makes no mention of what you are alleging but does confirm what I was claming: in 1943, when they were a purely combat unit, they stormed Kharkov and massacred 20,000 civilians.

So, your first two sources only support your argument if you are claiming that the war began or the Waffen-SS was formed in 1944, neither of which is true. As regards the third source, you'd have been much better off not quoting that one at all - it doesn't support your argument, it supports mine.

I prefer Speer's account because he was there.

So was Joseph Goebbels, and the Goebbels Diaries confirm Shirer's account. Speer did have a motive for lying: he survived the war, and so it was in his interests to turn Hitler into a crazed monster and exonerate himself. Goebbels, however, had no incentive to lie since he committed suicide within hours of Hitler.

As to the 'succesor bit', the telegraphs from the FuhrerBunker read as follows

I was not talking about Hitler's successor but about von Ribbentrop's: Goebbels.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Minister Seyss-Inquart Foreign Minister.

Goebbels became Chancellor right before he became dead.

So was Joseph Goebbels, and the Goebbels Diaries confirm Shirer's account. Speer did have a motive for lying: he survived the war, and so it was in his interests to turn Hitler into a crazed monster and exonerate himself. Goebbels, however, had no incentive to lie since he committed suicide within hours of Hitler

Admittedly, Speer had motive, but did not try to exonerate himself. He was one of the only ones to take guilt upon himself. He was one of the ones who scoffed at the others who tried to claim that they were 'just following orders' but using the now famous phrase "letter-carriers on high salaries'. For Goebbels part, he was the master of lies. He even had his wife and family murdered before his suicide so the wouldn't be captured 'and used to make propaganda against him'.

I urge you to read Speer's account. I will endeavour to read Shirers, as I know someone with a copy.

[Hugo]

He even had his wife and family murdered before his suicide so the wouldn't be captured 'and used to make propaganda against him'.

All the accounts I have read state that Goebbels and his wife poisoned all their children before committing suicide themselves, together.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that there is plenty of evidence that Hitler was willing to accept a compromise with the Western Allies. I see no reason why Kaiser Wilhelm II would have been even crazier than Hitler when he still had far more to salvage and far more to lose and when his war was waged not for grandiose dreams of racial supremacy, but for simple realpolitik: his aim was the betterment of Germany, and when that became best served by peace I'm sure he would have accepted peace.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Isn't that exactly what you said? To wit:

Yes it was but the state used false advertising i guess you can call it. Germany had full control of the media at the time, these young men and women were convinced that it was in thier best interest to serve germany, the Riech...what i have a hard time believing is that everyone of those germany soldiers thought it would be in the best interest for thier country and the Riech to kill women and children up close. In todays Canada the state does not control the media, OK all the media....i find it very hard if not impossiable thta the state could convince liberal minded Canadians it was all right to eleminate a race of people to include women and children.

You're still trying to prove the unprovable, that all SS and German troops committed atrocities against their will. Sure there were probably SS members who commited atrocities out of fear of what might happen to them. But there were undoubtebly those who committed atrocities because they felt such actions would keep the Aryan race pure, or otherwise serve the Reich. And I'm sure sometimes atrocities are committed out of simple bloodlust.

Your right i can not prove it, but basing my comments on my experiance, nor can it be proven that most did it out of blood lust....

The prohibition on killing (Grossman again) isn't dependent on nationality, but is rooted in our very humanity. Animals very rarely kill other members of their species. Humans are no different. why the process of military training and indoctrination is so utterly dehumanizing: people need to be destroyed and rebuilt so that they can go forth and kill.

They are reprogramed to a piont, even grossmen states facts and figures on how many troops even fired thier wpns during WW II some where around less than 40 % he even states that these numbers get better as time passes like korea numbers to up to just over 60 %....this is done at dehumanizing the enemy by comparing them to animals, insects, training is done on paper targets over and over again so at a distance that is what the soldier believes he is shooting at....the problem comes when the soldier actually sees the enemy dead up close. as a human being....

Grossman also states that they have not invented a perfect training method....But yes that is what the military does it beats the individual out of you then begins training you as a team. What it does not do is teach you to embrace killing or the need for destruction, you still need to function in society as a regular person....

what i've been saying is that this training is also reinforced with the rules of war the genva convention....to get todays Canadian soldiers to commit these crimes would mean a total reprograming

[Black Dog]

Yes it was but the state used false advertising i guess you can call it. Germany had full control of the media at the time, these young men and women were convinced that it was in thier best interest to serve germany, the Riech...what i have a hard time believing is that everyone of those germany soldiers thought it would be in the best interest for thier country and the Riech to kill women and children up close. In todays Canada the state does not control the media, OK all the media....i find it very hard if not impossiable thta the state could convince liberal minded Canadians it was all right to eleminate a race of people to include women and children.

What makes us so special?

what i've been saying is that this training is also reinforced with the rules of war the genva convention....to get todays Canadian soldiers to commit these crimes would mean a total reprograming

I guess it depends which wins out: the training to kill, or the training to kill only under certain circumstances. Remmber: there are lots of examples of "civilized" troops, operating under accepted RoE committing horrible atrocities (My Lai comes to mind).

[Army Guy]

Hugo:

But your point that Germany initiated the war is false. Serbia (or Austro-Hungary) actually started the war. So why was Germany made to admit guilt for the whole thing?

Yes it is ,Germany intiated the war with France and Beliguim, and Yes i agree with you it did not intiate WW I.

My statement has been along that Germany must be held responsable for it's actions. and only it's actions....

I've already addressed this, so I will just quote myself.

A Serbian national attacked an Austro-Hungarian prince. Austro-Hungary therefore delivered an impossible ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia appealed to Russia, her ally, for protection. Russia mobilized its forces. Austro-Hungary appealed to Germany, her ally, for mutual defence against Russia...

Your comment was a mutual defense agreement in the defense against a russian attack....does this give Germany rights to attack France, France had not been given time to react to the fact that Germany had entered war with russia....

Germany had taken that fact and sought to use war as a tool for it's own expansion....

So, who was responsible for WWI?

The states of Germany, and Austro-Hungary.

Yes, and Russia had it's eye on Eastern Europe for a long time, Austro-Hungary had its eye on Serbia, France wanted to retake Alsace-Lorraine, etc. So what does that prove?

And i have had my eye on a BMW but that does not give the right to take one off the lot without paying for it....And what actions did france take to retake alsace-lorraine...Germany did take offensive actions to take France and Belguim, and for that part were punished...

The first site you quote says that the Waffen-SS and concentration camps were merged in 1944.

By the time World War II began the number of members rose to 250,000 and the Waffen-SS was formed in December 1940 to fight alongside the Wehrmacht, Germany's regular military. The SS also received control of the Gestapo in 1934 and, that same year, Adolf Hitler had given the SS jurisdiction over all concentration camps.

The above quote is taken in the first link...

By the summer of 1934, the SS had taken control of all concentration camps from the SA and a new organization, the SS-Totenkopfverbande (SS-TV) had been established as the SS Concentration Camp service. The original SS-TV was organized into six Wachtruppe at each of Germany’s major Concentration Camps. The Wachtruppe were expanded in 1935 into Wachsturmbann and again in 1937 into three main SS-Totenkopfstandarten. This structure would remain unchanged until 1941, when a massive labor and death camp system, in the occupied territories necessitated the concentration camps to be placed under the Waffen-SS into three main divisions of Labor Camps, Concentration Camps, and Death Camps.

As this one is....

After 1934, the running of Germany's Concentration Camps was placed under the total authority of the SS and an SS branch known as the Totenkopfverbande (SS-TV) was founded under Theodor Eicke. Known as the "Death's Head Units", the SS-TV was first founded as several regiments, based at each of Germany's major Concentration Camps, the largest of which was at Dachau. In 1938, the Totenkopfverbande expanded also into a military division, with the founding of the Totenkopf division which would, by 1941, become a full division of the Waffen-SS. 1934 was a common year starting on Monday (link will take you to calendar). ...

And this one:

In 1942, for administrative reasons, the guard and administrative staff of all the concentration camps became full members of the Waffen-SS.

Is this where you take your quote from....the above quotes more than prove that the Waffen SS had concentration gaurds in thier ranks as early as 1941...

By 1944, with the Concentration Camps fully integrated with the Waffen-SS and under the control of the WVHA, a standard practice developed to rotate SS members in and out of the camps, based on manpower needs and also to give assignments to wounded Waffen-SS officers and soldiers who could no longer serve in front line combat duties. This rotation of personnel is the main argument that nearly the entire SS knew of the Concentration Camps, and what actions were committed within, making the entire organization liable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Source

two mentions that conscription and rotation into the SS from other disbanded combat units also began in 1944

from source 2 as you can plainly see it mentions 1942....

SS Division Totenkopf originally formed from excess (A penal camp where political prisoners or prisoners of war are confined (usually under harsh conditions)) concentration camp guards, though most of these had been killed by 1942 after being encircled in the Valdai Hills on the Russian Front, and were replaced by ordinary volunteers not associated with the concentration camps.

Source three makes no mention of what you are alleging but does confirm what I was claming: in 1943, when they were a purely combat unit, they stormed Kharkov and massacred 20,000 civilians.

This taken from source number 3, clearly shows that in 1940 the totenkopf div was part of the waffen ss it even mentions they were made up of concentration guards how does that not prove my post....

In the French campaign the Waffen SS provided the army with three divisions, and also several regiments. Senior army commanders proved quite receptive to the high level of enthusiasm and effectiveness that the SS troopers exhibited in combat. Even when soldiers from the SS Totenkopf Division—drawn from concentration camp guards—murdered more than one hundred British prisoners of war at the town of La Paradise on the Dunkirk perimeter in 1940, neither the army nor the SS took disciplinary action.

So, your first two sources only support your argument if you are claiming that the war began or the Waffen-SS was formed in 1944, neither of which is true. As regards the third source, you'd have been much better off not quoting that one at all - it doesn't support your argument, it supports mine.

please re-read those links and you'll find they do support my argument...and totally disprove yours ....

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

What makes us so special?

Good question ? Canadians are very liberal minded when it comes to anything military, war etc....with good reason....why did we enter the conflict on the war again'st terrorism and not the Iraq war ....Canadian soldiers are made up of those very same Canadian people. Why is it were are world reknown for peacekeeping, not our war abilities...I don't really know why we are so special but i am proud to be Canadian and doing what i do, and don't think i could do that for any other country...

I guess it depends which wins out: the training to kill, or the training to kill only under certain circumstances. Remmber: there are lots of examples of "civilized" troops, operating under accepted RoE committing horrible atrocities (My Lai comes to mind).

In my 25 years of service i've not seen it happen... i've been to some of the shittest spots on the globe, and Canadain soldiers have always acted professional and have never as a group brought shame to our country or flag.... but you are right it depends on training, and which wins out...and i hope Canadian soldiers continue to make the right chioces....And you are right civilized troops have commited crimes....

[Riverwind]

In my 25 years of service i've not seen it happen...  i've been to some of the shittest spots on the globe, and Canadain soldiers have always acted professional and have never as a group brought shame to our country or flag.... but you are right it depends on training, and which wins out...and i hope Canadian soldiers continue to make the right chioces....And you are right civilized troops have commited crimes....

What about the incident with the somali teenager that was beaten to death? That said, the measure of a society is not whether its soliders will act illegally but how the institutions react when the abuses occur.

[PocketRocket]

I hate to break into this discussion, but going back to what started this thread......

Has anyone else noticed that the links to the pictures no longer work???

Maybe the website has been torn down.

Perhaps things are looking up a bit.

[mirror]

Yes I noticed this thread a while ago but when I tried to access the first poster's pics I couldn't. Maybe that is just as well, seeing the comments I have heard about them.

[Hugo]

Yes i agree with you it did not intiate WW I.

My statement has been along that Germany must be held responsable for it's actions. and only it's actions....

But earlier you had said:

As for germany suffering from "war guilt" as you claim perhaps they should have thought of that before invading Belgium. They were responsiable for WW I, they knew the risks before they attacked, Germany got what it deserved nothing more nothing less.

So you were claiming that the Versailles Dictate was fair - "Germany got what it deserved" - and yet if Germany did not start WWI, and other nations were also guilty, and the German State should only be held responsible for what it did, then how was the Versailles Dictate, which punished Germany exclusively, fair?

By the summer of 1934, the SS had taken control of all concentration camps from the SA and a new organization, the SS-Totenkopfverbande (SS-TV) had been established as the SS Concentration Camp service.

You're refuting your own argument. The Waffen-SS and the SS-TV were not the same organization. Sure, they were both SS - but the Marines and the Army are both under the Pentagon, are they therefore the same organization?

In any case you cannot demonstrate that any concentration camp guards or anyone else entered the Waffen-SS before 1942 at the very earliest (most of your sources say 1944), and unless you are claiming that WWII began in 1942, you are simply wrong.

[Army Guy]

Sparhawk:

What about the incident with the somali teenager that was beaten to death? That said, the measure of a society is not whether its soliders will act illegally but how the institutions react when the abuses occur

Yes, the somalia incident was done by a few misguided souls, that were infact Canadian soldiers. But there is more to this case than a simple murder. But you are right i failed to mentioned it. Thank you.

In this case the institutions created more mess, with thier reaction.

[Army Guy]

Hugo:

But earlier you had said:

QUOTE

As for germany suffering from "war guilt" as you claim perhaps they should have thought of that before invading Belgium. They were responsiable for WW I, they knew the risks before they attacked, Germany got what it deserved nothing more nothing less.

Earlier we were talking about Germany and Germany alone, hence why i said they were responsable for WW I, Your right i should have chosen my words more carefully.

So you were claiming that the Versailles Dictate was fair - "Germany got what it deserved" - and yet if Germany did not start WWI, and other nations were also guilty, and the German State should only be held responsible for what it did, then how was the Versailles Dictate, which punished Germany exclusively, fair?

Yes i am, Germany was responsible for Millions of lives lost on all sides. As for Germany not starting the War, it did Bring War to Europe by declaring war on France and Belguim did it not ? It may not have had anything to do with what has been declared as the starting piont of WW I. But they did decided to widen it by taking action again'st France and Belguim.

Yes the treaty of Versailles did punish Germany exclusively it was Germanies treaty....each of the nations involved had thier own treaties. And were pusished separately. Some of thosed treaties are mentioned in the link below....surf the site and you'll find alot more of the treaties and punishments that were given out.

treaties

You're refuting your own argument. The Waffen-SS and the SS-TV were not the same organization. Sure, they were both SS - but the Marines and the Army are both under the Pentagon, are they therefore the same organization?

I'll try this one more time, SS Was a separate element of the Nazi party ie like the army,navy,airforce etc.... The Waffen SS was a fighting formation within the SS.

The SS-TV was a formation that controlled Concentration camps,etc etc....which also had fighting troops under it's command...due to it's rapid expansion they took the excess of fighting troops and built a SS-TV fighting division.

This division along with everything else belonging to the SS-TV were then put under the Waffen SS control in 1940, in 1942 the Waffen SS had fully control over the Camps,etc,....But the SS-TV division was fighting within the Waffen SS organization in 1940.

In any case you cannot demonstrate that any concentration camp guards or anyone else entered the Waffen-SS before 1942 at the very earliest (most of your sources say 1944), and unless you are claiming that WWII began in 1942, you are simply wrong.

In the French campaign the Waffen SS provided the army with three divisions, and also several regiments. Senior army commanders proved quite receptive to the high level of enthusiasm and effectiveness that the SS troopers exhibited in combat. Even when soldiers from the SS Totenkopf Division—drawn from concentration camp guards—murdered more than one hundred British prisoners of war at the town of La Paradise on the Dunkirk perimeter in 1940, neither the army nor the SS took disciplinary action.

How do you explain the above para.

[Hugo]

Yes the treaty of Versailles did punish Germany exclusively it was Germanies treaty....each of the nations involved had thier own treaties. And were pusished separately.

But Germany was made to accept full blame for the war. And you have said that this is unfair, therefore, the Versailles Treaty was unfair, so why are you defending it?

I'll try this one more time, SS Was a separate element of the Nazi party ie like the army,navy,airforce etc.... The Waffen SS was a fighting formation within the SS.

If this is true and all the separate divisions of an organization are responsible for what an individual division does, then that means that you are guilty for the Somali incident mentioned earlier, and so is Revenue Canada, and so are the Canadian Public Libraries, and the LCBO, since they are all divisions of the same organization (the Canadian Government) and according to you, what one division does, they all do.

How do you explain the above para.

Why do I need to explain anything? I can't see how it refutes anything I've said. Perhaps you can point out where it does.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

Your history is a bit wonky.

By the time World War II began the number of members rose to 250,000 and the Waffen-SS was formed in December 1940 to fight alongside the Wehrmacht, Germany's regular military. The SS also received control of the Gestapo in 1934 and, that same year, Adolf Hitler had given the SS jurisdiction over all concentration camps.

The Waffen SS was formed before the war, even their trademark camo togs pre-date the war. The unit SS Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler saw action outside Warsaw, Poland in 1939, and the many SS units saw action from start to finish, though some were decimated almost to the last man.

The SS itself was formed in 1933 as Hitler's bodyguard, and Himmler controlled all things associated with the SS. The SD, the police, the Gestapo and all concentration camps were technically 'SS' territory.

The SS Einsatzgruppen was formed in June 1941 as a 'special task force' of recruits from within the Waffen SS, the secret and civil police, and the criminal prisons , carried out pogroms behind the front lines, and were the basic starters of 'the holocaust'. The concentration camps were not really utilized for mass extermination until 1941, when the SS Einsatzgruppen massacred 30,000 Kiev Jews at Babi Yar, and no one in the outside world heard a whisper at the time. This gave the SS (Himmler) the idea of using the 'final solution', and that concentration camps would be the most efficient way to do it.

The Waffen SS (the fighting SS) took recruits from anywhere, concentration camps, policemen, even foreign supporters. Evidently, by Hitler's own decree, no 'concentration camp guard' could be refused front line service, and had the right to transfer. (source of this last line: 'The Devil's Guard" by George Robert Elford, (1971), where a former SS officer dictated 18 days worth of recordings on his experience fighting for France in Indo-China after WWII. He said the Waffen SS used to sneer at the cowards who used to stay behind to 'flay Jews' 1000 miles from the front)

[Army Guy]

Hugo:

But Germany was made to accept full blame for the war. And you have said that this is unfair, therefore, the Versailles Treaty was unfair, so why are you defending it?

No Germany was not made to accept full blame for the war. Hungary and turkey both signed thier own treaties and were punished just as much as Germany....I don't recall saying it was unfair, the Versailles treaty along with the other treaties signed were to act as a deterent for another world war. Did they work not in germanies case.

If this is true and all the separate divisions of an organization are responsible for what an individual division does, then that means that you are guilty for the Somali incident mentioned earlier, and so is Revenue Canada, and so are the Canadian Public Libraries, and the LCBO, since they are all divisions of the same organization (the Canadian Government) and according to you, what one division does, they all do.

NO, that is not the same at all, your orginal comment was that no one from the Waffen SS served in concentration camps. which they did i've provided prove of that....The SS was a separate element, like the Army, navy, and airforce are separate element in our military, The Waffen SS were the military arm to that element. and comprised of a complete corp, normally made up of 3 or more divisions, in this case the St-TV was one of them dating back to 1940. it came under Waffen control completely by 1942...this division was almost completely wipe out in 1942 and it's replacements came from reg troops....and by 1944 SS personal were rotated through the camps....

All it proves is that Waffen SS persons did serve in concentration camps. Those pers that served in the other SS divisions were no angels either. each division having long lists of war crimes out of the dozens of SS division i think there was only 2 that had clear records...

In any case you cannot demonstrate that any concentration camp guards or anyone else entered the Waffen-SS before 1942 at the very earliest (most of your sources say 1944), and unless you are claiming that WWII began in 1942, you are simply wrong.

In the French campaign the Waffen SS provided the army with three divisions, and also several regiments. Senior army commanders proved quite receptive to the high level of enthusiasm and effectiveness that the SS troopers exhibited in combat. Even when soldiers from the SS Totenkopf Division—drawn from concentration camp guards—murdered more than one hundred British prisoners of war at the town of La Paradise on the Dunkirk perimeter in 1940, neither the army nor the SS took disciplinary action.

It proves that concentration gaurds were fighting in the Waffen SS in 1940. and refutes your claim that they were none serving in the waffen SS at all.

[Hugo]

Hungary and turkey both signed thier own treaties and were punished just as much as Germany.

This is untrue. Read the treaties concerned.

I don't recall saying it was unfair

But you said:

My statement has been along that Germany must be held responsable for it's actions. and only it's actions

So since the Treaty of Versailles specifically held Germany accountable for the actions of its allies (and by implication for the actions of the Entente), you de facto admit that it was unfair.

NO, that is not the same at all, your orginal comment was that no one from the Waffen SS served in concentration camps. which they did i've provided prove of that

It is irrelevant to the point. The Waffen-SS was at least for most of the war a frontline combat unit, and my point has been that the Waffen-SS believed in their country and their cause at least as much as you and probably even more so. All your quibbling as to the nature of the SS itself holds no answer to this problem that Waffen-SS soldiers (or, if you prefer, most Waffen-SS soldiers or early Waffen-SS soldiers) were only different from Canadian soldiers in minor detail.