On the Dachau Massacre

[Datlofff]

"At least 15,000 German soldiers were executed for desertion alone, and up to 50,000 were killed for often minor acts of insubordination. An unknown number were summarily executed, often in the moment, by their officers or comrades when they refused to follow commands."

It clearly wasn't that uncommon

That says nothing about refusing to commit atrocities.

This, however, does.

Furthermore, you've given no source to back up that quotation, so it's rather suspect.

(Sauce: https://books.google.com/books?id=XF8lD ... ny&f=false)

I figure that a lot of soldiers would be against killing innocents. And there were germans shot for stealing mail, so I wouldn't be surprised if some were shot for disobeying the order to kill innocents.

[Torrocca]

That says nothing about refusing to commit atrocities.

This, however, does.

Furthermore, you've given no source to back up that quotation, so it's rather suspect.

(Sauce: https://books.google.com/books?id=XF8lD ... ny&f=false)

Regardless, it says nothing about men being executed for refusing to commit atrocities.

[NewLakotah]

That says nothing about refusing to commit atrocities.

This, however, does.

Furthermore, you've given no source to back up that quotation, so it's rather suspect.

(Sauce: https://books.google.com/books?id=XF8lD ... ny&f=false)

Umm.... That's not the same thing. That's desertion, a totally separate, unrelated thing that is still a serious offense in every military in the world during that and all periods. Either way, that is in no way the same as refusing an order at an extermination camp to gas Jews. Or line up a row of POWs and shoot them. Very different thing all together.

[Datlofff]

(Sauce: https://books.google.com/books?id=XF8lD ... ny&f=false)

Regardless, it says nothing about men being executed for refusing to commit atrocities.

Except for Klaus Hornig, who was thrown in the concentration camp himself for refusing orders. I will look for some actual documents once I get home, see you later tonight.

[Torrocca]

Regardless, it says nothing about men being executed for refusing to commit atrocities.

Except for Klaus Hornig, who was thrown in the concentration camp himself for refusing orders. I will look for some actual documents once I get home, see you later tonight.

That's not an execution. Furthermore, he lived until 1997.

[Datlofff]

Except for Klaus Hornig, who was thrown in the concentration camp himself for refusing orders. I will look for some actual documents once I get home, see you later tonight.

That's not an execution. Furthermore, he lived until 1997.

"Not an execution" Minus the 17 million other people killed in the camps. It was practically a death sentence and you know it.

Still holds the fact that germans were harshly punished for disobeying orders, which is why many did it, there is also psychological evidence that shows that there is a cognitive disconnect in people when they are ordered to commit evil deeds. Also good to note that there was a study of 135 individuals who refused to follow the orders, and all of them were "were imprisoned, beaten, stripped of rank and prestige and threatened with death for their impertinence."

We don't have enough information to say that "No SS was killed for saying no to the holocaust" but there is enough to make the conclusion that the SS guys themselves could have been scared shitless that they would be killed, considering they were threatened themselves with death, and also punished in other ways.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1429971?se ... b_contents

[Torrocca]

That's not an execution. Furthermore, he lived until 1997.

"Not an execution" Minus the 17 million other people killed in the camps. It was practically a death sentence and you know it.

If it was an execution, then how the fuck did people survive the camps? How did the very guy you referenced survive?

[Datlofff]

"Not an execution" Minus the 17 million other people killed in the camps. It was practically a death sentence and you know it.

If it was an execution, then how the fuck did people survive the camps? How did the very guy you referenced survive?

"If it was an execution" I didn't say it was, I said it was practically a death sentence. Some people survive jumping out of a plane without a parachute but does that make it not suicidal?

[Torrocca]

If it was an execution, then how the fuck did people survive the camps? How did the very guy you referenced survive?

"If it was an execution" I didn't say it was, I said it was practically a death sentence. Some people survive jumping out of a plane without a parachute but does that make it not suicidal?

And all I said was that it's not equivalent to an execution, so you're still wrong in regards to the idea that the SS or the Wehrmacht executed soldiers for refusing to commit atrocities.

[Aellex]

"At least 15,000 German soldiers were executed for desertion alone, and up to 50,000 were killed for often minor acts of insubordination. An unknown number were summarily executed, often in the moment, by their officers or comrades when they refused to follow commands."

It clearly wasn't that uncommon

That says nothing about refusing to commit atrocities.

This, however, does.

Furthermore, you've given no source to back up that quotation, so it's rather suspect.

Very interesting and quite unsurprising link. The myth of the "Clean Werchmact" has always and will always remains that, a myth.

[Frievolk]

That says nothing about refusing to commit atrocities.

This, however, does.

Furthermore, you've given no source to back up that quotation, so it's rather suspect.

Very interesting and quite unsurprising link. The myth of the "Clean Werchmact" has always and will always remains that, a myth.

I'm more confused about what actually brought the whole clean Wehrmacht myth the first time. Like, was it a conscious choice from some Nazi asshole, a historian romanticist, or something else.

[Aellex]

I'm more confused about what actually brought the whole clean Wehrmacht myth the first time. Like, was it a conscious choice from some Nazi asshole, a historian romanticist, or something else.

Some Werhaboos who wanted to fap on Nazi Germany but didn't want to be associated with the more unsavoury part of it, most likely.

[Frievolk]

I'm more confused about what actually brought the whole clean Wehrmacht myth the first time. Like, was it a conscious choice from some Nazi asshole, a historian romanticist, or something else.

Some Werhaboos who wanted to fap on Nazi Germany but didn't want to be associated with the more unsavoury part of it, most likely.

That's just it though. Like, was it a Nazi who didn't want the socio-political outcome of being recognized as a Nazi, or was it some historian romanticist? (Wehraboos can be divided into closet Nazis and people who unironically and genuinely are not aware that the Wehrmacht was responsible for a lot of shit in the Nazi Germany and its puppet states)

[Torrocca]

Very interesting and quite unsurprising link. The myth of the "Clean Werchmact" has always and will always remains that, a myth.

I'm more confused about what actually brought the whole clean Wehrmacht myth the first time. Like, was it a conscious choice from some Nazi asshole, a historian romanticist, or something else.

Blame the Cold War for that, when America and NATO needed West Germany on its feet and brought in Wehrmacht and government Nazis to help out.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I'm more confused about what actually brought the whole clean Wehrmacht myth the first time. Like, was it a conscious choice from some Nazi asshole, a historian romanticist, or something else.

Some Werhaboos who wanted to fap on Nazi Germany but didn't want to be associated with the more unsavoury part of it, most likely.

Was actually mostly due to these "gentlemen".

[Infected Mushroom]

I am going to go with Daltofff here. Germans were killed for insubordination (so its reasonable to assume it applies to atrocities, even if very few were executed for it, there would have been the perception of that as a consequence).

Hence, its completely unreasonable to expect the SS to stand up and defy orders. Hence, executions of ground level personnel for atrocities carried a level of unfairness.

[Infected Mushroom]

That says nothing about refusing to commit atrocities.

This, however, does.

Furthermore, you've given no source to back up that quotation, so it's rather suspect.

(Sauce: https://books.google.com/books?id=XF8lD ... ny&f=false)

I figure that a lot of soldiers would be against killing innocents. And there were germans shot for stealing mail, so I wouldn't be surprised if some were shot for disobeying the order to kill innocents.

Yes. Just as I suspected.

[Infected Mushroom]

(Sauce: https://books.google.com/books?id=XF8lD ... ny&f=false)

Regardless, it says nothing about men being executed for refusing to commit atrocities.

It doesn't have to be spelled out. Furthermore, even if only a handful were executed fo it, the fact that so may got executed in general shows that the threat of execution hovers over all

[Torrocca]

Regardless, it says nothing about men being executed for refusing to commit atrocities.

It doesn't have to be spelled out. Furthermore, even if only a handful were executed fo it, the fact that so may got executed in general shows that the threat of execution hovers over all

Yes, it does have to be spelled out, because that's a pretty big fucking accusation to make and it changes a huge perceived aspect of the entire Holocaust. If men are being forced at gunpoint to commit the atrocities, on pain of death, then it needs to fucking be spelled out and proven. As it is, there's no evidence whatsoever that men were executed for refusing to commit atrocities.

[Infected Mushroom]

A lot of people here insist on taking the "moral high ground" that it was completely correct and just for the Allies to execute ground level German personnel for being ordered to carry out atrocities (or even that it was just for the GIs to kill them in cold blood).

Yet I would wager that the vast majority of you, if put into those same shoes as those Germans, would have carried out those atrocities when ordered to. You don't like that but its in actually likely entirely true; the Holocaust couldn't have happened if it human nature was otherwise. Then you would change your minds about the fairness of the final fates of those condemned German personnel (executed in court or extra judicially). Its entirely hypocritical for many of you to preach standing up and defying orders from a superior military officer (who technically has the power to execute you or punish you brutally) when I suspect you lack the tenacity to stand up to even to an abusive classroom popular queen or an out of order work manager. I cannot help but be amused at the level of faux moral righteousness in these positions. Its so easy to win a war, have power from above, sit far away, and then play God and summarily end people's lives (and this is what the Allies did).

Once a court (that didn't even exist during the war) got put together by the winners of a war and said "Following Order Is Not An Excuse" you all just jump to this slogan too without REALLY thinking about what that says. Because its so easy.

[Infected Mushroom]

It doesn't have to be spelled out. Furthermore, even if only a handful were executed fo it, the fact that so may got executed in general shows that the threat of execution hovers over all

Yes, it does have to be spelled out, because that's a pretty big fucking accusation to make and it changes a huge perceived aspect of the entire Holocaust. If men are being forced at gunpoint to commit the atrocities, on pain of death, then it needs to fucking be spelled out and proven. As it is, there's no evidence whatsoever that men were executed for refusing to commit atrocities.

if 15,000 to 50,000 German personnel were executed or heavily punished for disobeying orders (some of them very minor orders), it stands to reason that this threat would have hovered over much of the organization; especially as the Holocaust was a very important part of the German national policy at the time

[Frievolk]

A lot of people here insist on taking the "moral high ground" that it was completely correct and just for the Allies to execute ground level German personnel for being ordered to carry out atrocities (or even that it was just for the GIs to kill them in cold blood).

Yet I would wager that the vast majority of you, if put into those same shoes as those Germans, would have carried out those atrocities when ordered to. You don't like that but its in actually likely entirely true; the Holocaust couldn't have happened if it was human nature was otherwise. Then you would change your minds about the fairness of the final fates of those condemned German personnel (executed in court or extra judicially). Its entirely hypocritical for many of you to preach standing up and defying orders from a superior military officer (who technically has the power to execute you or punish you brutally) when I suspect you lack the tenacity to stand up to even to an abusive classroom popular queen or an out of order work manager. I cannot help but be amused at the level of faux moral righteousness in these positions. Its so easy to win a war, have power from above, sit far away, and then play God and summarily end people's lives (and this is what the Allies did).

Once a court (that didn't even exist during the war) got put together by the winners of a war and said "Following Order Is Not An Excuse" you all just jump to this slogan too without REALLY thinking about what that says. Because its so easy.

Not only was it correct, it was done flawedly. They should have decimated the Nazi Personnel. Seriously. If 1,000 terrorists pop up and attack a city, you don't "release 999 of them and kill the officer". You kill all of them. Or at least, punish them heavily. Why are the Nazis any different? (and don't give me the lawful combatant bullshit. They lost their status as anything but a terrorist the moment they started the Holocaust)
One out of every ten should have been killed. It'd still be less than what they'd deserve (realistically, every one of them who had participated in the Holocaust should have been executed, but that would probably lower German population dramatically, so nah)
The fact the denazification wasn't done completely is why we still have nazi apologists and denialists.

[Infected Mushroom]

A lot of people here insist on taking the "moral high ground" that it was completely correct and just for the Allies to execute ground level German personnel for being ordered to carry out atrocities (or even that it was just for the GIs to kill them in cold blood).

Yet I would wager that the vast majority of you, if put into those same shoes as those Germans, would have carried out those atrocities when ordered to. You don't like that but its in actually likely entirely true; the Holocaust couldn't have happened if it was human nature was otherwise. Then you would change your minds about the fairness of the final fates of those condemned German personnel (executed in court or extra judicially). Its entirely hypocritical for many of you to preach standing up and defying orders from a superior military officer (who technically has the power to execute you or punish you brutally) when I suspect you lack the tenacity to stand up to even to an abusive classroom popular queen or an out of order work manager. I cannot help but be amused at the level of faux moral righteousness in these positions. Its so easy to win a war, have power from above, sit far away, and then play God and summarily end people's lives (and this is what the Allies did).

Once a court (that didn't even exist during the war) got put together by the winners of a war and said "Following Order Is Not An Excuse" you all just jump to this slogan too without REALLY thinking about what that says. Because its so easy.

Not only was it correct, it was done flawedly. They should have decimated the Nazi Personnel. Seriously. If 1,000 terrorists pop up and attack a city, you don't "release 999 of them and kill the officer". You kill all of them. Or at least, punish them heavily. Why are the Nazis any different? (and don't give me the lawful combatant bullshit. They lost their status as anything but a terrorist the moment they started the Holocaust)
One out of every ten should have been killed. It'd still be less than what they'd deserve (realistically, every one of them who had participated in the Holocaust should have been executed, but that would probably lower German population dramatically, so nah)
The fact the denazification wasn't done completely is why we still have nazi apologists and denialists.

Its not the same thing.

A terrorist organization has no air of legitimacy. It is obviously a non-governmental organization; the population is not culturally or nationally conditioned to believe they have moral and formal authority or legitimacy.

This was a national government in proper military uniforms. These people had every reason to believe they were serving their country.

[Torrocca]

Yes, it does have to be spelled out, because that's a pretty big fucking accusation to make and it changes a huge perceived aspect of the entire Holocaust. If men are being forced at gunpoint to commit the atrocities, on pain of death, then it needs to fucking be spelled out and proven. As it is, there's no evidence whatsoever that men were executed for refusing to commit atrocities.

if 15,000 to 50,000 German personnel were executed or heavily punished for disobeying orders (some of them very minor orders), it stands to reason that this threat would have hovered over much of the organization; especially as the Holocaust was a very important part of the German national policy at the time

That doesn't matter; what matters is solid, concrete evidence that soldiers were executed for disobeying an order to commit an atrocity, and that they were executed on a frequent enough basis that the punishment for disobeying an order to commit an atrocity was well known and feared. You change the most fundamental part of the Holocaust that's near-universally agreed upon by scholars - the fact that it was by and large a voluntary effort by willing people - by insinuating that people were held at gunpoint in order to commit atrocities. It changes a fucking major aspect of the entire ordeal and isn't something you should suggest so lightly without evidence proving that soldiers were executed for not committing such atrocities.

[NewLakotah]

Regardless, it says nothing about men being executed for refusing to commit atrocities.

It doesn't have to be spelled out. Furthermore, even if only a handful were executed fo it, the fact that so may got executed in general shows that the threat of execution hovers over all

Again, as Torroca pointed out in their own source. There is no evidence of any soldier who refused an order to commit a war crime and being killed for it. None whatsoever, and aparently it happened a few times. Most nothing happened to them. SO if people actually DID refuse orders, then it the precedent should be that it can be done, and if you don't do it then you are guilty of the war crime. Prove that there were individuals killed because of their refusal to carry out war crimes or acts of genocide, prove that they were forced against their will. The evidence all points the other way, in personal writings from SS soldiers, from the top down, from orders given out, from progaganda talk in the national media. Prove that there was an inkling in the idea that they were forced at gunpoint to carry out these acts.