Treatment of Nazi sympathizers after liberation

Hi guys,

Just flew home from Singapore. LONG, LONG flight (27 hours total travelling time). But, I made it (even if my bag decided to continue it's journey). All I have to say is Bmolsson, you've been holding out on us. The women over in Singapore are luscious (so I'm guessing Indonesia can't be too shabby either). I'm going to send you a digital camera, I want to start seeing 10 posts a day on the Babe Thread. Come on man... share the wealth! Actually, after two weeks in Hong Kong, China & Singapore, my neck is sore from swiveling so much.

So, back to the topic. I was flying home, and a buddy of mine loaned me the boxed set of 'Band of Brothers' on DVD which I watched on my laptop. Excellent, excellent series that provides a very realistic account of the lives & times of the 101st Airborne's exploits during the war.

One scene really, really troubled me though. They hold Operation Market Garden, where they parachute into the fields adjacent to Eindhoven and liberate it. The town throws a big party and everyone is wahooing. However, it's not very long before the guys in the local resistance group start grabbing women in the town. They rip their dresses off (women are marched around in their slips). Their heads are shorn, and some even get swaztikas (hopefully written, but possibly tatooed) onto their forehead. The guys in the 101 get pretty upset and ask what's going on. Apparently, these were the girls in the city that had German boyfriends. The resistance guy says "they don't have it so bad. Any of the men that helped them or did business with them will be shot". ~:eek:

Did this sort of thing really happen?!?! Was it widespread in occupied countries? I mean, if the person was giving the SS detailed information on membership in the resistance, I could see it. But just having a boyfriend or selling them some goods?

And then, after a 6 week campaign, the US forces end up having to withdraw and the Germans take back several areas. Did the Germans treat anyone who collaborated with the US forces that way?

Sorry, just found the whole idea very troubling.

i remember that scene, i didn't like it one bit and expected the soldiers to stop them.

yeah it happened. I've seen real life pics of it in my WWII book (1k pages of pics and some writing)

It did happen in Norway at least.
The women who had German boyfriends where beat up in public, and many had their hair cut off/shaved off completely. They were easy scapegoats.
They were called tyskertøser which translates as "German tarts".

Any German-Norwegian offspring were looked down upon several decades, after the war ended, and they had a really tough time in school were they suffered several beatings and pushed out of the "crowd". They had a hard time making friends. Same thing with Norwegian Nazi Party children. It wasn't until the late 80's people and the government started to apologize and try to "repair" things.

Cruelty was certainly not one-sided in that war.

It happened in Paris when it was liberated.

Well, I know it's kinda late their time, but perhas Ser Clegnane or somebody else could shed some light on whether the Germans did the same things to the local populus when they reclaimed lands (if even only briefly).

Like I said, if these people were actual collaborators (fighting for the Nazis, divulging resistance identities, working with the secret police) I could understand it. But beyond being Nazis, the Germans were people. I'm sure a lot of them were pretty decent guys, and had to have their uniforms washed and pressed, just like anyone else. They needed a few pints at the pub, just like anyone else. I understand the Dutch being happy the Germans were finally driven off, and being pissed at those who had aided the Nazi cause... but I find the whole thing an insane overreaction, and if it happened in Norway & France, it's just as shameful.

I think the Germans just killed everyone who got in their way in those situations, I'm not sure though. I know they did do it sometimes in Czechoslovakia.

Generally, the Germans only wasted time to punish the civilian population if they thought they could gain from it. The Germans were cruel of course, but there was a method to their madness.

There was a lot of killing in Russia because of the partisan activity, and it did have short-term results. Hanging an entire village that let a partisan group sleep the night there served a purpose. It scared much of the rest of the population into staying out of rebellions for fear of their lives and more importantly their family's lives.... for a time. In the long run though, this activity permanently turned a once somewhat friendly population, remember in the beginning many russians welcomed the removal of stalin, into staunch russian patriots.

The same thing happened in france. That famous village was burned not as much for some kind of retribution against the uprising there, but to send a message to other resistance forces.

For the most part, civilian harassment was a tool just like a panzer. Its actually very interesting to delve into the mindset of some of the hardcore German warriors, especially the SS.

They reached a kind of ultimate amorality during a wartime situation. They had no problems killing thousands of innocent people, but it had to serve a strategic purpose.

The same concept can actually be applied to the Jews. Much of the German leadership truly believed the Jews were a cancer on society. The concentration camps were more of a realistic solution to a real(in their mindset) problem, than some kind of "we dont like them so lets kill them all" plan. The resources and troops committed to solving this problem back up my assertion.

What makes these guys even tougher nuts to crack is that many of them would go home to loving families.. and were kind and gentle to them. Many were very refined, even intellectual people who enjoyed a good wine and the opera, and cared deeply for their friends and family.

Its always been fascinating to me to see how these men seemed able to completely turn off and on their humanity as the situation dictated. Read up on Reinhard Heydrich for a perfect example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Generally, the Germans only wasted time to punish the civilian population if they thought they could gain from it. The Germans were cruel of course, but there was a method to their madness.

There was a lot of killing in Russia because of the partisan activity, and it did have short-term results. Hanging an entire village that let a partisan group sleep the night there served a purpose. It scared much of the rest of the population into staying out of rebellions for fear of their lives and more importantly their family's lives.... for a time. In the long run though, this activity permanently turned a once somewhat friendly population, remember in the beginning many russians welcomed the removal of stalin, into staunch russian patriots.

The same thing happened in france. That famous village was burned not as much for some kind of retribution against the uprising there, but to send a message to other resistance forces.

For the most part, civilian harassment was a tool just like a panzer. Its actually very interesting to delve into the mindset of some of the hardcore German warriors, especially the SS.

They reached a kind of ultimate amorality during a wartime situation. They had no problems killing thousands of innocent people, but it had to serve a strategic purpose.

The same concept can actually be applied to the Jews. Much of the German leadership truly believed the Jews were a cancer on society. The concentration camps were more of a realistic solution to a real(in their mindset) problem, than some kind of "we dont like them so lets kill them all" plan. The resources and troops committed to solving this problem back up my assertion.

What makes these guys even tougher nuts to crack is that many of them would go home to loving families.. and were kind and gentle to them. Many were very refined, even intellectual people who enjoyed a good wine and the opera, and cared deeply for their friends and family.

Its always been fascinating to me to see how these men seemed able to completely turn off and on their humanity as the situation dictated. Read up on Reinhard Heydrich for a perfect example.

---

Man is a machine with emotions. Emotions are our animal setbacks and logical thinking our god's curse. Machines need to be programmed to do what they do and people are not exempt. We are taught everything we know through our senses and not ourselves.

Everything we know is an influence from someone else, from langauge to behaviour to morals until we cut ourselves loose of other people and think only with our imagination. Only then are we 'real' people and not machines.

Sorry I don't mean to get all philosophical but the whole fascination with inhumanity tends to bring that up in me.

The shavings certainly happened, I've never heard of mass executions though.

In Belgium we had two resistances, and after the war, the one would blame the other of collaborating and shave their heads. A lot of innocents were punished.

But like i said, I've only heard what they did to women, maybe they wanted to keep what they did to the men silent ? :embarassed:

Well, I think what Panzer says is indeed scary.
I know that when the germans conquered land in Russia, some SS squadrons followed to "clean" the area, killing whole villages, transporting people to KZs and other cruel things. I once read a biography of a german soldier whose unit gathered the people of a village in a church and then began to slaughter them. They threw little children against the walls and what not, killed everybody and I don´t even remember why they did it. Well, this soldier was now supposed to fire at the people but instead he turned his rifle towards his captain. In the end, he didn´t fire and gave up, but he got put into a minesweeper company and was more or less supposed to die on a minefield, which may also explain why so many people cooperate with such an evil regime, though I still can´t really understand it.
I never exactly heard of it, but I could think of Russians treating Nazi sympathizers very badly, because we all know of the huge hatred the Russians had because of all those Nazi crimes and cruelty in Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Just flew home from Singapore. LONG, LONG flight (27 hours total travelling time). But, I made it (even if my bag decided to continue it's journey). All I have to say is Bmolsson, you've been holding out on us. The women over in Singapore are luscious (so I'm guessing Indonesia can't be too shabby either). I'm going to send you a digital camera, I want to start seeing 10 posts a day on the Babe Thread. Come on man... share the wealth! Actually, after two weeks in Hong Kong, China & Singapore, my neck is sore from swiveling so much.

---

~:cool:

Wow... I haven't seen that episode. I do really like Band of Brothers from what I've said. But that is horrible. The soldiers ought to have killed those bastards that were harrasing innocent women. The women did nothing wrong at all. This is really said... I don't think I want to watch that episode. I always want to cry when I see women with short hair...
And the Americans didn't do anything at all? Why the hell not? And it's not even like it's soldiers using women which all armies have done. This is far worse, I think, mainly because it's the locals mutilating their own women...

PJ, from what you discribe of the Nazi's cruelty, it sounds a lot like the Mongol and other lesser steppe nation's actions. The Mongols in particular would execute an entire town that resitied, so the next town would surrender without a fight. And that also served a purpose, which they obviously relized just as the Nazis did...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, I know it's kinda late their time, but perhas Ser Clegnane or somebody else could shed some light on whether the Germans did the same things to the local populus when they reclaimed lands (if even only briefly).

Like I said, if these people were actual collaborators (fighting for the Nazis, divulging resistance identities, working with the secret police) I could understand it. But beyond being Nazis, the Germans were people. I'm sure a lot of them were pretty decent guys, and had to have their uniforms washed and pressed, just like anyone else. They needed a few pints at the pub, just like anyone else. I understand the Dutch being happy the Germans were finally driven off, and being pissed at those who had aided the Nazi cause... but I find the whole thing an insane overreaction, and if it happened in Norway & France, it's just as shameful.

---

Yes it did happen. Collaborators being killed before and after the liberation (killing collaborators was one of the main activity of resistance movement before liberation, then it shifts to support army advance).
If you're not with us you're against us.
German army was far from reluctant from killing anyone dealing with resistance movement, or just killing civilian as a way to cower people into obedience. They would put the blame on "terrorist" (as they called it)resistance movement... The village PJ mentionned is Oradour. Facing Resistance activities (which, after DDay had liberated the countryside over there) while going to Normandy, SS division "Das Reich" got upset, took a whole village, put the people in the church, and burnt the church to the ground. All villagers burnt alive.
Those are not time for "anyone else". It's really ugly. You can choose to help the Nazi, even in very little way, and you collaborate, or you don't. Resistance wanted to scare people out of collaborating, Nazis cower people into obedience.
This is war and long occupation for you; everyone got tainted with blood, and there were little place for honour or innocence. WWII was not a videogame. Sense or morality slowly desegrageted as you face more blood, more mindless killing, more betrayal.
You know it was common practice in Resistance movement to spot kill members of a resistance cells if one of them proved to have betrayed? All of them... 1 guilty, all dead.
To be honest, if you're shocked by women getting their head shaved, don't open an history book about WWII, those were the lucky ones. Are not mentionned, case of rape (including by regular army soldiers), death penalty on the spot, etc, etc. Fiction is far milder than history.

And if that reminds you of some recent history, maybe you'll understand better the reaction of some countries that were occupied "1st hand". You don't wish that for anyone.

Louis,

Louis, what suprised me was that it was people doing it to their own people. It wasn't like a soldier from America raping a French girl, it was French humiliating French. I don't understand that... which is why I'm far more comfortable staying in my history books about very long ago wars. :book:

But what really suprised me was the lack of action by Americans. Not that I think that they are perfect or anything, but I'd hope that someone would have the decency to stop that. Esspecially considering some of the actions I saw by the 101 later on consering other civilians (confinscating houses, enlisting a town to help bury the dead from the neargby death camp, etc.), I wouldn't think that the fact that the bastards doing that were on "their side" would have stopped them.

Steppe, you know about the US Civil War? that got ugly pretty fast, hasn't it?

Not much difference between a civil war, and occupation by a foreign power with collaboration.

Louis,

Well, in time of war, things like that happen quite often.

When people are being harrassed by a foreign country during 4 years, you can expect them to turn their hatred against so called collaborators if they can't punish the foreign soldiers.
People who were shot, or executed in another way, and women who get their head shaved weren't considered as 'true' french anymore.

Btw, the communist party was mostly responsible for that. De Gaulle more or less tried to stop that at first, but the communists (someway, they are known to kill everyone who disagrees with them) had too much impact on public opinion, so he just let them did.
JP Sartre, considered as a great philosoph (I don't really know why), also pointed as 'guilty' a lot of writters or artists who likely never even thought about collaborating with the germans.
The worst is that a lot of people were executed because someone disliked them.

Indeed.

These people had suffered through a foreign occupation. The purging of collaborators and traitors was the inevitable result of frustration and anger, running rampant after the German departure.

I can't believe how soft some of you are on this subject, especially when it comes to the treatment given to women! Show some backbone damnit! We're talking about war, not some mild scuffle between neighbors who share a common fence!

Aiding and abetting an enemy is a traitorous act. Just because you're not fighting alongside the enemy or giving them sensitive information and/or national secrets doesn't mean you're beyond being considered 'one of them'. I don't care if the enemy soldiers these people were fraternizing with were 'nice' and 'not like the others'. They're goddamn invaders and in the case of the Nazis, the spearpoint of a heinous ideological crusade to boot! Women who were ostracized and/or beaten and shaved for f---ing enemy soldiers got off light. I think they should have gotten the same treatment as the men who betrayed their country, with a bullet to the brain or dangling from a hangman's noose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Women who were ostracized and/or beaten and shaved for f---ing enemy soldiers got off light. I think they should have gotten the same treatment as the men who betrayed their country, with a bullet to the brain or dangling from a hangman's noose.

---

So you are saying they should have done the same the terrorists in Iraq are currently doing to the Iraqis that support the US "invaders"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

It did happen in Norway at least.
The women who had German boyfriends where beat up in public, and many had their hair cut off/shaved off completely. They were easy scapegoats.
They were called tyskertøser which translates as "German tarts".

Any German-Norwegian offspring were looked down upon several decades, after the war ended, and they had a really tough time in school were they suffered several beatings and pushed out of the "crowd". They had a hard time making friends. Same thing with Norwegian Nazi Party children. It wasn't until the late 80's people and the government started to apologize and try to "repair" things.

---

Wasn't one of the girl singers in ABBA a daughter of a german soldier in Norway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

So you are saying they should have done the same the terrorists in Iraq are currently doing to the Iraqis that support the US "invaders"?

---

It depends which terrorists we're talking about...

A sizeable percentage of the terrorists in Iraq are not there because they want to 'restore' Iraqi sovereignty but because they believe in global jihad and Iraq is the place to be if you want to kill western infidels. You can bet that even after the US and coalition troops leave Iraq those same terrorists will still be there fighting to suppress democracy, meritocracy, women's rights and working towards the ultimate goal of instituting an fundamentalist theocratic government.

On the other hand the pro-Saddam/pro-Sunni rule Iraqis who are engaging in terrorist acts are, technically speaking, fighting for their country and way of life... despite the fact that they're clearly in the minority and even if it means a return to the days when the majority of their countrymen (i.e. Shia Iraqis & Kurds) are put back under a dictatorial Sunni boot! Personally I cannot blame those pro-Saddam/pro-Sunni Iraqis for resorting to extreme measures to kick the 'invaders' out because quite frankly, given their serious lack of organization and abilities, that's about the only thing they can do effectively! However, blowing up their fellow countrymen in horrific fashion isn't garnering too much sympathy to their cause. Given their considerable lack of popular support I'm inclined to consider these pro-Saddam/pro-Sunni Iraqis to be more like an insurgency movement than an actual rebellion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

I think the Germans just killed everyone who got in their way in those situations, I'm not sure though. I know they did do it sometimes in Czechoslovakia.

---

I prefer you say "Nazi" when you say things like that. Most Germans are honourable people. Many would not support that unless they knew they would be killed if they resisted.

Quote:

---

Women who were ostracized and/or beaten and shaved for f---ing enemy soldiers got off light. I think they should have gotten the same treatment as the men who betrayed their country, with a bullet to the brain or dangling from a hangman's noose.

---

No. I would never condone such a thing. I don't care if they "betrayed" their country they are still humans and should never be executed for crimes they didn't even do!
That reasoning discussts me. This isn't even a trial, this is a frickin lynch mob! And these people weren't the ones killing the innocents, it was the Nazis!
And almost certaintly, they didn't have a choice! Most of them were raped, or would have been raped anyway! This is just as bad as certaint practices in certaint parts of the Muslim world concering women.

Quote:

---

Steppe, you know about the US Civil War? that got ugly pretty fast, hasn't it?

Not much difference between a civil war, and occupation by a foreign power with collaboration.

---

Excellent point. And yeah, I do know about the Civil War, and that did get ugly very fast on both sides.

And I guess my anger comes from the fact that WW2 is almost always potrayed as a "good" war. I know that horrible things happen in all wars, but all of the ones I am really familar with didn't have a good or a bad side, and their morals are vastly different from peopel of today.
Even the Civil War, which is really the most recent war that I would consider myself remotley knowledgable on, didn't really have a good or bad side... Both sides were wrong, and both did good and bad things, and both had good and bad people.

But this is the "good guys" doing things that were simpily unexcusable, despite the reasonins given. I understand the hatred and fustration, but take it out on the Germans, not the girls they almost certaintly forced. I find the fact that "good guys" conducting their own Salem Witch Hunt for pro Nazis very disturbing, and unexcusable, all the more so because they were women from their own towns.
Anyone doing this sort of mob justice is just as bad as the soldiers who brutalized them.

edit: Maniac, Kaiser knows the difference between Nazi and German. However, the fact remains that many soldiers weren't Nazis, but rather plain Germans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Wasn't one of the girl singers in ABBA a daughter of a german soldier in Norway?

---

Yes, the brunette girl, Frida I think, was norwegian. Her mother was together with a german. After the war Frida and her grandmother (and mother) moved to Sweden to because they knew that she would be treated poorly in the small community they were from.

Like Krusader said. The shaving of women and punishment of collaboraters happened in Norway. The women who were not married to Germans, were sent to work camps as well I think. If a woman was married to a german she had to leave to country and give up her citizenship.

Their children and those of the members of Quisling's party, Nasjonal Samling, were picked on and sometimes institutionalized (sp?) in asylums and deemed mentally retarded.

The punishment of the collaborators directly after the war ended was, as could be expected, harsh. The sentances became milder as the years went by.

The reason for the cruel treatment was probably like Spino, and others have said, that they were (seen) as traitors. In war there is very clear sides. It is them and then there is us. If you were involved with the enemy in any way you were a traitor, simple as that. When people have lived under an occupation for five years, they are bound to be a bit pissed, to put it mildly. So since you can not go after the soldiers themselves you go after those who helped them, slept with them or had close relations with them in any way instead.

For those who say that they can not understand how someone could treat their fellow country(wo)men like that, imagine that your girlfriend/sister/cousin willingly sleeps with a person you hate and who has treated you very badly, (because most of the women in Norway who slept with germans did so freely), you would feel betrayed and angry as hell, and probably look at her as less than a human-being. Basically emotions would be high. When emotions are running high you react more intensely. And in the days and months after the liberation emotions were high, and combined with various group influences you have a recipe for disaster. If you were seen as a traitor, you were in trouble.

Was the harsh treatment fair and right? Most certainly not. Is it understandable that they reacted like that? Absolutely.

A.Saturnus can probably better explain the psychological mechanisms of these actions. (I would have to look them up in my textbook, and my post is long enough as it is ~;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evil_maniac from mars

I prefer you say "Nazi" when you say things like that. Most Germans are honourable people. Many would not support that unless they knew they would be killed if they resisted.

---

*Germany and the Nazi's were pretty much one and the same, it was the German army that did it, they were commanded by Nazis but they were still Germans*

Din-Heru, I was under the assumption that many people of Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden served in the Nazi SS... or was that just a few people? Or am did only one of those countries have a German sympthatizers? I'm very shakey with my knowledge of countries that used to belong to the Norse...
I was just wondering why if there were (at least from what I could see) many SS soldiers from that area, why the populace would still react as violently...

it's true, there are alot of SS divisions from non German nations. Norway had em, The Netherlands had them, Sweden and Finland had a bunch of volenteers in the SS, even the French had men. And India too!

Finland! I knew I was missing one!
Thanks for the info, though that is pretty nuts that India had an SS division. I imagine that India and probably the French one weren't to numerous or very indicative of the local feeling. What about the Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway and other "Norse" nations? Were the ones that joined ostracized by the normal people (for lack of a better term), or was it common, and were the people used to it? And if so, why did they react so violently to Nazi sympathizers when many from their country were in the SS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

*Germany and the Nazi's were pretty much one and the same, it was the German army that did it, they were commanded by Nazis but they were still Germans*

---

I do not deny it. but not all of the German Army were voluntary soldiers. My [edited] and many of his friends were conscripted.

Yeah, a lot of soldiers were conscripted. Was SS conscription possible? Or just grunt soldiers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Yeah, a lot of soldiers were conscripted. Was SS conscription possible? Or just grunt soldiers?

---

SS no conscripts. volenteers

Quote:

---

PJ, from what you discribe of the Nazi's cruelty, it sounds a lot like the Mongol and other lesser steppe nation's actions. The Mongols in particular would execute an entire town that resitied, so the next town would surrender without a fight. And that also served a purpose, which they obviously relized just as the Nazis did...

---

Yea, they had very similar mindsets.

Quote:

---

Yeah, a lot of soldiers were conscripted. Was SS conscription possible? Or just grunt soldiers?

---

Many people were forced into the SS toward the end of the war and some even early on. For instance, I believe Dutch officials urged young men to join the SS so that the Netherlands would have a favorable position in the new Europe... but there was no conscription, in Germany at least.

In a previous life, I had a German g/f who's Mom (Hedwig) & Dad (Stan) were from Silesia. Stan (a newspaperman)was told he had to either work in the local munitions factory, or put on an SS uniform. He chose the uniform.

Hedwig walked 300 miles to a railhead and hopped a train to Goeppingen, Germany (the terminus). Stan carried a rifle for 17 months, avoided capture by the Soviets, and (with his entire remaining Silesian platoon) found and surrendered to Americans; got 'processed' and reunited with Hedwig in late 1945. Ushi (the g/f) was born in 1952.

I've seen those demand/conscription documents with my own eyes. Stan died before I could talk to him...but they looked genuine to me. My personal conclusion: some SS, late in the war, were conscripted - not an entriely volunteer force.

Thats very interesting Kukri.

By no means was the SS completely volunteer by the end of the war, however its strange he was not conscripted into the wehrmacht before the SS got to him as the army had conscription privaledges in German and the SS recruited in the occupied territories. Of course that close to the end there really werent anymore occupied territories..

One thing is for sure.. If your old girlfriend put those papers on Ebay, they would fetch a pretty penny. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Din-Heru, I was under the assumption that many people of Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden served in the Nazi SS... or was that just a few people? Or am did only one of those countries have a German sympthatizers? I'm very shakey with my knowledge of countries that used to belong to the Norse...
I was just wondering why if there were (at least from what I could see) many SS soldiers from that area, why the populace would still react as violently...

---

There were about 5000 "frontfighters" (Frontkjempere) who either helped the finnish against Sovjet or were under German command fighting against Sovjet in the eastern/baltic european area.

NS, Nasjonal samling, the Norwegian "nazi" party who took "power" when the Germans invaded, was a small party before the war, and had an estimated 2000 members. During the war the number of members rose to 50 000 - 60 000. Some were "forced" to join in order to keep their jobs, like policemen and teachers, others joined volontarily, probably thinking that it was better to be on the side of the victors.

Basically they betrayed their country by aiding or supporting the enemy.

There is a population of about 4,6 millon norwegians today. So I assume that it was about 4 millon in 1940. If we say that there 3 million who were old enough to make a concious desicion about who to join. So something like 1.8 % activly supported the Germans by membership to either the "Front fighters"
or/and NS. Even if more were sympathetic to the nazi cause, the majority is still vastly against it. Basically you have a few who betray the many. So when the minority lost it was bound to be punished harshly.

Sources: http://lotus.uib.no/norgeslexi/krigslex/f/f5.html, http://www.nuav.net/ns.html,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Din-Heru, I was under the assumption that many people of Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden served in the Nazi SS... or was that just a few people? Or am did only one of those countries have a German sympthatizers? I'm very shakey with my knowledge of countries that used to belong to the Norse...
I was just wondering why if there were (at least from what I could see) many SS soldiers from that area, why the populace would still react as violently...

---

What Din-Heru said is true. Many of those who joined the SS had Nazi sympaties, but there were others who joined the SS, because they believed fascism was the lesser evil compared to communism and would rather fight for the nazis than the communists.

As a sidenote: A picture-book was recently released in Norway, with pictures of the Norwegian soldiers in German service at the East Front. This was the first book of that kind released in Norway since the war, I believe one reporter said. At least there was a news coverage about it, so it was a special event.

Thank you for the explinations, guys. I understand the situation a bit more now... thanks. :bow:
However, didn't a similar thing sort of happen in Germany? And why wasn't their a large backlash against Nazis in Germany itself? Obviously it's not the same, but...

Nazi's were not in the minority in Germany. Many Germans after the war felt they had been sold out by generals who spoke out against Hitler, and were ostracised after the war.

If you want to understand, look at the US Civil War, in the former Confederate states was there any ill will towards people who had fought on the side of the Confederates? (I'm not talking about the Unionists, just the population of the Confederate states).

About what happened to the collaborators, and I will become emotional, my grand parents were partisans (FTPF -communist-): Their neighbour not only went in bed with Germans, she also denounced to the Gestapo her father and brother. They were tortured and killed without judgment which at the end of the end wouldn’t change their faiths/ends. So, when liberation came, two FTPF went to fetch her, went in the forest, few shots and when they come back they were alone… And if you disapproved, well, that is your problem. You can’t ask people to be without resentment and play fair after 4 years of terror. When you find yours parents hanged, your house burned, you sister raped and murdered, you retaliated on who you catch…
Just imagine what a Russian soldier felt when coming back in Kharkov, Minsk and other towns and villages… The Russians wanted Berlin like Stalingrad… Same landscape at the end…

The people who fought against their own knew the price they would have to paid, and in France, the Epuration, the Civil War in the war was absolutely without mercy. The French Milice showed none, and nor the Partisans. To be shaved (even if it isn’t something to be proud) wasn’t the worst. And most of the time it was done by the last hour resistant. The estimated number of victims is around 50,000. The problem is the victims (in the pro-Nazi side) were mainly the smallest fishes, the big one having escaped in Germany or changed camp on time (like Papon).

In Oradour sur Glane, the Partisan took two SS prisoners. In order to avoid the reprisal (remember that the Das Reich just hanged 99 people in Tulle) they freed them. But one on the SS succeeded to see a part of the name of the village and saw partisans in arm. When he came back, the Commander (Peiper) looked the map and discovered than I think 6 or & villages sated with Oradour, He picked one by chance and they killed them all.
And PzJr, if you want really to fight resistance reprisal have just the wrong effect. The survivors will try to revenge their dead.
It was no strategic purpose. The strategic purpose should have been to treat properly the local populations which welcome the Germans as liberators (Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Bella Russia etc) White Russians and to enrolled them. But no, only Einsatzgruppen (the mobile killing units) were created the 21st of September 1939, just after the invasion of Poland and the massacres started and the resistance just grew-up. “According to the testimony of Otto Ohlendorf, head of Einsatzgruppe D, dated April 24, 1947, the objective was the "murder of racially and politically undesirable elements." Later on in the Einsatzgruppen trial, he said (October 1948): "The goal was to liberate the army's rear areas by killing Jews, Gypsies and Communist activists”.
The SS and other didn’t react to a situation, they created it…

I remember a documentary about French who joined the SS. He was 17 and believed that he had to fight against Communism. He didn’t know about the extermination camps, and being for the bourgeoisie had the usual anti-Semitism which was the habit (remember Dreyfus Affair) at this time. He was Catholic, and the Pope having published a “bulle” (which is an order for Catholic, not an option) to all the Catholics to join the Crusader against Bolshevism, he joined the SS (33 SS Charlemagne) in 1944, after Normandy. Nobody can say he joined to be with the winners. He wanted to fight for France and thought it was the thing to do. I can understand that. He went on the Russian Front, paid the price of his mistake with his skin and blood and show at least courage…
But the collaborators, the Milice and all the war profiteers won’t have my sympathy or my pity. They played believing they were the stronger, they lost, amen. And no, at the end some SS weren't volunteered… The Alsatians for example, if they tried to escape conscription…

Oh yes, the Germans did the same. In fact, they did BEFORE the allied arrived. They stated to killed prisoners from the beginning of the war (English at Dunkirk) and unfortunately not only the SS did it, especially in Russia where all Jews and Political Commissars had to be killed on the spot.

Quote:

---

If you want to understand, look at the US Civil War, in the former Confederate states was there any ill will towards people who had fought on the side of the Confederates? (I'm not talking about the Unionists, just the population of the Confederate states).

---

Alright, I understand now. Thanks. :bow:

Brenus, it is not my problem. It is the problem of people who commited murder, regardless of justification. You can sugar coat it as much as you want, but it is wrong. I understand hatred and resetment, but killing another human being is never justified, especially when done by a group of citizens with no legal right to pass any judgement at all. If it was soldiers they caught and killed, that is understandable. But non combatants, regardless of their percieved crimes, should never be killed.

And there was a strategic purpose, from what I can see. Terror was startegy. Was it neccasarily the smartest one? Of course not. The Mongols almost always allowed rival steppe tribes to join even the Tatars (it is very unlikely that they killed all of them off, as many claim), and often allowed the towns that surrendered to survive. The Nazis weren't as kind or intellgient, and didn't allow as many people to join them. However, there was a purpose. If it was purely ad hoc as you claim, it wouldn't have been as systematic or as bad as it was, rather ressemble more the normal treatment of civilains unders soldiers. It seems to me that it was a concious dessicion to act this way choosen by the SS higher ups.

Steppe Merc, I still think it is your problem if you refuse to see the context. You can’t speak about legality during such events… In your view, Petain was the legitimate leader of France? He took power by a coup…

To kill another human being is always justified when this particular human being invades your country, loots, rapes, burns and humiliates your family. I don’t look a person, who denounced other people, as non-combatant, sorry… In particular cases, I even consider him or her as worst than the enemy which was also the opinion of the Germans. When my grand-father group took the siege of the Gestapo in Bourg en Bresse, they found on the table, in full view, all the list of the French Collaborators; obviously, even the German Commander hadn’t a great respect for them… It was a pure death sentence…
I should disagree about terror as strategy in case of the Nazi… It had no aim, no reasons. The Mongols wanted to convince other cities to surrender. The Nazi produced terror on countries yet under their control… But yes, it was a purpose: to exterminate every body… It could have been tactic but it was just pure let’s say Evil…
The deportation was carried on until the end of the war, using trains for the convoys, when the Eastern Front was crying for tanks, troops and munitions… The Russians were at the gate of Germany, and they use vital resources for extermination… Where is the tactic/strategy in that? In fact, the craziness of this Nazi regime was such they sacrificed their own soldiers to keep the extermination running…

I agree with you on one point: it is up to the people who resisted, suffered, were tortured and saw their friends and comrades killed by firing squads, their villages burned, their parents hanged to judge what they did to the traitors.

Quote:

---

So, when liberation came, two FTPF went to fetch her, went in the forest, few shots and when they come back they were alone…

---

They were no better than the Nazis themselves.

Edited.

Every human is precious, regardless of their actions. What they did was wrong. But no one has the right to end another's life when that person's actions do not threaten them directly at that time.

Quote:

---

They were no better than the Nazis themselves.

---

If not the death camp members themselves, then certaintly the SS who killed innocents. An innocent is an innocent, regardless of what lies people tell themselves to sooth their concious.

I am not trying to protect Nazis, and I do not sympathize with them. If it was SS members that were killed, I'd have said good for the civilians. But they were not even soldiers.
As for the whole terror thing, I agree, it was a stupid tactic that hurt more than helped. But regardless, it was a policy by the higher ups (I believe), thus I'd consider it a strategy, despite it's obvious moral and tactical flaws. Even the extermination of Jews was a strategy, if a very stupid and evil one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

What Din-Heru said is true. Many of those who joined the SS had Nazi sympaties, but there were others who joined the SS, because they believed fascism was the lesser evil compared to communism and would rather fight for the nazis than the communists.

As a sidenote: A picture-book was recently released in Norway, with pictures of the Norwegian soldiers in German service at the East Front. This was the first book of that kind released in Norway since the war, I believe one reporter said. At least there was a news coverage about it, so it was a special event.

---

I believe it was the ss-Viking division there were also Swedish and Finns in it. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

I believe it was the ss-Viking division there were also Swedish and Finns in it. :bow:

---

SS Wiking or Viking yeah. Was renamed SS Nordland at the end of the war, when it was merged with the Dutch SS force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

SS Wiking or Viking yeah. Was renamed SS Nordland at the end of the war, when it was merged with the Dutch SS force.

---

Do you have any info how the end of the war went for them?I have an book about SS-Viking but it is only about Finish soldiers who were in it.Book ends in 1943 when last of the Finish Soldiers returned to Finland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

Do you have any info how the end of the war went for them?I have an book about SS-Viking but it is only about Finish soldiers who were in it.Book ends in 1943 when last of the Finish Soldiers returned to Finland.

---

SS Nordland was among the last defenders of Berlin in 1945. I think some Norwegians managed to escape Berlin and fled back to Norway, where they were thrown in jail for treachery. The rest were either killed or taken prisoner by the Red Army.

Antony Beevor's Berlin at least says so, and there have been some interviews with Norwegians who served in the SS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

SS Nordland was among the last defenders of Berlin in 1945. I think some Norwegians managed to escape Berlin and fled back to Norway, where they were thrown in jail for treachery. The rest were either killed or taken prisoner by the Red Army.

Antony Beevor's Berlin at least says so, and there have been some interviews with Norwegians who served in the SS.

---

Thanks for the info krusader :bow: