What benderBrod said. You're reading far too much into the OP.
No I'm not. The OP was clearly surprised that a German soldier (Waffen SS) let the American tanker go. This is part of the myth. Surely a Waffen SS soldier wouldn't do that right? He's German. Waffen SS. They didn't have empathy right? That's how it goes for some people.
Certainly for the west evidence shows that the execution of POWs by Waffen SS was not common practice.
It was way less than not a common practice. It was the norm to
not kill prisoners. Both in the west
AND in the east, otherwise there wouldn't have been those millions and millions of Soviet POWs in camps.
Obviously, Wehrmacht or SS practice re POWs was different in the east.
See above. MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of POWs were taken alive in the east.
But I cannot agree with the above.
Why not? It is a myth that the Waffen SS as a collective (hence why I said 'the Waffen SS')would shoot any POW on sight.
To accept that it is a myth that Waffen SS would shoot POWs on sight one would be logically forced to conclude that Waffen SS did not shoot POWs on sight.
How do you work that out? Read again my post....."There seems to be this myth that the Waffen SS were nothing but robotic fanatics who would shoot any allied POW on sight"
Don't leave out the 'nothing but' part or the 'any' POW on site.
It's disingenuous to chop apart quotes.
It's a proven fact that 'some' Waffen SS did indeed kill 'some' allied POWs on sight and in captivity but the point is that it is a complete myth that 'the Waffen SS' as a collective entity were not 'nothing but robotic fanatics who would shoot any allied POW on sight. The facts are with me.
As usual you are bored and playing word game semantics. It gets tiring.
This is of course wrong - because they did.
Yes they did, but so did allied soldiers as well. Yet you have problems with Fury pointing that out, and constantly go on about it. It certainly wasn't rare for allied soldier to kill German prisoners. Perhaps mass killing like Chenogne was rare but there is plenty of anecdotal eye witness account that allied soldiers did pop off German POWs more than we think.
I would agree if you said that it is a myth that the Waffen SS would always or would often shoot POWs, for example. But you unfortunately didn't say that - you say that it is a myth that they would shoot POWs.
Except I didn't. I clearly said that it was a myth the Waffen SS were "...
nothing but robotic fanatics who
would shoot any allied POW on sight"
Once again, why did you leave out the all important highlighted parts?
Likewise, I cannot agree that it is a myth that Waffen SS ate babies. Simply, it is not a myth. It's something you've made up.
Of course it was. It was intentional facetiousness. Purely intended as such.
Possibly, to suggest that the Waffen SS are unfairly demonised?
The majority
are unfairly demonised as being robotic fanatical sadists who went around committing atrocities here there and everywhere as the norm. You cannot disagree that this is a common perception. There is no evidence that it actually was the case that the majority went around doing such things. In fact we
KNOW that they didn't. It's proven. Many joined the Waffen SS for reasons I have already mentioned, especially after the Waffen SS expanded in size, such as the glamour of being in what was then in 1943/44/45 seen as the most prestigious, pampered and elite panzer forces, or to fight Bolshevism in the east (especially the Dutch, Scandinavians and Belgians here), or were conscripted against their will.
MOST were not fanatical Nazi sadists who wanted to wipe out the Jewish race and revelled in atrocities as the norm.
I don't see how the present relates.
You already started a thread on the Germans of
today and started whining about them. You clearly have issues.
I was right. You have never been there.
reply
share
Lyndhen
9 years ago
No I'm not. The OP was clearly surprised that a German soldier (Waffen SS) let the American tanker go. This is part of the myth. Surely a Waffen SS soldier wouldn't do that right? He's German. Waffen SS. They didn't have empathy right? That's how it goes for some people.
Where does the OP mention Waffen SS? The German soldier has watched scores of his comrades killed by fanatical devils in a tank and yet in spite of all this still has the innocence and empathy that he cannot kill Norm - given the circumstances one would presume that it would have been very understandable to kill Norm. This is incidentally the innocence that Norm has lost.
You and you alone have turned this discussion into how the Waffen SS are unfairly (in your view) criticised or stigmatised.
It was way less than not a common practice.
I've already said it was not common practice in the west. Why are you constantly trying to minimise criticism of the Waffen SS?
See above. MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of POWs were taken alive in the east.
the majority of whom were subsequently murdered.
Why not? It is a myth that the Waffen SS as a collective (hence why I said 'the Waffen SS')would shoot any POW on sight.
No, Buddy. We use 'was' not 'were' with collective nouns. You were not referring to them as a collective when you said ' the Waffen SS
were'.
I left out 'nothing but robotic fanatics' because I agree that there is such a myth. Whether there is truth behind this myth requires nuanced, in depth discussion which is not really possible here - so I let your point stand.
Except I didn't. I clearly said that it was a myth the Waffen SS were "...nothing but robotic fanatics who would shoot any allied POW on sight"
it is a myth the waffen SS were nothing but robotic fanatics - I agree.
it is a myth the waffen SS would shoot any POW - I cannot agree.
it is a complete myth that 'the Waffen SS' as a collective entity were not 'nothing but robotic fanatics who would shoot any allied POW on sight. The facts are with me.
I can now agree with this rewritten statement. It seems reasonable to conclude that the Waffen SS as a collective entity did not shoot any allied POW on sight - as 'a collective entity' they didn't.
Yes they did, but so did allied soldiers as well.
How is this relevant to this discussion about what the Waffen SS did. Further, you are defending SS crimes with a tu quoque fallacy.
Of course it was. It was intentional facetiousness. Purely intended as such.
Prove it then. Where is it a commonly held yet erroneous belief that Waffen SS ate babies? You have made this up. You are exaggerating in order to make the critics of the Waffen SS seem unreasonable and irrational.
You already started a thread on the Germans of today and started whining about them. You clearly have issues.
I said I found the article where 92% of Germans apparently described themselves as victims of the Nazis amusing. I do find this amusing or perhaps 'fascinating' is a better word. I'm very interested in how people tend to look through the lense of the present when they make pronouncements on the past.
eg - the US has the most powerful military now therefore they liberated Europe and rescued Britain in WW2. Germany is a peaceful civilised country now so it is not likely that the average German believed in Hitler then. GIs committed atrocities in Vietnam therefore they committed them in Germany 1945. People in America are illiterate now therefore people in Germany must have been illiterate before WW2 etc etc ad infinitum.
reply
share
Buddy-Love63
9 years ago
Where does the OP mention Waffen SS?
He was German and Waffen SS.
The topic of SS came up before I even posted in this thread. I joined in a discussion that was already referring to the SS and both sides having empathy.
You and you alone have turned this discussion into how the Waffen SS are unfairly (in your view) criticised or stigmatised.
As opposed to you who every time the subject of not all Waffen SS men were complicit in atrocities don't like to hear it even though you agree that it's true.
I'll keep making this point whether you like it or not.
I have never defended the Waffen SS who DID
commit atrocities. Never.
I've already said it was not common practice in the west. Why are you constantly trying to minimise criticism of the Waffen SS?
I like pointing out facts. It was more common for Waffen SS troops to
not shoot allied prisoners, including Soviet.
Why do you not like hearing this? What do you have against facts?
the majority of whom were subsequently murdered.
Not by the Waffen SS troops who took them prisoner they weren't.
You were not referring to them as a collective when you said ' the Waffen SS were'.
Yes I was. I said 'the Waffen SS'. That is a collective term. You need to go back to school if you think otherwise.
I left out 'nothing but robotic fanatics' because I agree that there is such a myth.
So you admit that you actually agree with me but just want to be silly and play pedantic word games because you don't like me and I don't like you? Ok, gotcha.
it is a myth the waffen SS would shoot any POW - I cannot agree.
Good for you to not agree about facts. The vast majority of prisoners the Waffen SS took, they didn't shoot. We know this. So saying the Waffen SS would shoot any POW is not a fact and is actually a myth.
It's like saying the RAF would bomb any German civilian.
you are defending SS crimes with a tu quoque fallacy.
What SS crimes am I defending? Be specific.
I get it. Anyone who says "well actually they weren't all or even mostly like that" means I am defending their crimes?
Next thing you'll be calling me a Nazi because I like Germany and have a German girlfriend. I'm waiting for it.
Prove it then. Where is it a commonly held yet erroneous belief that Waffen SS ate babies? You have made this up.
I already told you I was being facetious. Do you know what that word means? Facetious means.. "not meant to be taken seriously or literally". There you go. You have learned a new word today. Thank me for it.
You are exaggerating in order to make the critics of the Waffen SS seem unreasonable and irrational.
No I was being facetious. Only somebody who is totally lacking in humour and is always ultra serious would fail to get that.
I said I found the article where 92% of Germans apparently described themselves as victims of the Nazis amusing. I do find this amusing or perhaps 'fascinating' is a better word. I'm very interested in how people tend to look through the lense of the present when they make pronouncements on the past.
No you found an article with which you wanted to lambaste present Germans. It's clear you have issues about Germans and not just WW2 era. I'm wondering why you have this prejudice. You still seem to be fighting WW2.
reply
share
Lyndhen
9 years ago
because you don't like me and I don't like you? Ok, gotcha.
I notice that you do use a lot of ad hominem and straw man attacks but as far as I am concerned there is nothing personal in this discussion. I may have called you a fantasist and deluded but this is related to your beliefs rather than any personal attack.
but just want to be silly and play pedantic word games
You have to stand by your words Buddy. See below
Yes I was. I said 'the Waffen SS'. That is a collective term. You need to go back to school if you think otherwise.
A collective noun takes a singular verb. Your use of the words 'the waffen SS
were' suggests either you do not speak English or you were referring to the individuals within the Waffen SS (where 'were' would work).
The claim 'individuals within the Waffen SS would not shoot any POW' is of course absurd
So saying the Waffen SS would shoot any POW is not a fact and is actually a myth.
logic -
1 - The Waffen SS would shoot any POW - False. (you claim)
by negating (adding not) we can arrive at a true statement.
2 - The waffen SS would not shoot any POW - true. (you claim)
hmmm. There's a problem here. statement 2 is not true is it. It's patently absurd, you see. The Waffen SS shot a lot of POWs.
Maybe you are intentionally spinning or you are just ignorant. Either way, as I have suggested, you should be careful with your words.
What SS crimes am I defending? Be specific.
Continuing the theme of logic and here - logical fallacy. It is clear you do not understand tu quoque (you too). What the allies did is utterly irrelevant to our discussion of Waffen SS shooting POWs.
No I was being facetious.
(Actually you said 'it is intentional facetiousness'. I thought you meant that critics of the Waffen SS were being intentionally facetious. )
Eating babies is no laughing matter. No one is accusing the Waffen SS of cannibalism - don't exaggerate.
No you found an article with which you wanted to lambaste present Germans. It's clear you have issues about Germans and not just WW2 era. I'm wondering why you have this prejudice. You still seem to be fighting WW2.
That particular thread is long - you should be able support your accusation with some actual evidence of what I said.
reply
share
richard6
9 years ago
With-in this debate there appears to be some perplexities separating the SS (Schutzstaffel) from a collective organisation into a more detailed distinctive regarding the purpose, conduct and definition of content of the SS. This confusion also appears to be causing discombobulation between posters.
In very basic and brief terms the SS was made up of four main separate sub-groups under the control of the Nazi Party and made up from military and non-military organizations of the Third Reich.
• State administration and security. Otherwise known as the Gestapo and The Reich Security Central Office (RSHA). The RSHA and The gestapo dealt with internal racial matters, foreign espionage and counterintelligence.
• Waffen SS – the armed forces’ of The SS established in 1939 after a victory in Poland and Chezchslovakia. Although initially restricted to four divisions, the Waffen SS eventually fielded more than 20 divisions, putting half a million men under arms and establishing a command and operations structure to rival the Wehrmacht. .
• Killing unit – the notorious Einsatzgruppen which were paramilitary death squads responsible for liquidating whole communities and mass killings constructed into existence after the invasion of The Soviet Union in 1941.
• Totenkopfverbände (Death's-Head Battalions), which was in charge of the death and concentration camps.
Eventhough, making no mistake regarding the generalisations and principles, the bulk of the Einsatzgruppen were drawn from the Waffen-SS,as well as Kapos, local Militia and Gestapo to coordinate mass-murder behind military lines of advance. However, concerning combat formations and front-line military operations (as this film does) The waffen SS elite fighting divisions would have been unlikely on an extensive and expansive scale to have committed war crimes any more numerous compared to other armies, including the armies of the allies. Therefore, as the film “Fury” exhibits it would have been unlikely, or more-so 50/50 that the SS solider would have killed the American in cold-blood or as he did, turn away and leave him to live.
reply
share
Lyndhen
9 years ago
No one is discombobulated - we're both talking about the Waffen SS.
Eventhough, making no mistake regarding the generalisations and principles, the bulk of the Einsatzgruppen were drawn from the Waffen-SS,as well as Kapos, local Militia and Gestapo to coordinate mass-murder behind military lines of advance. However, concerning combat formations and front-line military operations (as this film does) The waffen SS elite fighting divisions would have been unlikely on an extensive and expansive scale to have committed war crimes any more numerous compared to other armies, including the armies of the allies. Therefore, as the film “Fury” exhibits it would have been unlikely, or more-so 50/50 that the SS solider would have killed the American in cold-blood or as he did, turn away and leave him to live.
This doesn't make sense. First you say the Waffen SS were committing atrocities as part of the Einsatgruppen and then you say that the Waffen SS were as unlikely to commit crimes as other armies - including allies.
Don't recall allied armies (except soviets) carrying out atrocities anything like the Einsatz.
reply
share
Koosh_King01
8 years ago
This doesn't make sense. First you say the Waffen SS were committing atrocities as part of the Einsatgruppen and then you say that the Waffen SS were as unlikely to commit crimes as other armies - including allies.
He meant Waffen-SS in the Einsatzgruppen vs. Waffen-SS not in the Einsatzgruppen. Them being in the Einsatzgruppen or not is clearly the defining factor of whether they're more or less likely to commit atrocities.
I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?
reply
share
nickm2
8 years ago
You'd think the leadership's 'higher levels of fanaticism' would make them more merciless towards 'The Enemy' & 'perceived traitors'. Of course I think most of the officers got a facefull of H/E or W/P.
In any case, most Western Allied units who tangled with Major Waffen SS units (like the 1st SS panzer corps in Normandy or the Ardennes) usually ended up adopting the practice of shooting anybody they caught 'wearing the runes'.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
reply
share