panzerace.net

This article is based on a paper written by myself in the spring of 1994, which was submitted as my third-year dissertation while at University. While I have made a small number of superficial alterations to the text, the work is essentially no different from that which was originally submitted. At present there are no illustrations.

Introduction: The Legacy of the Waffen-SS and the "Bitburg Mentality"

"Rarely has an army had to pay such a high price for defeat as the Waffen-SS"

Statement taken from a journal of the HIAG (Hilfsgemeinschaft auf Gegenseitigkeit) - the Waffen-SS old comrades' mutual aid organisation.^[1]

I have always had a strong interest in all things military, and in particular the élite formations. In studying the German military of the Second World War, one group of men immediately attracted my attention: the Waffen, or Armed, SS, an élite force, the forerunner of today's special forces, both in technique and style. I however soon learned that the Waffen-SS, as being part of the greater SS empire, had been classified by the 1946 Nürnberg Tribunal^[2] as being a criminal organisation, and thus was (and still is, although more objective accounts are more frequent today- Bruce Quarrie was the first to really break the ice and shed the veil with his Hitler's Samurai) denied a proper place in the annals of contemporary military history. This quickly thought-out verdict was unfair in that it was something of a sweeping judgement, and that the Waffen-SS was conveniently thrown in the same basket as the mass-murderers and bureaucrats. In the words of Bruce Quarrie,

"The whole of the SS, from richly-deserving butchers like Eichmann to the 14-year-old members of the Hitler Youth who fought with desperation beyond their years in the bloodbath that was Berlin in 1945, was tarred with the same brush. Guilty until proven innocent".^[3]

Thus we had the problem of the lack of differentiation, which was created by the Nürnberg indictment. As the Waffen-SS was treated no differently to the SD^[4] butchers and the Gestapo^[5] by the Tribunal, it logically followed that they would be seen by the majority of the public at large as being no different. In that it was completely unjustifiable to even attempt to defend the activities of the SD or the Gestapo, it thus followed that the Waffen-SS, and anyone who aimed to present an objective view regarding their role, would similarly receive a short shrift.

The fact remains that due to the highly controversial and sensitive nature of the subject, the vast majority of sentiments expressed with regard to it are subjective, and which on the whole tend to be based on both an emotional reaction (in many cases justified) towards the clearly repellent nature of the Nazi régime itself, as well as, on the other hand, a pre-programmed bias which is the product of fifty years of, dare I say it, propaganda and indoctrination. Although the producers of such material may have set out with good intentions, in that we should not forget the past, a sentiment that I myself am completely in agreement with, it has assisted in the creation of some popular generalisations and misconceptions.

It is rather unfortunate that these generalisations - motivated by little more than small-minded prejudice - mask the fact that the majority of those who joined the SS organisation were not to know of what fate would befall them and those who would cross their paths in the dark years that were to follow; to simply cast them aside as criminals is as much an insult to ones own intelligence as it is to the many brave men who perished wearing the colours of the Waffen-SS. Many of those who joined had been members of a lost generation, young men in a Germany that had been subjected to systematic humiliation by the Allied powers. The National Socialist regime and all of its paraphernalia appeared to offer a beacon of hope, a bright future when all else had seemed lost. The fact that these men blindly followed Hitler in search of a something better is hardly worthy of condemnation, yet this is the simplistic approach that is taken by the majority of orthodox commentators today. More significantly, this was also the path taken by those who had presided over the 'trial' of the SS organisation at Nürnberg in 1946.

The Nürnberg Folly

Both the Nürnberg and Tokyo Tribunals were allegedly designed to set new standards in International Law; this has not proved to be the case. While the Germans and Japanese were charged with waging an "aggressive war", and "crimes against humanity", numerous nations since the war have acted in a similar fashion, sometimes in full view of the rest of the world, and have got away with it. In itself, the term "aggressive war" is ambiguous, if not pernicious; no winning side would ever charge itself with such an offence. What one sees as being "aggression" and "crimes against humanity" is purely subjective and even ideological; for instance, while the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War and Blitz of 1940 were propagandised as being typical of criminal Nazi terror tactics, the fire-bombing of Dresden and the dropping of Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are seen as "strategic moves which helped to bring a swifter end to the war". The role of ideology in interpreting the Nürnberg Doctrines is illustrated by this post-war example provided by Eugene Davidson:

"An illuminating example may be seen in Soviet Russia's denunciation of Israel's alleged aggression in 1967, her demand that Israel accept a cease-fire and withdraw from Egyptian territory she had occupied, and the opposite position Russia took in 1971 when India invaded East Pakistan. In December 1971 the Soviet Union vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire and withdrawal of Indian troops from East Pakistan until India, like Israel before her, had occupied the territory she had set out to conquer. What was aggression for Israel was legitimate defence for India".^[6]

Davidson succinctly displays the folly of the charge of "aggressive warfare", by examining the charge brought against Grossadmiral Karl Dönitz:

"An illumination example may be seen in Soviet Russia's denunciation of Israel's alleged aggression in 1967, her demand that Israel accept a cease-fire and withdraw from Egyptian territory she had occupied, and the opposite position Russia took in 1971 when India invaded East Pakistan. In December 1971 the Soviet Union vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire and withdrawal of Indian troops from East Pakistan until India, like Israel before her, had occupied the territory she had set out to conquer. What was aggression for Israel was legitimate defense for India".^[7]

While the Nürnberg Doctrines have failed generally, they are still effective as they were in 1946 in dealing with former Nazis; thus, we have an curious paradox: while MPs and Congressmen are clamouring for the extradition from Germany of Wilhelm Mohnke,^[8] William Calley, the architect of the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War (which incidentally, was committed with a particularly sadistic brutality) is living comfortably as the proprietor of a garage business.

The position of the Waffen-SS in this somewhat distorted picture can best be described by George H. Stein, where many historians and writers

"...generally [refuse] to recognize any differences between the Waffen SS and its parent organization. Hence their publications, ostensibly directed against a rehabilitation of the Waffen SS, contain much shocking evidence attesting to the crimes committed by Himmler's SS organization but little relating to the criminal activities of the Waffen SS".^[9]

The Bitburg Affair

The furious debate over the infamous Bitburg Affair was the product of such popular misconceptions. The incident concerned the planned visit of former United States president Ronald Reagan, as part of the fortieth anniversary of VE-day commemoration in 1985, to the war cemetery in the North-western town of Bitburg. The invitation had been officially extended to Reagan by Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of what was then West Germany. Little did Chancellor Kohl's officials know that in extending this invitation they were opening Pandora's box; as soon as official news of the invitation came out, there was a furious response from many quarters, especially in the United States. Reagan was urged to refuse to visit the cemetery. The reaction concerned the presence of the graves of forty-nine young Waffen-SS soldiers at the cemetery. Although it could be argued that the motives behind the reaction were clearly justified, it was also clear that they were seriously misplaced and clearly out of context. Charles S. Maier writes:

"The visit was intended as a ritual of reconciliation; it ended as catharsis manqué".^[10]

Bitburg created two debates, the first being the sensitive issue of German war guilt, and the second, that of the role of the Waffen-SS.

The reaction to Bitburg, what can be called the "Bitburg Mentality", could best be summed up by examining the paranoid rantings of the Jewish Sociologist-Historian Jill Seidel:

"Members of Hitler's elite troops, most of them very young, had been buried alongside their victims. This amounted to a diplomatic gaffe with very particular resonances. It was a momentous affront to the victims of Nazi oppression..."^[11]

Despite the vociferous reaction from the likes of Seidel and a number of - for the most part Jewish - organisations, Reagan decided to go ahead with the visit. Of this, Seidel said:

"The decision was an act of 'moral blindness'. Reagan's 'historic mistake' in visiting the Bitburg was cemetery was 'to equate murderers with their victims".^[12]

Firstly, Gill Seidel's concoction of emotional quotations is grossly inaccurate. In reality, the Waffen-SS men buried at Bitburg were not "murderers" at all but, as Seidel herself admits, young soldiers. They were just as much victims of the war (although by admission clearly not in the same way) as the many civilians whose graves were also at Bitburg. The connections made with the Holocaust by writers such as Seidel were clearly out of context. It was not as though Herr Kohl had invited Reagan to visit the Führerbunker or the like; the Waffen-SS men buried at Bitburg were soldiers who had fallen in battle, who had nothing to do with the other sections of the SS who were responsible for the Holocaust:

"The Bitburg dead are Waffen SS whose widows, for example, would be entitled to state pensions whereas other SS widows would not".^[13]

The fact is that the indisputable truth and the enormity of the Holocaust has been often unfairly used to divert attention away from debate over other aspects of the war and more so away from an objective account of the role played by the Waffen-SS. The debate of whether or not the Waffen-SS should be recognised as a legitimate military organisation has positively nothing to do with defaming the Holocaust or its survivors. In the words of Kurt Meyer, former Panzer commander and spokesman for the HIAG:

"In the interests of historical truth nothing must be glossed over. Things happened during the war that are unworthy of the German nation. The former soldiers of the Waffen-SS are men enough to recognize and deplore actual cases of inhuman behaviour. It would be foolish to label all the charges laid at our doorstep as the propaganda of our former enemies. Of course they made propaganda out of it... But crimes were committed. It is useless to argue about the toll of victims- the facts are burdensome enough".^[14]

The aim of this paper is to be frank, but fair. Such is the sensitive nature of this debate, which some may even consider to be offensive. It would, however, in my humble opinion, constitute a monumental foolishness to place oneself on the fence for fear of causing potential offence. Having said this, it is clearly not my aim to offend. The fact is that there needs to be an objective reappraisal of the role of the Waffen-SS during the Second World War, as well as how they, as the first real organised military élite, set the standards for many of today's élite and special forces. In the words of Bruce Quarrie,

"To many people, even today, no Waffen-SS accomplishment can be classed as 'good', but this is a biased emotional reaction which denies the Waffen-SS the same military recognition awarded to, say, the Israeli Defence Forces, or even the British troops involved in the Falklands operations. It is also a reaction which denies the effect many aspects of Waffen-SS training and uniform have had on all post-war armies..."^[15]

The central aim of this paper is to not only show that the Waffen-SS was a proven fighting unit in its own right, but that they were harshly and wrongfully treated in being lumped together with death camp personnel and the infamous Einsatzgruppen,^[16] not only by many historians, but also by their fellow Germans, in particular the Wehrmacht, who, paradoxically, while the Waffen-SS were consigned to the historical trashcan by a majority of historians, were mythologised as being the "good guys" of the "other side". The post-war legacy of the Waffen-SS, and their current position place in modern contemporary and military history, is demeaning to the vast majority of the soldiers who fought and died in the colours of the Waffen-SS.

Hopefully, this paper will be seen not as a whitewash of the Waffen-SS - as some will of no doubt accuse me of attempting - but will be an attempt at exposing what was a poor and unfair judicial decision, a decision that had been based on what can only be described as a sweeping generalisation. The fundamental aim of this paper is to show that the Waffen-SS were neither knights in shining armour or black-hearted brutes bent on the extermination of all that stood against it, but simply a band of fighting men whose background and role have been seriously misunderstood. It would also be an attempt to move towards a more objective view of history, and away from the sort of mindless prejudice and recriminations that have become central to the orthodox analysis of this period in history.

Notes

1. Quarrie (1983), p.7
2. International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg (Nuremberg), 1946
3. Quarrie (1983), p.7
4. SD: Sicherheitsdienst, or Security Service
5. Gestapo: Geheimstaatspolizei, or Secret State Police
6. Davidson, p.275
7. ibid., p.278
8. SS-Brigadeführer Wilhelm Mohnke, charged with involvement in the wartime massacres of Allied troops at Wormhout in May 1940.
9. Stein, p.257
10. Maier, p.9
11. Seidel, p.5
12. ibid.
13. Brian Moynahan, "The Uneasy Ally", The Times, 5 May 1985 p.17
14. Stein, p.256
15. Quarrie (1983), p.7
16. Einsatzgruppen - Special Action Commando - the name for the murder squads which followed behind the Wehrmacht.

next »