Perceptions and manipulations.

[Simon Spivack]

This is in response to comments from George Szaszvari about Alan Clark, his book on the Ostfront and other matters.


Caution: parts of this post may be found distressing.



I am not certain as to the purpose behind further debate of Clark's lack of effort when it came to his accounts of history: we hold similar views as to his casualness when it came to the recording of what took place. This is so regardless of whether this was due to his inventiveness because he couldn't be bothered, or his misattributions being actuated by memory lapses. I have never read Falkenhayn's memoirs, however, I'd accept the contention of those who maintain that the celebrated conversation between Hoffman and Ludendorff on the subject of lions led by donkeys never took place as described by Clark.

The prevailing notion that Clark had access to a lot more German, rather than Soviet sources, because the paranoid secrecy in the USSR inevitably led to official versions of history or technical descriptions being censored and doctored, is IMO exaggerated. Why? The aggrandising or diminishing of individuals did not always affect the validity of these matters

It depends what one means by aggrandisement. For instance, Zhukov suffered a major defeat in operation Mars, it was kept out of the public domain. For further details see:

Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942 by David M. Glantz. Glantz, a retired US army colonel, is a leading authority on the Ostfront from the Soviet perspective.

To my way of thinking, it is important to gain a proper measure of someone of Zhukov's significance.

... just offhand I can add the names Alexander Werth, Achmed Amba and Igor Kravchenko, to the list already mentioned

If the list alluded to is the one I provided, then I don't consider any of these additions to be Soviet sources in the sense of the author being a Soviet citizen at the time of composition, explaining things from the Soviet perspective and making extensive use of the archives. This is without entering into a discussion as to their merits.

I presume you mean Victor Kravchenko, he wrote I Chose Freedom. He was a member of the Soviet Purchasing Commission in Washington. He defected in 1944.

A slightly better case can be made for Alexander Werth, who was the BBC correspondent in Moscow during the war. Note, though, that his family fled from Russia after the Revolution.

Achmed Amba wrote I was Stalin's bodyguard. The title reveals its limitations. One can't expect a serious study of the military situation from such a publication.

... it is mighty weird that an university course recommends this book today!

Quite! To be fair, the course is not on the military side of Barbarossa, to quote from the web page:

This seminar is devoted to the study of Russia’s western borderlands before, during, and immediately following the Second World War, 1939-1945. Drawing from a variety of original documents, films, and monographic studies of the era, we will evaluate the impact of World War II on Soviet Eastern Europe. The primary task is to train graduate students in the techniques of historical inquiry, research, and writing. Required seminar readings will introduce all students to the basic history of the Second World War in the East, supplemented by several weeks of readings on special themes: Soviet Occupation Policy (1939-1941); Ostpolitik: German Occupation Policy in Soviet territory, 1941-1945; Genocide and the Holocaust; Partisans and Collaborators; Nationalism; Ethnic Reprisals after Soviet Liberation of Occupied Zones; and the origins of the Cold War.

Still, to rely on someone who is known for his fancy free approach to history and life in general is extraordinary.

As you are now a Septic, you won't understand irony. So I'll simply state I find it incongruous that a course can have as its 'primary task' the training of 'graduate students in the techniques of historical inquiry, research, and writing' and suggest Clark's book as an aid to study.

What Clark exploited was that many will take on trust supposed sources. Apparently life's too short for checking, except in chess!

One can't have a deep knowledge of much, compromise is essential. Yet how difficult is it to work out that one does better to determine which works are generally considered reliable and use them, with the proviso that one tries to note where the inevitable mistakes lie?

do you mean Clark had an underlying sympathy for the German cause?

Yes. His views on warrior races (sic) are not exactly unknown. He called one of his dogs 'blondi'. He wrote favourably of Hitler at times.

On the subject of Hitler, Field Marshall Erich von Manstein wrote:

A final point worth mentioning is that Hitler was always harping on his 'soldierly' outlook and loved to recall that he had acquired his experience as a front-line soldier, his character had as little in common with the thoughts and emotions of soldiers as had his party with the Prussian virtues which it was so fond of invoking.

New information has come to light as to Hitler's experience as a soldier in the Great War. It is mentioned here.

Don't you consider betting shops and brothels as dens of iniquity?

I'm not sure the Dutch do.

There are degrees of horror. I have never been to a brothel; yet, I consider it self-evident that the sort of scene described by Malaparte in which the girls were literally worked to death to be worse than what is available today in Amsterdam. Malaparte may not have been the most reliable witness, yet similar events to what he described did happen.

Slave labor, extermination of ethnic, religious, political and other groups, as repugnant as it might seem to most of us, are alive and well today in many different forms.

Yes, these things still happen. However, many do oppose them. It is not acceptable to shrug one's shoulders if one is confronted by these. Yet, I do not argue that it is necessarily justifiable to wage war to put a stop to such practices.

Let us be careful about judging too readily

There is overwhelming evidence as to what was the true nature of the Nazi state. It can and should be judged as a murderous, vile entity, without reservation and with no saving graces.

This appreciation of certain attributes of soldiering in WWII extends to the purely military exploits of the Waffen SS, which, by anyone's standards, fought some pretty heroic actions.

Not by my standards.

I hope you are not using the perfectly useless wikipedia article on the Waffen SS as a source. Neo-Nazis and their ilk are very active in seeking to distort the record as given on such web pages. That web page lists atrocities perpetrated in the West, whereas the overwhelming majority of its crimes were committed in the East.

The Waffen SS engaged in many questionable activities. Indeed its reputation for war crimes, for instance the burning alive of women and babies, preceded it. Ordinary Soviet citizens quickly learned its true nature. Unsurprisingly, any Waffen SS soldier captured by the Soviets was lucky if he was killed on the spot. Therefore Waffen SS soldiers normally chose not to surrender. At the start of Barbarossa the Waffen SS was equipped in the main with Czech weapons, which were not inferior to those available to the Wehrmacht. Later on in the war Himmler siphoned off a large part of war production to supply the ever larger Waffen SS. This last became particularly important as the war progressed. It is not difficult to see why, from having been inferior to the ordinary Wehrmacht in the summer of 1941, the Waffen SS became the more effective fighting instrument.

There are infinitely better adjectives than "heroic" when describing the behaviour of the mass murderers of the Waffen SS. A particular SS veteran may not have committed any war crimes, however, he would have been part of a unit that did, except for those formations raised very late in the war.

As Hitler put it, before the invasion of Poland:

I have ordered my Death's Head units to the east with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children of Polish race and language.

we both well know, other special SS units (Einsatzgruppen) sent in behind the front line troops to round up Jews, murder, terrorize, and run camps, were not soldiers as such, although their "duties" might overlap with front line troops as orders or circumstances dictated.

An untruth that is perpetrated by veterans of the Waffen SS is the attempt to gain distance from the Einsatzgruppen. You have been subjected to too much neo-Nazi propaganda, perhaps from Der Freiwillige, some of it appears to have seeped in. Incidentally, the Totenkopfverbände did participate in the French campaign.

How many murderers supply details of their crimes, or even own up to them?

This is from the affidavit of Otto Ehlendorf, head of Einsatzgruppe D:

The Einsatzgruppen and Einzatzkommandos were led by personnel from the Gestapo, the SD or the Kriminalpolizei. Additional men were recruited from the Ordnungspolizei and the Waffen-SS.

Here is from the statement of Schutzplozist Tögel, a member of Einzatzkommando 10a:

The firing squad at the well consisted of Schutzpolizisten, Waffen-SS personnel and members of the SD.

Any insinuation that the Waffen SS had no involvement with the Einsatzgruppen is a lie.

Another oft-repeated lie is that those who refused to participate in these murders risked being executed or severely punished.

An auxiliary policemen from Einzatzkommando Stalino testified:

It was made clear to us that we could refuse to obey an order to participate in the Sonderaktion without adverse consequences.

From a member of the Third Squadron Mounted Police, section III, on the executions of Jews in Hrubieszow:

... I was absolutely opposed to this action, ... I did not think that I had to take part in the shooting. However, Meister Kozar found me standing ... ordered me to take part in the execution ... I refused ... I did not experience any disadvantage as a result of refusing to participate in the shooting.

From a member of Third Police battalion 307 on an execution in Brest-Litovsk:

I too was to have been detailed to an execution squad. I received this order either from Leutnant Kayser or from the platoon sergeant, Zugwachtmeister Steffens. I was very disturbed by the site of the execution areas. I therefore refused to take part in the execution. Nothing happened to me as a result of my refusal. No disciplinary measures were taken; there were no court martial proceedings against me because of this.

I have many other such testimonies. As an S-Scharführer and Kriminal-Assistent from Kolomea Grenzpolizeikommissariat (General-Gouvernement) put it:

I carried out orders not because I was afraid I would be punished by death if I didn't. I knew of no case and still know of no case today where one of us was sentenced to death because he did not want to take part ...

The sort of punishments I am aware of for refusal to participate in mass murders were in the form of additional guard duties or transfers to other formations. It occasionally influenced promotion prospects.

Nothing can absolve Waffen SS soldiers of their atrocities in WWII, but as armchair moralizers we need to understand the environment in which they fought.

Not only were Waffen SS formations guilty of major war crimes, but the same was true of the Wehrmacht. Incidentally, many Wehrmacht soldiers attended mass executions, it was a good day out watching men, women and children (many of them babies) being bludgeoned to death with iron bars or killed by other means.

Take Field Marshall von Reichenau, who was in command of the Wehrmacht's Sixth Army in the Summer of 1941. He wrote the following statement:

From the Command-in-chief of Sixth Army
Army Headquarters 26th August 1941

1c/A.O.
No. 2245/41
9. Kdos

Statement of the report of 295th Division
on the events in Bialacerkiew [Byelaya Tserkov]

The report disguises that the division itself has ordered the execution to be interrupted and has requested the assent of the army to do so.

Immediately after the division's telephone enquiry, after consulting Standartenführer Blobel I postponed the carrying out of the execution because it was not organised properly. I gave instructions that on the morning of 21st August, Standartenführer Blobel and a representative of Army Headquarters should go to Bialacerkiew to inspect the conditions. I have ascertained in principle that once begun, the action was conducted in an appropriate manner.

The conclusion of the report in question contains the following sentence, 'In the case in question, measures against women and children were taken which in no way differ from atrocities carried out by the enemy about which the troops are continually being informed.'

I have to describe this sentence as incorrect, inappropriate and impertinent in the extreme. Moreover, this comment was written in an open communication which passes through many hands.

It would have been far better if the report had not been written at all.

(signed) von Reichenau

Distribution:
Army Group South = 1st copy
295 ID = 2nd copy
Files = 3rd copy

f.d.R.d.A.

(signed) Groscurth
Lieutenant i.G. (im Generalstab)

Incidentally, ninety were executed. Nearly all of them children under the age of five, a lot aged two, some only a few weeks old.

This is a particularly well documented atrocity. The two chaplains, Tewes and Wilczek wrote formal protests, which resulted in the above response from von Reichenau, he knew that the victims were very young.

With or without armchairs, I cannot understand how the 'environment' justifies what happened here. This was an atrocity that was not committed in the heat of the moment, but was planned and considered. The graves were dug by the Wehrmacht, according to SS-Obersturmführer August Häfner, who was ordered by Blobel to carry out the executions, although the actual killers were Ukrainian militiamen.

I know of no allied general who wrote something similar to what von Reichenau did. There is no moral equivalence.

The above examples have been taken from Those were the days (ISBN 0-241-12842-0) by Ernest Klee, Willi Dressen and Volker Riess.

As mentioned before, Brit and Yank combatants committed excesses, too,

Yes, however, these numbers pale into insignificance when contrasted to what the Nazis did. It is dishonest and insulting to table that both sides were equally bad.

... it is enough to know that relatively few Axis POWS survived Soviet captivity,

Nonetheless, they were better treated than Soviets captured by the Nazis in the summer of 1941. Given the crimes that were committed by these invaders, the Soviet reaction is rather more understandable.

Waffen SS units could also comply with accepted codes of chivalry, believe it, or not, as during the temporary ceasefire for each side to pick up and tend their wounded with British Red Devils at Arnhem 1944.

This is a well known instance, it can be found on page 420 of Cornelius Ryan's book on Arnhem (SBN 241 89073 x). It misses the point entirely. In Nazi eyes the British were Anglo-Saxons, a Germanic race. Hitler did not want to fight the British Empire. The Nazis behaved far worse on the Ostfront than they did in the West: that is the accusation. In their struggle against the untermenschen there could be no mercy, and none was shown. Nazi propaganda referred to Russians as a 'conglomeration of animals'.

[George Szaszvari]

[George Szaszvari]...The aggrandising or diminishing of individuals did not always affect the validity of these matters

It depends what one means by aggrandisement....

Your own point about high ranking Soviets scoring points, boosting their own importance while diminishing others...
even happens on these forums sometimes ;0)
[Simon Spivack previously wrote],,,The editions of this book, however, changed according to the prevailing political winds
and served as a means of point scoring between Chuikov and other Soviet marshals and generals...

To my way of thinking, it is important to gain a proper measure of someone of Zhukov's significance.

Absolutely.

I presume you mean Victor Kravchenko, he wrote I Chose Freedom. He was a member of the Soviet Purchasing Commission in Washington. He defected in 1944.

Yes, a fascinating insight into Soviet life of the day... the one picture that stuck in mind from Kravchenko's descriptions
was his insider's POV about the panic in Moscow as the Nazis came within a few miles of the capital in 1941. Chilling
stuff!

A slightly better case can be made for Alexander Werth, who was the BBC correspondent in Moscow during the war. Note, though, that his family fled from Russia after the Revolution.


Yes, and if you've read his stuff you'll know his sympathies were still clearly with mother Russia.

Achmed Amba wrote I was Stalin's bodyguard. The title reveals its limitations. One can't expect a serious study of the military situation from such a publication.

Limitations? I recall this tome as one incredible fly on wall picture of the machinations of Kremlin life. He makes a lot
of little references to famous people and events that concerned Stalin, including one MM Botvinnik! The amazing thing
is Amba's final "understanding" of Stalin's need to be ruthlessly strong, in the style of Russia's early czars.

[George Szaszvari]... it is mighty weird that an university course recommends this book today!

Quite! To be fair, the course is not on the military side of Barbarossa, to quote....

I have to make sure this confession of agreement by you is highlighted, since it might well be the only occasion
we are in accord in this thread! ;0)

[George Szaszvari]do you mean Clark had an underlying sympathy for the German cause?

Yes. His views on warrior races (sic) are not exactly unknown. He called one of his dogs 'blondi'. He wrote favourably of Hitler at times.

I just needed to see you say this in your own words ;0)

On the subject of Hitler, Field Marshall Erich von Manstein wrote:
A final point worth mentioning is that Hitler was always harping on his 'soldierly' outlook and loved to recall that he had acquired his experience as a front-line soldier, his character had as little in common with the thoughts and emotions of soldiers as had his party with the Prussian virtues which it was so fond of invoking.New information has come to light as to Hitler's experience as a soldier in the Great War. It is mentioned here.

That German officers had a low opinion of Hitler, especially in military skills, was always pretty well known...

Let us be careful about judging too readily...

There is overwhelming evidence as to what was the true nature of the Nazi state. It can and should be judged as a murderous, vile entity, without reservation and with no saving graces.

Nobody has tried to "justify" Nazism in this thread.

[George Szaszvari]This appreciation of certain attributes of soldiering in WWII extends to the purely military exploits of the Waffen SS, which, by anyone's standards, fought some pretty heroic actions.

[Simon Spivack] Not by my standards.

Then you are not talking about purely military actions. Your emotional hatred for the Nazis is blinding your perspective
in this area. Perhaps understandably.

I hope you are not using the perfectly useless wikipedia article on the Waffen SS as a source. Neo-Nazis and their ilk are very active in seeking to distort the record as given on such web pages. That web page lists atrocities perpetrated in the West, whereas the overwhelming majority of its crimes were committed in the East.

Please, is this supposed to be a serious remark? Didn't I explain how my interest and knowledge in these matters
derives from a time before personal computers, never mind Wikipedia?

Did I not write in the previous post that nothing absolves the Waffen SS of their atrocities? However, that doesn't
blind me to the fact that Waffen SS were "Armed SS", i.e., soldiers, a front line fighting force, as opposed to the
specifically cowardly Einsatzgruppen, camp guards, etc. Volunteers in the Waffen SS were joining a politically elite
fighting force, rather like a Yank or Brit would join an elite force for the greater glory of their empires. That the glory
sought by the Waffen SS was for a repugnant Nazi ideology and it gave Waffen SS troopers a green light to kill and
murder indiscrimiinately, especially in the East, doesn't alter their specifically military mission.

There are infinitely better adjectives than "heroic" when describing the behaviour of the mass murderers of the Waffen SS. A particular SS veteran may not have committed any war crimes, however, he would have been part of a unit that did, except for those formations raised very late in the war.

You are not distinguishing between purely military achievements and excesses outside of combat. There are
many, many examples of Waffen SS (soldiers, remember) heroism in combat. The southern pincer movement
in the 1943 Kursk campaign achieved all its objectives against fantastic odds, only for Hitler to call everything
off when he panicked at the invasion of Sicily. The rearguard action at the Tscherkassy pocket in 1944 was
another...etc.

As Hitler put it, before the invasion of Poland:
I have ordered my Death's Head units to the east with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children of Polish race and language.

Sure, Einsatzgruppen, etc.

[George Szaszvari]we both well know, other special SS units (Einsatzgruppen) sent in behind the front line troops to round up Jews, murder, terrorize, and run camps, were not soldiers as such, although their "duties" might overlap with front line troops as orders or circumstances dictated.

An untruth that is perpetrated by veterans of the Waffen SS is the attempt to gain distance from the Einsatzgruppen.
You have been subjected to too much neo-Nazi propaganda, perhaps from Der Freiwillige, some of it appears to have seeped in. Incidentally, the Totenkopfverbände did participate in the French campaign.

How many murderers supply details of their crimes, or even own up to them?
Any insinuation that the Waffen SS had no involvement with the Einsatzgruppen is a lie.

Nobody is, nor can, claim that. Again, they participated in atrocities, but their primary mission was front line combat.
You've decided that the Waffen SS was the same as Einsatzgruppen, Gestapo, SD, etc. I say that their primary
mission was different, even though Waffen SS committed crimes on behalf of the overall Nazi directive.

Another oft-repeated lie is that those who refused to participate in these murders risked being executed or severely punished.

An auxiliary policemen from Einzatzkommando Stalino testified:
It was made clear to us that we could refuse to obey an order to participate in the Sonderaktion without adverse consequences.
From a member of the Third Squadron Mounted Police, section III, on the executions of Jews in Hrubieszow:
... I was absolutely opposed to this action, ... I did not think that I had to take part in the shooting. However, Meister Kozar found me standing ... ordered me to take part in the execution ... I refused ... I did not experience any disadvantage as a result of refusing to participate in the shooting.
From a member of Third Police battalion 307 on an execution in Brest-Litovsk:
I too was to have been detailed to an execution squad. I received this order either from Leutnant Kayser or from the platoon sergeant, Zugwachtmeister Steffens. I was very disturbed by the site of the execution areas. I therefore refused to take part in the execution. Nothing happened to me as a result of my refusal. No disciplinary measures were taken; there were no court martial proceedings against me because of this.
I have many other such testimonies. As an S-Scharführer and Kriminal-Assistent from Kolomea Grenzpolizeikommissariat General-Gouvernement put it:I carried out orders not because I was afraid I would be punished by death if I didn't. I knew of no case and still know of no case today where one of us was sentenced to death because he did not want to take part ...The sort of punishments I am aware of for refusal to participate in mass murders were in the form of additional guard duties or transfers to other formations. It occasionally influenced promotion prospects.

No problem with this.

[George Szaszvari]Nothing can absolve Waffen SS soldiers of their atrocities in WWII, but as armchair moralizers we need to understand the environment in which they fought.

[Simon Spivack]Not only were Waffen SS formations guilty of major war crimes, but the same was true of the Wehrmacht. Incidentally, many Wehrmacht soldiers attended mass executions, it was a good day out watching men, women and children (many of them babies) being bludgeoned to death with iron bars or killed by other means.

And many didn't, by your own quoted examples of those who refused to participate in such actions, even though
they wore SS insignia...

Take Field Marshall von Reichenau, who was in command of the Wehrmacht's Sixth Army in the Summer of 1941. He wrote the following statement...
Incidentally, ninety were executed. Nearly all of them children under the age of five, a lot aged two, some only a few weeks old.
This is a particularly well documented atrocity. The two chaplains, Tewes and Wilczek wrote formal protests, which resulted in the above response from von Reichenau, he knew that the victims were very young.

Yes, and there many other such examples. Erich von Manstein authored a toxic directive about "misguided" notions
of worrying about the welfare of Jews, etc...

With or without armchairs, I cannot understand how the 'environment' justifies what happened here. This was an atrocity that was not committed in the heat of the moment, but was planned and considered. The graves were dug by the Wehrmacht, according to SS-Obersturmführer August Häfner, who was ordered by Blobel to carry out the executions, although the actual killers were Ukrainian militiamen

It is not about "justification", it is about understanding what makes people do the things they do, and why.
The environment was that Soviets were doing similar arbitrary and organized executions of Axis troops and civilians
known or suspected of having possible sympathy for the enemy, or sometimes, not even sympathy, as Katyn
Wood revealed.

I know of no allied general who wrote something similar to what von Reichenau did. There is no moral equivalence.

Is that not why Churchill said he'd make a pact with the devil himself to defeat Hitler? We had to defeat the Axis at
all costs. There are people today, (I'm not one of them) however, who claim that the following Allied decisions were
unjustified, viz: the bombing campaign against German and Japanese cities to demoralize the people (as opposed to
bombing purely "military" targets); the killing of baled out Axis pilots while in their parachutes; the dropping of the
atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's just for starters, but it's enough...

[George Szaszvari]As mentioned before, Brit and Yank combatants committed excesses, too,

[Simon Spivack] Yes, however, these numbers pale into insignificance when contrasted to what the Nazis did. It is
dishonest and insulting to table that both sides were equally bad.

You've badly misinterpreted what is being implied if you think I've been saying that. I certainly do not equate the
western Allies with the Nazis, and have never suggested such a thing. It is true though, in the stresses of war,
people do monstrous things. Some sides (totalitarian) condone, even promote, such actions, others try to minimize
them.

[George Szaszvari]Waffen SS units could also comply with accepted codes of chivalry, believe it, or not, as during the temporary ceasefire for each side to pick up and tend their wounded with British Red Devils at Arnhem 1944.

[Simon Spivack]This is a well known instance, it can be found on page 420 of Cornelius Ryan's book on Arnhem (SBN 241
89073 x). It misses the point entirely. In Nazi eyes the British were Anglo-Saxons, a Germanic race. Hitler did not want
to fight the British Empire. The Nazis behaved far worse on the Ostfront than they did in the West: that is the accusation.
In their struggle against the untermenschen there could be no mercy, and none was shown. Nazi propaganda referred to
Russians as a 'conglomeration of animals'.

That was just one example, there were others, but, again, I'm not an apologist for Nazi crimes. A British officer-cum-
historian (name escapes me) commented on Peiper's command to execute Yank POWs in the early stages of the Battle
of the Bulge, saying he didn't think the decision of the Waffen SS commander was out of blood lust, but rather a one-off
military decision to dispose of prisoners they couldn't deal with at that time. He said that, I didn't.

Anyway, I believe that we both know where we stand on these issues. It is time for others to contribute to these
discussions one way or the other... I was supposed to have given all this stuff up decades ago!

(PS: this is a slightly edited version to tidy up my first attempt at this posting)

[Simon Spivack]

That German officers had a low opinion of Hitler, especially in military skills, was always pretty well known...

Yes, however, the link given above calls into question assumptions of Hitler's bravery in the Great War. In particular the awarding of his Iron Cross.

Then you are not talking about purely military actions.

I am including things such as the propensity for the Waffen SS to shoot dead French African soldiers taken prisoner in combat, purely because of the colour of their skin. The same treatment was often meted out to Soviets of Asiatic appearance. Their 'whiter' brethren were spared.

However, that doesn't blind me to the fact that Waffen SS were "Armed SS", i.e., soldiers, a front line fighting force, as opposed to the specifically cowardly Einsatzgruppen, camp guards, etc.

Was Theodor Eicke a coward when Inspector General of the Concentration camps, but a hero when in command of Waffen SS division Totenkopf (Death's Head)? Likewise, was Mengele a hero when serving in Waffen SS Division Viking, but a coward when carrying out his medical experiments on children, particularly twins, in Auschwitz?

You've decided that the Waffen SS was the same as Einsatzgruppen, Gestapo, SD, etc. I say that their primary mission was different, even though Waffen SS committed crimes on behalf of the overall Nazi directive.

No. I am stating that morally there is little to choose between the various arms. Many SA members (the Brownshirts) transferred to the SS after the Night of the Long Knives. Likewise, Concentration Camp guards sometimes transferred to the front line. Front line units did participate in mass murder. Waffen SS divisions engaged in anti-partisan operations behind the front lines, 'anti-partisan' being a generous description of what they got up to.

There have been many attempts to downplay the crimes of parts of the Nazi state. Some of it was to do with the Cold War. It is wrong to devote much attention to the military aspects of the Waffen SS: it paints a misleading picture of these murderers.

The environment was that Soviets were doing similar arbitrary and organized executions of Axis troops and civilians ...

Can you provide even one example of the Soviets imprisoning the very young children and babies of hundreds of Germans inside a barn and setting fire to it behind the front lines? There were many such instances of the Nazis doing this to civilians inside Belarus alone. I am not defending Stalin's treatment of those in his thrall, whether it be the Chechens shipped out by Beria and his NKVD criminals or other examples. However, to say the crimes were similar is not true.

as Katyn Wood revealed

I condemn without reservation the murder of the Polish officers in Katyn. I also condemn the Soviet cover-up. Nonetheless, these were not infants or young children.

Anyway, I believe that we both know where we stand on these issues. It is time for others to contribute to these discussions one way or the other...

It is better not to discuss these things at all on these fora. However, I cannot let any suggestion of honour or heroism pertaining to any branch of the Nazi state stand unchallenged. There is the assumption of a nobility of character when calling someone a hero. It is extremely offensive to say that of mass murderers.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Sorry George, but I agree with everything Simon has said on this topic.

There are good, well founded reasons why Nazism is regarded as uniquely evil, you know

[George Szaszvari]

Sorry George, but I agree with everything Simon has said on this topic.

There are good, well founded reasons why Nazism is regarded as uniquely evil, you know

Good grief, I see that none of you have the slightest idea of what was under discussion.

[Ola Winfridsson]

The environment was that Soviets were doing similar arbitrary and organized executions of Axis troops and civilians ...

Can you provide even one example of the Soviets imprisoning the very young children and babies of hundreds of Germans inside a barn and setting fire to it behind the front lines? There were many such instances of the Nazis doing this to civilians inside Belarus alone. I am not defending Stalin's treatment of those in his thrall, whether it be the Chechens shipped out by Beria and his NKVD criminals or other examples. However, to say the crimes were similar is not true.

Considering what happened in the Ukraine in the early 1930s (nothing to do with WWII, I know, but it serves to illustrate my point) with forced starvation and extermination of "kulaks" (i.e. anyone making a living from farming, rather than affluent peasants), and the atrocities committed by the advancing Soviet troops once they reached German soil, I would be very cautios in claiming that one side was better or worse than the other.

I think it's fairly clear that totalitarian systems strips many human beings of their humanity, and bring out their most grisly traits.

[Matt Mackenzie]

The environment was that Soviets were doing similar arbitrary and organized executions of Axis troops and civilians ...

Can you provide even one example of the Soviets imprisoning the very young children and babies of hundreds of Germans inside a barn and setting fire to it behind the front lines? There were many such instances of the Nazis doing this to civilians inside Belarus alone. I am not defending Stalin's treatment of those in his thrall, whether it be the Chechens shipped out by Beria and his NKVD criminals or other examples. However, to say the crimes were similar is not true.

Considering what happened in the Ukraine in the early 1930s (nothing to do with WWII, I know, but it serves to illustrate my point) with forced starvation and extermination of "kulaks" (i.e. anyone making a living from farming, rather than affluent peasants), and the atrocities committed by the advancing Soviet troops once they reached German soil, I would be very cautios in claiming that one side was better or worse than the other.

I think it's fairly clear that totalitarian systems strips many human beings of their humanity, and bring out their most grisly traits.

Agree with all that, Ola.

But it is the calculated, calibrated scientific nature of the Nazi atrocities that makes them unique in human history - well, in my opinion and that of many others (even though Stalin killed even more people that Hitler - then again, he had longer in power to achieve his grisly aims)

And of course, the fact that Nazism occurred in one of the most advanced, cultured nations on Earth. That also helps provide its unique horror

[Simon Spivack]

I was hoping to avoid getting bogged down in this sort of thread. It is far easier just to post erroneously, than look things up. I made a mistake myself, when I wrote that the Waffen SS had predominantly Czech weapons at the start of Barbarossa.

Considering what happened in the Ukraine in the early 1930s (nothing to do with WWII, I know, but it serves to illustrate my point) with forced starvation and extermination of "kulaks" (i.e. anyone making a living from farming, rather than affluent peasants),

This is an intensely political issue in the Ukraine. Former president Viktor Yushchenko tried to have the famine declared a genocide, and any denial of such a crime. There is a good article on it here.

It is not for citation, unfortunately.

... the atrocities committed by the advancing Soviet troops once they reached German soil, ...

It would be more accurate to discuss their behaviour outside Soviet soil. The accusation is that it was not only German women who were brutalised, concentration camp survivors and women of all nationalities suffered in the same way. The main allegation was that up to two million women were raped. It was a source of friction between Tito's partisans and the Soviets. Without wishing to downplay the sufferings of these women, this is a smaller number than were raped by the German Army; and that is to not even mention the huge numbers murdered and otherwise maltreated, the destruction of cultural artefacts and so on.

I would be very cautios in claiming that one side was better or worse than the other.

There was a seminar at Leeds University in June 1991. While the debate has moved on somewhat since then, many of the points raised are still valid. I don't know whether the discussion on The brutalisation of Warfare, Nazi crimes and the Wehrmacht by Klaus-Jürgen Müller is available online. It is far too long to reproduce here. What I shall quote is from the introduction:

The Soviet-German war was hideous beyond all imagining. It was befouled by and drenched in criminality. The German troops who launched the invasion of the Soviet Union were both exhorted and encouraged to act with the maximum cruelty against the Red Army and the civilian population, with the Wehrmacht freed from the accepted constraints of law, ... perhaps the true legacy of Barbarossa is its role in the debate ... over the responsibility and accountability for this monstrous behaviour. The impassioned debate concerns the existence (or the absence) of a crucial difference between the nature of the Nazi and Soviet regimes ... For those who argue for the uniqueness of Nazism and its depravity, there were others who cited the existence of the 'Gulag Archipelago' ...

Much of this debate has been trampled by the so-called Historikerstreit, the great debate of the historians, in Germany. In the former Soviet Union, dissidents ... investigated the relationship between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, concluding in many cases ... that one regime was the moral equivalent of the other... But this perspective had more to do with criticising the Soviet Union than conveying specific historical accuracy. Andrei Sakharov ... at first embraced this argument about the relativism of the two regimes, but on reflection concluded that the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in 1945 was preferable to the triumph of Nazism.

This can be found in Barbarossa, the Axis and the Allies, ISBN 0-7486-0504-5.

To summarise, the Cold War made it useful to demonise the Soviets, to say they were no better. This is not to deny that it was an 'Evil Empire', merely that it was less evil than Hitler's Germany.

... it's fairly clear that totalitarian systems strips many human beings of their humanity, and bring out their most grisly traits.

Agreed.

... even though Stalin killed even more people that Hitler

When this accusation is made, the accusers are normally careful to add the victims of Mao to the total. I invite Matt to substantiate what he has written, or withdraw it. Incidentally, educated mainland Chinese tend to be mortally offended when their country is compared to Nazi Germany.

I'd suggest preventing any further posts on this thread. It is highly emotive and has the potential to become explosive. At least, if anyone wishes to post, they should make some effort to quote sources, preferably not bogus ones. One of the banes of these fora is the tendency to give opinions.

[Ola Winfridsson]

My apologies, Simon! It certainly wasn't my intention to get you bogged down in this discussion. However, I tend to react when comparisons are made between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, two of the most inhuman, inhumane and cruel socities the world has ever seen, because very often such a comparison is "trivialised" (for want of a better word) into some sort of numbers game. Personally, I find such comparisons well nigh meaningless when one considers that one society made people pay for their train tickets to the concentration camps (a particularly cruel trick), while the other branded stamp collectors "internationalists", and thus considered them criminals worthy of a 5-10 year-long spell in Gulag (just to pick a couple of examples of the atrocities that were committed in the name of the state in these two countries).

I'll respectfully withdraw immediately.

[George Szaszvari]

That German officers had a low opinion of Hitler, especially in military skills, was always pretty well known...

Yes, however, the link given above calls into question assumptions of Hitler's bravery in the Great War. In particular the awarding of his Iron Cross.

This is supposed to be news??? Anyone who ever believed anything Hitler ever claimed without having the
gravest suspicions had to be extremely naive, especially post WWII, don't you think?

It is better not to discuss these things at all on these fora. However, I cannot let any suggestion of honour or heroism pertaining to any branch of the Nazi state stand unchallenged. There is the assumption of a nobility of character when calling someone a hero. It is extremely offensive to say that of mass murderers.

Currently, we live in societies that allow free speech (keep a careful watch, tho', since I see many creeping signs that
this is gradually disappearing in the guise of political correctness) so I respect your views and believe that I understand
where you are coming from. I still say your TOTAL rejection of everything associated with German Nazism is a kind of
disqualification of them as human beings, as brainwashed and perverted as they might have been, but still people with
their own foibles and aspirations like most others in the world. Some passively went along with what was happening,
some sought involvement, others went overboard in their zeal. I've known people from all sides of this story and once
had a desire to gain insight into the whys and wherefores of it. When we totally demonize people to the point that
we stop thinking about them as human beings, we become blind. Here is an example for comparison. As mentioned
before on this thread, Japanese crimes exceeded all others of the period in terms of barbarity, if such things are indeed
quantifiable. The average Japanese soldier freely participated in atrocities so vile that names like Vlad the Impaler come
to mind, yet despite that disgusting legacy I have no problem saying that most Japanese soldiers were very brave
and fought HEROICALLY. Their self-sacrifice and aspiration to military and national honor, never mind how perverted
or misguided in our eyes, is without question. Whether one puts that down to mass brainwashing, or whatever, it would
be absurd to claim the fanaticism that drove the Japanese soldier to bravery in purely MILITARY ACTIONS was not heroic.
BTW this has been a personal bone of contention for me most of my life since, when younger, I met some survivors
of Japanese captivity (there were damned few), yet have been fascinated by Oriental culture, especially in their martial
traditions. I have heard that the unpleasant legacy of Japanese excesses in China and WWII has been swept under
the carpet, newer generations of Japanese knowing nothing about any of that unless they actively seek it out from
foreign sources. Now that is scary! There were many heroic actions on ALL sides in that war, as in all wars, so one
needs to be wary of excluding one group from the picture because one is particularly disgusted by their atrocities.

Courtesy of many researchers, witnesses, historians and the likes of the indefatigable Simon Wiesenthal (RIP), Nazi
war crimes are way better publicized and documented than the atrocities of others of the 20th century. There are
also political and socio-economic reasons for this. However, let us not be misled into believing that Soviets under
Stalin's tutelage were not as evil or brutal as the Nazis. There were many millions more victims of Stalin's rule than
Hitler's, even if only because Stalin had more time in power. I've already told you that I cannot make verbatim quotes
or give specific references because I got rid of my library long ago, but all the horror stories of pogroms, rape, murder,
setting fire to houses with families inside, mass deportations, mass executions, arbitrarily "disappearing" hundreds of
thousands of people into prisons on the most ludicrous paranoid suspicions and torturing the most absurd confessions
out of them, in short, a total disregard for human life, and all human dignity and suffering, were all there and just as
rife under Stalin's monstrous rule as it was under Hitler's. Since I don't wanna strain our friendship beyond redemption
so I'm going to sign off from this thread once and for all with the following reminder of what I first wrote on the
Bohatyrchuk thread:

Viz:
"Is any of this important? Only if one is bothered by historical quackery and people of similar ilk,
who deliberately court controversy, like David Irving, chief spokesperson for holocaust denial,
and the infamous Hitler Diaries debacle. Clark, in the 1990s, was an outspoken supporter of
Milosevic and his henchmen, confusing that human flotsam with the possible historical legitimacy
of some Serb nationalist causes that they hijacked to justify the vilest atrocities. My own enthusiasm
for the history, politics and military operations waned as I realized that I had learned all I wanted
to from the horrific details: it was starting to become morbid. It seemed more relevant to understand
what made the people who participated in such events do what they did, so I could apply the lessons
to understanding current life. This is another reason why the Libertarian Constitution of those victors
of the American Revolution is now so important to me."

...and this postscript:
The discussion in this thread could have moved towards reasons and causes in terms of historical continuity, social
factors and human psychology, to help explain some of the horrors so that we could LEARN something useful to apply
in our current lives. A free speech forum such as this gives us a golden opportunity to EXCHANGE IDEAS and information
to look into how such a civilized nation became so perverted by such a toxic creature as Hitler was. We could have
referred to how the draconian reparations and humiliations of a defeated nation (so forcibly demanded by Lloyd George
at Paris 1919) boomeranged. We could have brought up the League of Nations and how those arrogant imperialists
laid the foundation for WWII and planted the seed for totalitarian expansion in both the pre and post WWII Far East.
We could have extrapolated all that into the current UN and how it is moving towards totalitarian World Government
today. We might also have touched on aspects of soldiering and warrior traditions, how former enemies, no matter
how bitter previously, learn from one another. Anyway, keep up the good work Simon, and please know that we are
in basic agreement, the only real difference I see being in our definitions of "heroic".

[Matt Mackenzie]

Simon, I will just say that Stalin killing more than Hitler is a fairly widely accepted thesis these days. I would be interested to see why you think differently

As I also said, this in no way makes Nazism "less bad" - I repeat that in many ways the horror AH unleashed is unparalelled in human history.

I was agreeing with you against George, if anything. But as has been said, this discussion has probably run its natural course

[Alex Holowczak]

As I also said, this in no way makes Nazism "less bad" - I repeat that in many ways the horror AH unleashed is unparalelled in human history.

Given my initials, I'd appreciate it if you used his full name. I just had the fright of my life.

[Andrew Camp]

As I also said, this in no way makes Nazism "less bad" - I repeat that in many ways the horror AH unleashed is unparalelled in human history.

Given my initials, I'd appreciate it if you used his full name. I just had the fright of my life.

It's ok, your moustache is wider.

[Paul McKeown]

When this accusation is made, the accusers are normally careful to add the victims of Mao to the total. I invite Matt to substantiate what he has written, or withdraw it. Incidentally, educated mainland Chinese tend to be mortally offended when their country is compared to Nazi Germany.

Simon,

I don't wish to offend you, you are a friend and I wish that to remain.

However.

The crimes of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were in every regard as grave as those committed by Hitler. The numbers brutalised by the Cheka, sent to the Gulag and early to their graves considerably exceeded those murdered by Hitler and his henchmen. That is the consensus amongst historians these days and any discussion that attempts to deny that is just a waste of so much hot air. To state this fact is in no way an attempt to minimize the horror of the final solution or any of Hitler's war crimes or crimes against humanity. Many serious historians state that Hitler learned his trade by a matter of observation. His methods, his careful bureaucracy of terror, were formed from his observation of the Soviet Union.

Matt Mackenzie, hits the nail on the head, I think, in saying that the unique stain on Nazi Germany was not its brutality, which history records time and again in one place and another, but that this brutality took root in an educated, culturally advanced nation.

As for offending the People's Republic of China, what sort of bloody argument is that? Some historians suggest that the Cultural Revolution alone left more dead than the whole period of Hitler's regime. It is an inescapable historical truth that Mao was history's greatest murderer. It is a mark of a genuinely free society that its people are able to face up to their crimes and those of their parents and grandparents. The Chinese people are a long way short of freedom.

I think the whole argument "my pet autocracy was worse than your pet autocracy" is simply ridiculous.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think the whole argument "my pet autocracy was worse than your pet autocracy" is simply ridiculous.

I agree, but if this is to be discussed, I've always found the Mongol massacres particularly horrendous. Or indeed any of the examples of "slaughtering a whole city to encourage other cities to surrender" approach to war.