Is the Waffen SS a "bad" organisation?

[nonconformist]

I'm not sure if the Waffen SS can be labelled a criminal organisaion as a whole, except for the 3rd SS division Totenkopf which I absolutely despise. I think alot of Waffen SS, especially in say, Berlin, or the final months of "For the Fatherland" were kids shoved in a uniform, given a bike and a Panzerfaust, and told "There is a tank. Attack it".

The Waffen SS also were not the best fighters; they were more fanatical, and willing to fight to the death, though not always, as in normandy, the SS HitleJugend were among the first to surrender. The Waffen S.S were poorly equipped at the start of the war, and were always out-performed by the FallschrimJager.

 

[privatehudson]

I'm not sure if the Waffen SS can be labelled a criminal organisaion as a whole, except for the 3rd SS division Totenkopf which I absolutely despise.

Virtually every last one of the Divsions were involved in some form of organised massacre (as opposed to a spontaneous heat of the moment one) during their history and as I mentioned, virtually all of them were also involved in activities on the Eastern front that brings them down to the level of Totenkopf. Many of the foreign SS joined out of either Nazi ideals or more often anti-communist and anti-russian sentiments. Most of the German formations and especially the Armoured formations served with distinction during the war and rightly deserve the title elite. I'm sure we can all find events were they fought less well, in fact for every unit type. To take the FallschrimJager, in the early stages of the fighting for Berlin the 9th FJ division (IIRC) collapsed into a rout with barely a hint of the elite their other formations showed. My point is that given the situations the Waffen SS often faced, the performances of their lead formations was often elite, or at least as elite as any other unit like the FallschrimJager.

As for their will to fight to the death, it was common belief amongst their ranks that their surrender would not be accepted anyway due to their status. Given what the Russians (amongst others) did to the SS that they captured in the war this theory was not without foundation. Further, comparing the FallschrimJager directly to the Waffen SS lead formations is almost a pointless exercise in itself as the two formations were almost totally different in style, equipment, battlefield use and role.

 

[Case]

As for their will to fight to the death, it was common belief amongst their ranks that their surrender would not be accepted anyway due to their status. Given what the Russians (amongst others) did to the SS that they captured in the war this theory was not without foundation.

More to the point, it was what the SS did to anybody unfortunate enough to be captured by them that caused Allied units facing them to rarely take SS prisoners. The same applied to the Japanese.

As for the question as to whether the SS was a 'bad' organisation, I'd say so. Aside from their appaling record in regards to massacres, etc, they were the armed wing of the Nazi Party and played a critical role in the Nazi Regime's rise to power and ability to remain in power.

 

[privatehudson]

More to the point, it was what the SS did to anybody unfortunate enough to be captured by them that caused Allied units facing them to rarely take SS prisoners. The same applied to the Japanese.

Both of which rely as much on myth than anything else. Whilst it's true that the SS did have a bad reputation, the treatment they handed out was not always that way, for example the initial troops at Arnhem where they treated the British with great respect. A vicious circle that cannot entirely be blamed on the SS. Russian attitudes to captured germans was bad enough (and vice versa), so the wheel turns, but my point is that their reluctance to surrender did not purely stem from their fanaticism to "die for the fuhrer"

 

[tossi]

The 'eliteness' of the Waffen SS is difficult to measure becuase the quality of the Waffen SS units varied massively.

Well said!

On topic: I think that the leaders, including officers etc of the SS were bad (cute...) but the induvial soldiers weren´t. Well not all of them.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Some of the formations weren't really all that different from normal Wehrmacht formations in behaviour. Others were quite simply the scum of the earth and dominated by fanatical mass-murdering war-criminals.

I dont know much of the smaller SS such as the wallon SS division etc. I do know that of the german SS division many of them had different commanders and behaved differently. The Death head was considered the most dangerous and wasteful of the SS. With the highest casualties due to the attitude of the commander. Waffen SS would often look down on certain other (rear) SS formations.

on the other hand
The German SS were often trainned in camps ajacent to the concentration camps, which would provided needed manpower. They were throughly indoctrinated into the nazi mythology, They were responsible for manning the death camps and carried out extermination and exercutions.

 

[Zardnaar]

The "good" SS men- and they did exist were largly the exception to the rule. In general the SS fought harder and better than the regular army units though. I would rate them as elite soldiers (most of them anyway)

 

[nonconformist]

I think a lot of SS of junior ranks were largely innocent, it tended to be more noncommissioned officers, in the mid point of the war; I think later masacres on the Western Front, bar that at Malmedy, were few.

 

[dgfred]

I think a lot of SS of junior ranks were largely innocent, it tended to be more noncommissioned officers, in the mid point of the war; I think later masacres on the Western Front, bar that at Malmedy, were few.

The 2nd SS massacred people all the way to the front during Normandy
invasion . They were frustrated by partisan activity and air attacks
by the allies that were slowing and at some points stopping their movement
to the front.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Yes. Name one organization in human history that is more qualified to represent the abyss of the human mind.

The CDF, part of whom was the Spanish Inquisition.

I would say the Waffen was a bad organisation, in the sense of not treating civilians as non-combatants, ie shooting a wide variety of civilians.

However, I would say certain members of the Waffen SS were exemplery soldiers. Jochen Peiper comes to mind.

Tried for the Malmedy Massacre at the Battle of the Bulge - but was released because his accusers were clearly biased, torturing scum no better than the Waffen SS themselves.

Murdered by French Nazis in the 70's, he's one of my personal heroes. And never a member of the Nazi party.

 

[dgfred]

The CDF, part of whom was the Spanish Inquisition.

I would say the Waffen was a bad organisation, in the sense of not treating civilians as non-combatants, ie shooting a wide variety of civilians.

However, I would say certain members of the Waffen SS were exemplery soldiers. Jochen Peiper comes to mind.

Tried for the Malmedy Massacre at the Battle of the Bulge - but was released because his accusers were clearly biased, torturing scum no better than the Waffen SS themselves.

Murdered by French Nazis in the 70's, he's one of my personal heroes. And never a member of the Nazi party.

Peiper is one of my favorite leaders of WWII also. Excellent commander.

 

[nonconformist]

Jochen Peiper? He has been held responsible for the Malmedy massacre, though I am not sure how involved he was in it.
All I know is hiis house burned down in mysterious circumstances.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Jochen Peiper? He has been held responsible for the Malmedy massacre, though I am not sure how involved he was in it.

He got off at trial, dude. Having your testicles smashed with a bat does suggest tainted evidence.

All I know is hiis house burned down in mysterious circumstances.

Too many people claimed responsibility for it - plus he was warned repeatedly that it was going to happen.

It COULD have been a coincidence - but the circumstancial evidence suggests murder.

 

[nonconformist]

He got off at trial, dude. Having your testicles smashed with a bat does suggest tainted evidence.

sorry, I don't quite understand; are you saying he was tortured? If so, by whom? the Russians?

Anyway, I seem to recall a lot of guilty soldiers getting off-the one who actually ordered the killing, I think got the death sentence, commuted to life, then commuted to about ten years. he may have been released early.

 

[CruddyLeper]

sorry, I don't quite understand; are you saying he was tortured? If so, by whom? the Russians?

Oh no. By the Americans - or more specifically, the interrogators employed by the US forces (NOT members of the US Army) . He wasn't the only one tortured.

The Russki's would have just shot him and moved on.

Anyway, I seem to recall a lot of guilty soldiers getting off-the one who actually ordered the killing, I think got the death sentence, commuted to life, then commuted to about ten years. he may have been released early.

Nope. He did 10 years in prison while the trial was active but he was acquitted, as his position on the day of the massacre was nowhere near Malmedy.

 

[nonconformist]

Oh no. By the Americans - or more specifically, the interrogators employed by the US forces (NOT members of the US Army) . He wasn't the only one tortured.

The U.S tortured them? Has this been proved?

Nope. He did 10 years in prison while the trial was active but he was acquitted, as his position on the day of the massacre was nowhere near Malmedy.

I'm not talking of Peiper, but of the non-commissioned officer who took his pistol, and started shooting into the prisoners, effectively starting the massacre.

 

[CruddyLeper]

The U.S tortured them? Has this been proved?

Kind of a moot point. His defence attorney changed during the trial and the new guy effectively proved the evidence was tainted.

Nobody ever got convicted of torturing Nazi's though. Or non-Nazi's like Peiper.

Remember, standing orders at the end of WW2 was not take SS prisoner, but shoot them. True for all armies.

I'm not talking of Peiper, but of the non-commissioned officer who took his pistol, and started shooting into the prisoners, effectively starting the massacre.

Again, moot point. Only about 20% of Kampfgruppe Peiper surived the war. It is possible that none of the original culprits was even put on trial.

The ones that were on trial could never prove they didn't do it, so naturally they were guilty, especially after they had signed confessions.

Only when it was proved these confessions were obtained by torture did the whole thing collapse.

 

[General Brown]

One of my Uncles (by marriage) was actually in the Waffen SS. When I asked him why he joined he said it was originally because you got better pay than the regular army and the uniform made it easy to get girls. Additionally having grown up in Nazi Germany and after a few years in the Hitler Youth your politics and world-view would tend to be seriously warped. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world as Adolf said himself.

Yes my grandfather also served in the Waffen SS, and for the reasons you mentioned. He said that those days were the proudest in his life, and that the actions of some of the SS should not take away from the loyalty of the others to protect their country.

 

[Zardnaar]

Wittman was another interesting SS member. As far as I know he wasn't responsable for any massacres

 

[rilnator]

Or non-Nazi's like Peiper.

So Peiper was a non- Nazi eh? Sounds interesting. Why then, out of all the units in the Wehrmacht he could have joined did he choose Adolf Hitler's personal body guard?

Also how did he obtain the rank of Colonel in the SS when he was politically unsound?

Peiper may not have ordered the massacre or even known about it 'till afterwards but is there any record that he disciplined the men involved? I think any decent officer concerned about human rights or his own reputation would have.