Thread: How large was America's role in WW1 and WW2?

Originally Posted by Sulayman

Well, that's a start.

For what :

Originally Posted by Stapo

That's not a start, it's the general accepted position!

Voland and I might disagree what exactly has/can be considered misconduct back then and what e.g. have been simplely following of the rules of engagement, but when it down to it "crimes" have to be akknowledged and persecuted.

Well, I just have to walk down the street ( in downtown Luxembourg) a little to pass by a memorial to luxembourgish civilians executed in "revenge" measures for partisan warfare in 1944 and my luxembourgish grandparents were camp detainees in Germany from 1942-1945 which should make me unsuspicious of beeing a Nazi apologist. ( In the eyes of some posters here)
But there is also a german side in my family and therefore I know with certainty that many served with dignity and managed to keep their honour under probably the most difficult of times.
It is very easy and convenient to judge over people who lived in the wrong country at the wrong time and were faced with decisions that luckily noone of us will likely ever to make, like some are doing here.

Originally Posted by Sulayman

I've studied the American Civil War rather intensely for thirty years but I didn't know that the South was fighting for something far larger than slavery. Don't know how I could have missed that. Perhaps you can tell me what it is?

well ostensibly it was states rights. of course what most people miss about that is that the right in contention was the right to own slaves......

Originally Posted by Voland

For what :

To coming around to the position that the average German soldier was a willing accomplice and co-conspirator in the crimes of the regime. Does that mean every soldier killed a Jew or burned a Ukranian house? No but they energetically served the regime that made such things possible right up to the last days. Germans don't want to acknowledge this but it's now the historical concensus.

I recommend you read Christopher Browning's book, Ordinary Men.

Originally Posted by Sulayman

To coming around to the position that the average German soldier was a willing accomplice and co-conspirator in the crimes of the regime. Does that mean every soldier killed a Jew or burned a Ukranian house? No but they energetically served the regime that made such things possible right up to the last days. Germans don't want to acknowledge this but it's now the historical concensus.

A concensus has hardly been reached. While it is acknowledged that that Heer members took part in crimes against humanity, to declare every member of the Heer (or Wehrmacht at large) 'guilty' for simply wearing the uniform goes too far and is not in keeping with what has been published. Indeed, the very notion goes against every tennant of western justice and is a mockery of justice. To agree with such reasoning reeks of collective guilt and is, logically, indefensible.

We will have to agree to disagree on this question, Thorhammer, but I found the discussion very interesting.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

A concensus has hardly been reached. While it is acknowledged that that Heer members took part in crimes against humanity, to declare every member of the Heer (or Wehrmacht at large) 'guilty' for simply wearing the uniform goes too far and is not in keeping with what has been published. Indeed, the very notion goes against every tennant of western justice and is a mockery of justice. To agree with such reasoning reeks of collective guilt and is, logically, indefensible.

Indeed. Sulay takes it a bit far. If a soldier didn't commit a warcrime, personally, then he's not guilty of anything but being duped by an overly charismatic leader or not wanting to get popped by the gestapo for refusing to join up, or join an allied prisoner of war camp.

They may be nazi troops, but like i said that doesn't mean they were all waffen ss.

Originally Posted by reality

They may be nazi troops, but like i said that doesn't mean they were all waffen ss.

I would include the average soldier in the combat formations of the Waffen-SS in the same boat as the average Heer soldier, and not label them as criminals simply for wearing the uniform.

Originally Posted by Sulayman

We will have to agree to disagree on this question, Thorhammer, but I found the discussion very interesting.

Fair enough. I found it very interesting as well. It isn't often this sort of discussion pops up on this forum.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I would include the average soldier in the combat formations of the Waffen-SS in the same boat as the average Heer soldier, and not label them as criminals simply for wearing the uniform.

weren't all ss nazi party members? it has been my understanding that the SS was used to carry out the atrocities that the Nazi's didn't really want the rest of the wehrmacht to know about. they guarded the camps, rounded people up, guarded the rail cars, in addition to fighting the allies.

being SS would surely be grounds for scrutiny at least.

Originally Posted by reality

Indeed. Sulay takes it a bit far. If a soldier didn't commit a warcrime, personally, then he's not guilty of anything but being duped by an overly charismatic leader or not wanting to get popped by the gestapo for refusing to join up, or join an allied prisoner of war camp.

They may be nazi troops, but like i said that doesn't mean they were all waffen ss.

You mistake my moral position for a legal situation, reality. No one is saying or has said that all soldiers should be tried because one of them broke the rules of land warfare. I was speaking from a moral point of view. I thought that was obvious from my first post in this string when I said that the German Army no longer belonged to the German People after it took the oathe of allegiance to Hitler and accepted no apparent hesitation his murder of General v. Schleicher, one of their own.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Fair enough. I found it very interesting as well. It isn't often this sort of discussion pops up on this forum.

This question has long been an interest of mine. Indeed when I first came to consider the question from a mature point of view I started from where you are today.

Originally Posted by reality

weren't all ss nazi party members?

No, they were not. Membership in the Waffen-SS (for example) did not require party membership. Indeed one of the most notorious members of the Waffen-SS, Joachim Peiper, was apparently never a member.

Originally Posted by reality

it has been my understanding that the SS was used to carry out the atrocities that the Nazi's didn't really want the rest of the wehrmacht to know about. they guarded the camps, rounded people up, guarded the rail cars, in addition to fighting the allies.

The SS was responsible for carryinng out the final solution, for example. However the Waffen-SS (at least the combat formations) in many cases was a different beast. The vast majority of its members never saw a KZ (camp). The SS consisted of many 'branches' that acted independently of eachother. The Waffen-SS was but one of these branches.

This, of course, could be its own thread.