Nazi Doctor "Honored"

[K. A. Pital]

I dont' understand where the fuck this whole 'conscripted' stuff comes from.

The evidence has shown, not only that the SS was an organization of volunteers but that applicants had to meet the strictest standards of selection. It was not easy to become an SS member. That was true of all branches of the SS. During the course of the war, as the demands for manpower increased and the losses of the Waffen SS grew heavier and heavier, there were occasions when men drafted for compulsory military service were assigned to units of the Waffen SS rather than to the Wehrmacht. Those instances were relatively few. Evidence of recruiting standards of the Waffen SS in 1943 has shown that membership in that branch was as essentially voluntary and highly selective as in other branches. The fact that some individuals may have been arbi-trarily assigned to some Waffen SS unit has no bearing on the issue before the tribunal, which is this, whether the SS was or was not an unlawful organization. Doubtless some of the members of the SS, or of other of the organizations alleged to be unlawful, might desire to show that their participation in the organization was small or innocuous, that compelling reasons drove them to apply for membership, that they were not fully conscious of its aims, or that they were mentally irresponsible when they became members. Such facts might or might not be relevant if they were on trial. But in any event this is not the forum to try out such matters.

[Mange]

Which invalidates the argument with regards to Sea Skimmer's statement that everyone should have been killed how exactly?

The SS was a war criminal organization whose purposes was to do the Party's work. If you volunteered for it You knew damn well what you were getting into (kill all Jews/Slavs/Homos).

There were exceptions. A young devout Catholic, Kurt Gerstein, who had several times been arrested for distributing anti-nationalsocialist leaflets, joined the SS in 1942 in order to expose the crimes being committed. He became in charge of

In August 1942, Gerstein made contact with a Swedish diplomat, Göran von Otter, on a train and told the diplomat that he had witnessed the killings of 10,000 people the day before and that the killings were officially sanctioned through the Wannsee conference. When von Otter reported this to the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, he was told to forget about it. von Otter continued despite this to keep contact with Gerstein (who also was in indirect contact with the Allies who rejected his claims as propaganda and with the Vatican). After the war Gerstein, who was treated as a war criminal, wrote a detailed report and finally committed suicide in French custody.

Of course, this is a rather extreme example, but nevertheless, an example.

[Big Phil]

Which invalidates the argument with regards to Sea Skimmer's statement that everyone should have been killed how exactly?

The SS was a war criminal organization whose purposes was to do the Party's work. If you volunteered for it You knew damn well what you were getting into (kill all Jews/Slavs/Homos).

There were exceptions. A young devout Catholic, Kurt Gerstein, who had several times been arrested for distributing anti-nationalsocialist leaflets, joined the SS in 1942 in order to expose the crimes being committed. He became in charge of

In August 1942, Gerstein made contact with a Swedish diplomat, Göran von Otter, on a train and told the diplomat that he had witnessed the killings of 10,000 people the day before and that the killings were officially sanctioned through the Wannsee conference. When von Otter reported this to the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, he was told to forget about it. von Otter continued despite this to keep contact with Gerstein (who also was in indirect contact with the Allies who rejected his claims as propaganda and with the Vatican). After the war Gerstein, who was treated as a war criminal, wrote a detailed report and finally committed suicide in French custody.

Of course, this is a rather extreme example, but nevertheless, an example.

You don't judge a group by its one or two exceptions, you judge it based on its stated goals and observed behaviors. In any case, your one or two examples do nothing to invalidate the argument that the majority of SS members should have been charged as war criminals.

[Imperial Overlord]

You don't judge a group by its one or two exceptions, you judge it based on its stated goals and observed behaviors. In any case, your one or two examples do nothing to invalidate the argument that the majority of SS members should have been charged as war criminals.

No one is denying that the majority of them should have been charged as war criminals. The question is whether or not the entirety of them should have been charged, in which case the exceptions ranging from men of conscience to men who were put under immense pressure to "volunteer" to sixteen year old boys drafted in '45 do matter.

But the doctor in question should only be awarded the choice between a rope and a firing squad.

[Mange]

The SS was a war criminal organization whose purposes was to do the Party's work. If you volunteered for it You knew damn well what you were getting into (kill all Jews/Slavs/Homos).

There were exceptions. A young devout Catholic, Kurt Gerstein, who had several times been arrested for distributing anti-nationalsocialist leaflets, joined the SS in 1942 in order to expose the crimes being committed. He became in charge of

In August 1942, Gerstein made contact with a Swedish diplomat, Göran von Otter, on a train and told the diplomat that he had witnessed the killings of 10,000 people the day before and that the killings were officially sanctioned through the Wannsee conference. When von Otter reported this to the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, he was told to forget about it. von Otter continued despite this to keep contact with Gerstein (who also was in indirect contact with the Allies who rejected his claims as propaganda and with the Vatican). After the war Gerstein, who was treated as a war criminal, wrote a detailed report and finally committed suicide in French custody.

Of course, this is a rather extreme example, but nevertheless, an example.

You don't judge a group by its one or two exceptions, you judge it based on its stated goals and observed behaviors. In any case, your one or two examples do nothing to invalidate the argument that the majority of SS members should have been charged as war criminals.

Of course not. The keyword was "volunteered" and quite a few of the Waffen SS members were draftees. The organizations were criminals, but were automatically all members guilty of war crimes? Were all SS doctors guilty of war crimes? Apparently not since at least one SS doctor was acquitted and thereafter continued to practice medicine.

[Big Phil]

You don't judge a group by its one or two exceptions, you judge it based on its stated goals and observed behaviors. In any case, your one or two examples do nothing to invalidate the argument that the majority of SS members should have been charged as war criminals.

No one is denying that the majority of them should have been charged as war criminals. The question is whether or not the entirety of them should have been charged, in which case the exceptions ranging from men of conscience to men who were put under immense pressure to "volunteer" to sixteen year old boys drafted in '45 do matter.

But the doctor in question should only be awarded the choice between a rope and a firing squad.

I'm not arguing pro or con charging the SS as war criminals in their entirety; I don't know enough about the subject to offer an educated opinion. I'm simply saying that Mange's "exceptions" are irrelevant to the issue of how much the volunteers knew about the SS. His example of someone joining specifically to expose their crimes suggests that most, if not all, SS members knew exactly what they were getting into, and in the overwhelming majority of cases joined enthusiastically.

[Kanastrous]

Hasn't he redeemed himself?

No.

He can't.

[General Zod]

No one is denying that the majority of them should have been charged as war criminals. The question is whether or not the entirety of them should have been charged, in which case the exceptions ranging from men of conscience to men who were put under immense pressure to "volunteer" to sixteen year old boys drafted in '45 do matter.

But the doctor in question should only be awarded the choice between a rope and a firing squad.

Does it really matter whether they were pressured to join? If they willfully helped commit atrocities after they joined or did anything other than try to leave service they should be charged, regardless of any changes of heart afterward. The question of whether or not all of them should be charged is completely asinine and irrelevant since there were acquittals at Nuremberg. But those were generally exceptions since the vast majority on trial were sentenced to either hang or get life in prison.

[Mange]

You don't judge a group by its one or two exceptions, you judge it based on its stated goals and observed behaviors. In any case, your one or two examples do nothing to invalidate the argument that the majority of SS members should have been charged as war criminals.

No one is denying that the majority of them should have been charged as war criminals. The question is whether or not the entirety of them should have been charged, in which case the exceptions ranging from men of conscience to men who were put under immense pressure to "volunteer" to sixteen year old boys drafted in '45 do matter.

But the doctor in question should only be awarded the choice between a rope and a firing squad.

I'm not arguing pro or con charging the SS as war criminals in their entirety; I don't know enough about the subject to offer an educated opinion. I'm simply saying that Mange's "exceptions" are irrelevant to the issue of how much the volunteers knew about the SS. His example of someone joining specifically to expose their crimes suggests that most, if not all, SS members knew exactly what they were getting into, and in the overwhelming majority of cases joined enthusiastically.

Of course most "joined enthusiastically" and the SS/Waffen SS is the most criminal organization in the existence of humanity.

[Imperial Overlord]

Does it really matter whether they were pressured to join? If they willfully helped commit atrocities after they joined or did anything other than try to leave service they should be charged, regardless of any changes of heart afterward. The question of whether or not all of them should be charged is completely asinine and irrelevant since there were acquittals at Nuremberg. But those were generally exceptions since the vast majority on trial were sentenced to either hang or get life in prison.

If they're being charged for membership in the organization, yes it does matter if they were pressured or drafted. If they're charged with specific crimes then it doesn't matter if they were SS, Red Army, or Salvation Army. If they committed atrocities then they should be tried and convicted.

[General Zod]

If they're being charged for membership in the organization, yes it does matter if they were pressured or drafted. If they're charged with specific crimes then it doesn't matter if they were SS, Red Army, or Salvation Army. If they committed atrocities then they should be tried and convicted.

Look up the term "criminal accessory". The fact that they did anything but help fight against the SS when they joined means they're responsible to some degree for what the SS did, regardless of whether they committed the acts themselves or just sat and watched them happen. Just because they might not get the maximum possible sentence doesn't mean they shouldn't be tried for being in the SS.

[Imperial Overlord]

Look up the term "criminal accessory". The fact that they did anything but help fight against the SS when they joined means they're responsible to some degree for what the SS did, regardless of whether they committed the acts themselves or just sat and watched them happen. Just because they might not get the maximum possible sentence doesn't mean they shouldn't be tried for being in the SS.

Most legal systems also take being coerced into account and being forced into the SS is coercion. If they were sixteen year olds drafted to defend Berlin, no I don't think they should be tried for being SS members. On the other hand, I don't think being drafted is an excuse if they were involved (even indirectly as accessories) in say murdering prisoners or being death camp guards. But that means establishing that they participated in a crime.

[General Zod]

Most legal systems also take being coerced into account and being forced into the SS is coercion. If they were sixteen year olds drafted to defend Berlin, no I don't think they should be tried for being SS members. On the other hand, I don't think being drafted is an excuse if they were involved (even indirectly as accessories) in say murdering prisoners or being death camp guards. But that means establishing that they participated in a crime.

Except the SS did not draft with the rarest exceptions. They were considered an elite unit within the Nazi system, responsible for enforcing Hitler's racial policies which included departments responsible for keeping racial records on German citizens. Do you really think they'd be doing something so menial as defending the city when the regular German army would suffice?

[Imperial Overlord]

Except the SS did not draft with the rarest exceptions. They were considered an elite unit within the Nazi system, responsible for enforcing Hitler's racial policies which included departments responsible for keeping racial records on German citizens. Do you really think they'd be doing something so menial as defending the city when the regular German army would suffice?

They did draft at the end of the war, when they were a lot less concerned about their elite status and much more concerned about getting enough bodies.. And what the fuck was menial about defending Berlin in '45? That was the end of the war when they were taking everyone they could get their hands on, including kids.

I have no objection with labeling the SS as a criminal organization. It was. It committed war crimes and most of its members were scum. Complete agreement. But not all of them were and not all of its members were there voluntarily. Justice means taking those considerations into account, as well as giving the majority of them who were bastards what they deserved.

[General Zod]

I have no objection with labeling the SS as a criminal organization. It was. It committed war crimes and most of its members were scum. Complete agreement. But not all of them were and not all of its members were there voluntarily. Justice means taking those considerations into account, as well as giving the majority of them who were bastards what they deserved.

So what? Justice also means putting people on trial to determine guilt. Not just letting them go because they say they didn't do anything. Or do you think "being tried" and "being charged" somehow translates directly into "be found guilty"?

[Imperial Overlord]

So what? Justice also means putting people on trial to determine guilt. Not just letting them go because they say they didn't do anything. Or do you think "being tried" and "being charged" somehow translates directly into "be found guilty"?

No, but usually there is substantial evidence of guilt before someone is put on trial. Some actual evidence of guilt whether its witnesses, forensic evidence, service in a unit known to have committed atrocities, etcetera, etcetera works just fine for me.

[Darth Wong]

They did draft at the end of the war, when they were a lot less concerned about their elite status and much more concerned about getting enough bodies.. And what the fuck was menial about defending Berlin in '45? That was the end of the war when they were taking everyone they could get their hands on, including kids.

Obviously, everything broke down at the end of the war. It wouldn't exactly be a complex procedure to set a cut-off before that sort of thing started happening.

[General Zod]

No, but usually there is substantial evidence of guilt before someone is put on trial. Some actual evidence of guilt whether its witnesses, forensic evidence, service in a unit known to have committed atrocities, etcetera, etcetera works just fine for me.

Guess what the SS was known to have committed? Oh yeah, atrocities. So whether you like to admit it or not membership is sufficient enough reason to put them on trial. The fact that there were members on the fucking Nuremberg trial who were acquitted makes all your bellyaching over putting members on trial laughable.

[Imperial Overlord]

Obviously, everything broke down at the end of the war. It wouldn't exactly be a complex procedure to set a cut-off before that sort of thing started happening.

Agreed.

[Warsie]

It was fine for Nuremberg.

Weren't there some people who complained that Nuremburg was one-sided and biased?

[General Zod]

It was fine for Nuremberg.

Weren't there some people who complained that Nuremburg was one-sided and biased?

Do you have actual examples, or should I just assume you're pulling shit out of your ass? The fact that some of the people on trial were acquitted hardly speaks in favor of bias.

[Warsie]

Also, I am interesting in the logic in why many of you want to kill him (and all the SS members). Yes, I'm aware of all the Nazis' reported plans, Generalplan Ost, etc. Can you explain that to me why everyone wanted to kill all the Nazis? The logic behind it, etc. I am just interested in your answers.

[Warsie]

Do you have actual examples, or should I just assume you're pulling shit out of your ass? The fact that some of the people on trial were acquitted hardly speaks in favor of bias.

I was asking a question.

[General Zod]

I was asking a question.

How about you do your own research? It's not that difficult instead of asking something so asinine. The simple fact is there's always going to be assclowns who say trials for war criminals are biased and one-sided.

[Warsie]

How about you do your own research? It's not that difficult instead of asking something so asinine. The simple fact is there's always going to be assclowns who say trials for war criminals are biased and one-sided.

I did do some research, I was asking others on their opinions and if they had other info.