The swastika

[Geniasis]

Then you should read up on the Nazi regime in Germany. Knowing what the conversation is actually about will make you understand perfectly. I'd stay away from any sources that pretend that the holocaust didn't happen and that the Jews run the banks.

Did anybody in this thread make that claim?

[Just Mike]

The swastika is just a symbol of what happens when a socialist government runs riot

More like an insanely conservative social policy.

If you mean authoritarian then yes that to

[Nobel Hobos]

I say it's never going to be legal for a flag on this site BECAUSE its historical value has been perverted forever by Hitler and by contemporary racist groups.

Forever! Let us never forget the sacrifice our dear Fuehrer made, that his noble efforts to improve the human race should live in the minds of generations yet unborn!

Heil Hitler!

[The Twilight Shadow]

The swastika, like any other symbol, has no power or meaning in and of itself, only the meaning that we give it. It's a geometric shape, a series of lines and points nothing more. It is we that assign meaning to it, just as we assign meaning to an alphanumeric character, a word, or a literary work. So as many have pointed out we need to change what the swastika means to us. The pentagram used to repersent evil, at least to the predominantly Christian populace, but with the proper education, freedom of religion and the rise in popularity of wicca both that meaning and perception have changed. As I understand it the pentagram is actually morally neutral representing balance more than anything else but I'm sure someone will educate me further later. Point is in order to change the meaning of something you need to use it openly for something else. Ironically censorship is not conducive to this because, while it does protect those who might be offended, it also prevents changes in thought patterns.

As for the swastikas original meaning of good fortune I'd say that's a decent enough meaning to back however retrofitting a symbol is not easy. I mean the Christian cross used to be a pagan symbol at one point or so I hear. Imagine trying to say "no its really x" when everyone believes it's y, I say just use it for z instead. Symbols change just as language changes. We're not about to go back to using old English in a hurry but with a few tweaks we can change the meaning of common vocabulary. Symbols are no different.

[Reggenza del Carnaro]

That is like saying that remembering your grandmother's brutal rape and murder makes me think wistfully of all the nice things that I bought after I went through her wallet and melted down her gold teeth for bullion. You disgust me.

No, it's more like saying that you loved your best friend and all the great things he did for you after your parent's divorce...too bad he became a mental case who burned down your house and killed the neighbors.

"Became" is really putting it the wrong way, historically speaking. The Nuremberg laws were passed quite soon after the murdering scum came into power. The fact that their later actions very much reflected what their rhetoric had been when they were out of power is also significant here. If your friend spent these 'good times' (as well as several years previously) stockpiling guns and gasoline while obsessively yammering about what horrible things he was going to do to your neighbors and the wonderful mosaic he would make out of their teeth on your bathroom wall, then your metaphor would be apt. In this case, you would do better to gnash your teeth over the fact that you let the bastard do it (hell, you loaded his gun for him!) than reminisce about the 'good times.' If you could even find the ability to do the latter, you are unspeakably loathsome and vile. Not to mention more than a little bit stupid.

Don't understand your comparison... nor your derogatory conclusion.

Then you should read up on the Nazi regime in Germany. Knowing what the conversation is actually about will make you understand perfectly. I'd stay away from any sources that pretend that the holocaust didn't happen and that the Jews run the banks.

Well... I don't. I mean I did reading about the Nazi Regime in Germany, and I even did reading some of the so-called revisionists theories, which I don't share but I still think they have the right to support.
On the other hand I don't share the way you conceive of having a dialogue... in fact I feel like you're trying to impose your views by saying "either you agree with me either you're unspeakably loathsome and vile. Not to mention more than a little bit stupid. And You disgust me.", which is a odd way to dialogue with others.

[Cybach]

The swastika is just a symbol of what happens when a socialist government runs riot

More like an insanely conservative social policy.

The Nazis conservative? What? They were radicals not conservatives. They pretty much fought the conservatives toe and nail. In fact most of the assassination attempts on Hitler came from the old Conservative factions.

[Cybach]

That is like saying that remembering your grandmother's brutal rape and murder makes me think wistfully of all the nice things that I bought after I went through her wallet and melted down her gold teeth for bullion. You disgust me.

No, it's more like saying that you loved your best friend and all the great things he did for you after your parent's divorce...too bad he became a mental case who burned down your house and killed the neighbors.

"Became" is really putting it the wrong way, historically speaking. The Nuremberg laws were passed quite soon after the murdering scum came into power. The fact that their later actions very much reflected what their rhetoric had been when they were out of power is also significant here. If your friend spent these 'good times' (as well as several years previously) stockpiling guns and gasoline while obsessively yammering about what horrible things he was going to do to your neighbors and the wonderful mosaic he would make out of their teeth on your bathroom wall, then your metaphor would be apt. In this case, you would do better to gnash your teeth over the fact that you let the bastard do it (hell, you loaded his gun for him!) than reminisce about the 'good times.' If you could even find the ability to do the latter, you are unspeakably loathsome and vile. Not to mention more than a little bit stupid.

Don't understand your comparison... nor your derogatory conclusion.

Then you should read up on the Nazi regime in Germany. Knowing what the conversation is actually about will make you understand perfectly. I'd stay away from any sources that pretend that the holocaust didn't happen and that the Jews run the banks.

Exactly how was the segregation of Jews into ghettos different than the US segregation of blacks? The only major difference I see is the 1941 decision to liquidate all ghettos due to their perceived unmaintainability during a huge war. Other than that I don't see to many major differences between the two societies.


Also pay attention to my last sentence in the original. I said most people are happy with the modern Federal Republic. It's certainly the best Germany of the 20th century and the most stable. However considering the shit atmosphere of the 1920s/30s the Nazis were probably not the worst form of government. You'll find enough Germans admitting that the Nazis were necessary at that time to counter the machinations of France and threats of Poland. Why do you think there was so little resistance against Hitler and he was also often lauded as a savior? For a short time he did seem to put things right.

[Free Outer Eugenia]

On the other hand I don't share the way you conceive of having a dialogue... in fact I feel like you're trying to impose your views by saying "either you agree with me either you're unspeakably loathsome and vile. Not to mention more than a little bit stupid. And You disgust me.", which is a odd way to dialogue with others.

But are these sentiments not vile and loathsome? I have explained why I believe that they are. Do you disagree? If so, then why? Is picking at words rather than making any substantive points the way that you conceive of having a dialogue? If so then I most certainly do not share your way of doing it.

I find it hilarious that you find it perfectly fine to for someone remember the economic benefits granted to native Germans by the Nazi regime at the expense of the robbery, oppression and eventually enslavement and wholesale murder of Jews, gypsies, political dissidents and many others with wistful nostalgia, and yet you recoil at the idea that someone would call these opinions exactly what they are- vile, loathsome and stupid.

Certain things are just beyond the pale. No one should necessarily be prohibited from articulating them, but the fact that you are so shocked that someone would publicly admit to being disgusted by them and call anyone who says them out on them is absurd.

Exactly how was the segregation of Jews into ghettos different than the US segregation of blacks?

And I would say much the same thing about any fucking cracker who was nostalgic about that.

However considering the shit atmosphere of the 1920s/30s the Nazis were probably not the worst form of government.

Sorry, I didn't know about the comparable repressions and mass murders committed by the Wiemar Republic. My mistake.

threats of Poland

[Free Outer Eugenia]

You'll find enough Germans admitting that the Nazis were necessary at that time

You know, I never thought much of the strict laws in Germany that prohibit and criminalize the paraphernalia and ideology of those unforgivable loathsome and inhuman scum, but I think that you have convinced me that they just might be necessary in the current situation. If it is believed by a large portion of the population that such an unjustifiable monstrosity was once necessary, then it is not all that unlikely that they will be ready to accept it as necessary during some drawn-out crisis in the future. The thought of this is quite scary.

What you say does not so much legitimize the Nazi regime (in any phase of it's existence) as it places a shameful mark upon the brows of the Germans that you mention.

[Reggenza del Carnaro]

On the other hand I don't share the way you conceive of having a dialogue... in fact I feel like you're trying to impose your views by saying "either you agree with me either you're unspeakably loathsome and vile. Not to mention more than a little bit stupid. And You disgust me.", which is a odd way to dialogue with others.

But are these sentiments not vile and loathsome? I have explained why I believe that they are. Do you disagree? If so, then why? Is picking at words rather than making any substantive points the way that you conceive of having a dialogue? If so then I most certainly do not share your way of doing it.

I find it hilarious that you find it perfectly fine to for someone remember the economic benefits granted to native Germans by the Nazi regime at the expense of the robbery, oppression and eventually enslavement and wholesale murder of Jews, gypsies, political dissidents and many others with wistful nostalgia, and yet you recoil at the idea that someone would call these opinions exactly what they are- vile, loathsome and stupid.

Certain things are just beyond the pale. No one should necessarily be prohibited from articulating them, but the fact that you are so shocked that someone would publicly admit to being disgusted by them and call anyone who says them out on them is absurd.

Exactly how was the segregation of Jews into ghettos different than the US segregation of blacks?

And I would say much the same thing about any fucking cracker who was nostalgic about that.

However considering the shit atmosphere of the 1920s/30s the Nazis were probably not the worst form of government.

Sorry, I didn't know about the comparable repressions and mass murders committed by the Wiemar Republic. My mistake.

threats of Poland

Sorry I'm not "picking at words" but at the way you're using them.
And I'm afraid I have to inform you:
1) That the economic benefits the Nazi regime granted to Germans weren't coming from the enslavement/murder etc. of Jews, gypsies and political dissidents (which started after) but from a politic of massive public investments (quite alike what Mussolini did in Italy , and - later - F.D. Rooosevelt did in the U.S.).
2) That even the causes of Hitler's succeeding in his political rise aren't to be saddled to the sole German people with, but are mainly due to the absurd, preposterous conditions of the Versailles diktat. Which were mainly supported by France (who was searching for its revenge of the 1870 war) and by the United States.
So, no, I don't like nor your way to expose your toughts, nor your toughts in themselves, as I think they're being rather influenced by your feelings, which I may respect as feelings but do not represent an objective, historically-based point of view.
If this makes me too "vile, loathsome and stupid" on your eyes, well I think I'll have to come to terms with that.

[Free Outer Eugenia]

That the economic benefits the Nazi regime granted to Germans weren't coming from the enslavement/murder etc. of Jews, gypsies and political dissidents

The Nuremberg laws were passed two years after Hitler got the chancellorship. There were certainly some immediate benefits arising from the public construction projects undertaken, but the brunt of the economic benefits for ethnic Germans (lets remember that the Nazis all about enslaving and murdering everyone else) that Hitler is remembered for arose out of the distribution of good jobs and businesses previously held by ethnic minorities to ethnic Germans. Sure Hitler was chosen "man of the year" by Time Magazine- but this wasn't in 1933, or even 1934. This happened in 1938 when his little 'stimulus plan' was looking much more like Pol Pot (how 'necessary' was he, I wonder?) than FDR. Lets also remember that FDR simply co-opted, toned down and maneuvered around the more reasonable plans presented by the American left instead of bludgeoning the American left to death with rifle butts.

That even the causes of Hitler's succeeding in his political rise aren't to be saddled to the sole German people

Would you then also say that the massive campaign of rape inflicted upon German women by the Russian Army should not be blamed on the rapists because of the German state's massive crimes against the Russian people? I would not be too quick to say that either. Historical and material reasons should be recognized, but they do not always absolve.

I think they're being rather influenced by your feelings, which I may respect as feelings but do not represent an objective, historically-based point of view.

Drop the Spock routine, my friend. It does not suit you and it does not grant your arguments any special legitimacy. As I have demonstrated, my opinions are based on what the Nazis were and what they did. I find your allusion to historical fact to be vague when it suits you and generally selective- particularly when attempting to separate the Nazi economic policies from the Nazi atrocities which are utterly inseparable. I have no problem with the autobahn, but I still hold that to suggest that the Nazis were 'necessary' because the Wiemar Republic was taking too long to build the thing is stupid, vile and loathsome.

[Katganistan]

This thread wouldn't happen to be about the ban on Swastikas on flags in NS would it?

*cough*Not enforced*cough*

Certainly is.

[New Arcturas (Ancient)]

The swastika was originally a sign of good fortune and power, but Hitler turned it into his Nazi symbol of power over anything he can kill.

[Cybach]

That the economic benefits the Nazi regime granted to Germans weren't coming from the enslavement/murder etc. of Jews, gypsies and political dissidents

The Nuremberg laws were passed two years after Hitler got the chancellorship. There were certainly some immediate benefits arising from the public construction projects undertaken, but the brunt of the economic benefits for ethnic Germans that Hitler is remembered for arose out of the distribution of good jobs and businesses previously held by ethnic minorities to ethnic Germans. Sure Hitler was chosen "man of the year' by Time magazine- but this wasn't in 1933, or even 1934. This happened in 1938 when his little 'stimulus plan' was looking much more like Pol Pot (how 'necessary' was he, I wonder?) than FDR.

That even the causes of Hitler's succeeding in his political rise aren't to be saddled to the sole German people

Would you then also say that the massive campaign of rape inflicted upon German women by the Russian Army should not be blamed on the rapists because of the German state's massive crimes against the Russian people? I would not be too quick to say that either. Historical and material reasons should be recognized, but they do not always absolve.

I think they're being rather influenced by your feelings, which I may respect as feelings but do not represent an objective, historically-based point of view.

Drop the Spock routine, my friend. It does not suit you and it does not grant your arguments any special legitimacy. As I have demonstrated, my opinions are based on what the Nazis were and what they did. I find your allusion to historical fact to be vague when it suits you and generally selective- particularly when attempting to separate the Nazi economic policies from the Nazi atrocities which are utterly inseparable. I have no problem with the autobahn, but I still hold that to suggest that the Nazis were 'necessary' because the Wiemar Republic was taking too long to build the thing is stupid, vile and loathsome.

How do you then see the rape of women in Ukraine and Poland? The Red Army after all raped those territories with as much viciousness as it did the German territories. The only difference is that for some reason people tend to forget that or not emphasize it.

In Poland there were actually riots against the Red Army as a result. Likewise there were repeated Polish pleas towards the Soviet highcommand to do something against the rape/plundering as it was ruining their image of a "clean liberation." As well there were cells and units of the underground Polish resistance which allied themselves with the Germans in '44 after witnessing the plunder/rape of the incoming Soviets. Their view being "the devil you know." Repulse the Soviets and then back to killing Germans.

[Cybach]

The swastika is just a symbol of what happens when a socialist government runs riot

More like an insanely conservative social policy.

If you mean authoritarian then yes that to

Hitler's regime was very close to the opposite of socialism.

No it wasn't. It was an ultra-nationalist form of socialism. It only applied it's socialist values to a specific racial category of society. This goes counter to democratic socialism which is the modern norm and is the most widely used form. This however does not mean that the Nazis did not practice a form of socialism.

[Free Outer Eugenia]

How do you then see the rape of women in Ukraine and Poland? The Red Army after all raped those territories with as much viciousness as it did the German territories. The only difference is that for some reason people tend to forget that or not emphasize it.

I think that it gives the lie to the excuses thrown around for the rape of German women. But if I were the sort of reasonable Good German who believed that the Nazis were 'necessary,' and that it was really nice that ethnic minorities were politically repressed and dispossessed for the sake of 'real' Germans, (brrr! they were better than that rotten decadent Wiemar Republic, right?!) I guess that I would say that I would see it as a big 'ol historical necessity of some sort too

[Free Outer Eugenia]

I'd like to see your sources Re: the rape in the Ukraine and Poland though. Esp. Re: the Ukraine. Being from the Ukraine, I'd think that I would have spoken to someone who knew someone who was victimized in such a way. Not saying it didn't happen, just want to know what your sources are for this particular claim.

[Reggenza del Carnaro]

That the economic benefits the Nazi regime granted to Germans weren't coming from the enslavement/murder etc. of Jews, gypsies and political dissidents

The Nuremberg laws were passed two years after Hitler got the chancellorship. There were certainly some immediate benefits arising from the public construction projects undertaken, but the brunt of the economic benefits for ethnic Germans (lets remember that the Nazis all about enslaving and murdering everyone else) that Hitler is remembered for arose out of the distribution of good jobs and businesses previously held by ethnic minorities to ethnic Germans. Sure Hitler was chosen "man of the year" by Time Magazine- but this wasn't in 1933, or even 1934. This happened in 1938 when his little 'stimulus plan' was looking much more like Pol Pot (how 'necessary' was he, I wonder?) than FDR.

That even the causes of Hitler's succeeding in his political rise aren't to be saddled to the sole German people

Would you then also say that the massive campaign of rape inflicted upon German women by the Russian Army should not be blamed on the rapists because of the German state's massive crimes against the Russian people? I would not be too quick to say that either. Historical and material reasons should be recognized, but they do not always absolve.

Well, Kristallnacht (which started the Jew's segregation in the lagers) happened to occur at the end of 1938, thus stating that the brunt of the economic benefits is remembered for arose out of the distribution of good jobs and businesses previously held by ethnic minorities to ethnic Germans is totally foundless.
The comparison with the Russians rapes is (once again) acceptable from the point of view o feelings, but a nonsense from an historical point of view. Germans voted for Hitler because he was representing for them the redemption form the humiliations and the degradation they suffered after the WW1 armistice, and the overtaking of the economical crisis they had to undergo all along the Weimar Republic era. Voting for Hitler didn't mean for them the genocide of Jews... although they certainly were aware of the discrimination that the Nazis would have operated.

I think they're being rather influenced by your feelings, which I may respect as feelings but do not represent an objective, historically-based point of view.

Drop the Spock routine, my friend. It does not suit you and it does not grant your arguments any special legitimacy. As I have demonstrated, my opinions are based on what the Nazis were and what they did. I find your allusion to historical fact to be vague when it suits you and generally selective- particularly when attempting to separate the Nazi economic policies from the Nazi atrocities which are utterly inseparable. I have no problem with the autobahn, but I still hold that to suggest that the Nazis were 'necessary' because the Wiemar Republic was taking too long to build the thing is stupid, vile and loathsome.

The Weimar Republic's problem was not about construction of the Autobahn, but because of its absolute inadeguacy to deal both with the foreign politics (the Baltikum crisis, and the French invasion of the Rhineland) and with the financial crisis. It was a total failure as a republic and the Germans were just happy to put it behind them. Nor we should be astonished if they don't regret it nowadays.

[Cybach]

You'll find enough Germans admitting that the Nazis were necessary at that time

You know, I never thought much of the strict laws in Germany that prohibit and criminalize the paraphernalia and ideology of those unforgivable loathsome and inhuman scum, but I think that you have convinced me that they just might be necessary in the current situation. If it is believed by a large portion of the population that such an unjustifiable monstrosity was once necessary, then it is not all that unlikely that they will be ready to accept it as necessary during some drawn-out crisis in the future. The thought of this is quite scary.

What you say does not so much legitimize the Nazi regime (in any phase of it's existence) as it places a shameful mark upon the brows of the Germans that you mention.

It does. However for whichever reason Germany seems to be heading towards a bit of a conflict. The old generation was largely non-apologetic for the Third Reich and stood by their choice as being necessary. Which is the typical "old conceited stubborn goats" mantra. Then came the following generation which caused the whole soul-searching and whatnot about the Third Reich and coming to terms with the horrors of the holocaust.


Now according to our Innenminister we have a serious issue with the radicalization of the youth into a so-called "grandfather" generation. This country has been heading down the shitter since the 1990s. Or at least our newest generation of youth seem to have some very out of place views;


Funke's analysis was backed up this week by a major new study which showed that fully one in seven German teenagers -- 14.4 percent -- have attitudes deemed highly xenophobic. They agreed with statements like, for example, "Most immigrants are criminal." 45% of all youths agreed with the statement that foreigners bring nothing of value to society.

Eine neue Studie zeigt: Neonazis haben mehr Zulauf als alle anderen Jugendorganisationen zusammen. Wenn sich Jugendliche sozial oder politisch engagieren, dann gehen sie zu den Jusos, der Jungen Union, zum Roten Kreuz oder in die Freiwillige Feuerwehr. Dass es daneben auch noch junge Menschen gibt, die sich bei den Rechten wohler fühlen, galt bisher als überschaubares Phänomen. (A new study shows that Neo-nazi groups attract a larger following than all other politically orientated youth groups. When a youth wants to engage socially or politically they would historically go to the young socialists, red cross or the volunteer firebrigade. That there would be youths who would feel more comfortable going to a right-radical group was considered an unheard of phenomenon. The Pfeiffer study however shows that nearly 4,9% of all boys and 2,6% of all girls aged 15 are members of a neo-nazi organization/brotherhood)


Apart from the new survey, analysts point to a surge in far-right crimes last year and to a surprisingly strong showing of neo-Nazis on Feb. 14 to mark the 64th anniversary of the Allied bombing of Dresden during World War II. The fact that the NPD managed to attract more than twice as many supporters to the event as last year underlines that the far-right scene is growing.

"The lure of the scene is far too great," said Bernd Wagner, a former police officer who co-founded EXIT, a group that helps people get out of the neo-Nazi scene. "Who's going to keep young people out of it? Nagging teachers? The priest who's more focused on his crooked church spire? The country policeman who wants a quiet life?"


etc.. etc.. etc..


http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotos ... 785-2.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 09,00.html
http://www.gruen-as.de/2000/04/artikel2.html
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/rech ... m-1.388150
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/rech ... g-1.395067
http://www.bmbf.de/pub/antidemokratische_potenziale.pdf

[Cybach]

I'd like to see your sources Re: the rape in the Ukraine and Poland though. Esp. Re: the Ukraine. Being from the Ukraine, I'd think that I would have spoken to someone who knew someone who was victimized in such a way. Not saying it didn't happen, just want to know what your sources are for this particular claim.

I read this book 2 years ago.

http://www.amazon.com/Rape-Poland-Patte ... 143049638X


It goes quite a bit into the conduct of the Red Army in the beginning and towards the end. A lot of the Soviet conduct in Poland was overlooked or whitewashed by the subsequent Polish Communist Regime, which did not wish to start it's administration by feuding bad blood with Moscow.


However in case you don't have a library or an interest to read an entire book. I can offer you a quick wikipedia link just so you can see I am not creating it out of thin air;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes ... ion#Poland

In Poland, Nazi atrocities ended by late 1944, but they were replaced by Soviet oppression with the advance of Soviet forces. Soviet soldiers often engaged in plunder, rape, and other crimes against the Poles, causing the population to fear and hate the Soviet regime.

Polish sources claim that there are cases of mass rapes in Polish cities taken by the Red Army. In Kraków, Soviet entry into the city was accompanied by mass rapes of Polish women and girls, as well as the plunder of private property by Soviet soldiers. According to these sources, this behavior reached such a scale that even Polish communists installed by the Soviet Union were preparing a letter of protest to Joseph Stalin himself, while church masses were held in expectation of a Soviet withdrawal.

[Cybach]

I'd like to see your sources Re: the rape in the Ukraine and Poland though. Esp. Re: the Ukraine. Being from the Ukraine, I'd think that I would have spoken to someone who knew someone who was victimized in such a way. Not saying it didn't happen, just want to know what your sources are for this particular claim.

Which part of Ukraine? Ukraine was fairly split during the war in terms of loyalties. Conflict with Poland and Russia, as well as bad blood about the holodomor meant they were a lot more welcoming to the Nazis than say the Belarussians.

I know there were significant regions of Ukraine which were a lot more sympathetic towards the Axis. Hell, the recent "concentration camp nazi case" of Demjanjuk involved a Ukrainian. After all the sheer number of collaboration/volunteers among the Ukrainians meant that they were given several SS divisions and even then many served in autonomous units outside of Nazi command but in-line in terms of loyalties.

[Reggenza del Carnaro]

About Poland... I still don't understand why the U.K. and France declared war against Germany for invading the half of Poland but not against the USSR, which had invaded the other half...

[Scarsaw]

About Poland... I still don't understand why the U.K. and France declared war against Gerrmany for invading the half of Poland but not against the USSR, which had invaded the other half...

I thought Germany invaded the entire thing and agreed to give USSR the other half as a token of goodwill...

[Reggenza del Carnaro]

About Poland... I still don't understand why the U.K. and France declared war against Gerrmany for invading the half of Poland but not against the USSR, which had invaded the other half...

I thought Germany invaded the entire thing and agreed to give USSR the other half as a token of goodwill...

Nope, the Soviets just started a couple of weeks after the Germans...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland

[Reggenza del Carnaro]

I'd like to see your sources Re: the rape in the Ukraine and Poland though. Esp. Re: the Ukraine. Being from the Ukraine, I'd think that I would have spoken to someone who knew someone who was victimized in such a way. Not saying it didn't happen, just want to know what your sources are for this particular claim.

Which part of Ukraine? Ukraine was fairly split during the war in terms of loyalties. Conflict with Poland and Russia, as well as bad blood about the holodomor meant they were a lot more welcoming to the Nazis than say the Belarussians.

I know there were significant regions of Ukraine which were a lot more sympathetic towards the Axis. Hell, the recent "concentration camp nazi case" of Demjanjuk involved a Ukrainian. After all the sheer number of collaboration/volunteers among the Ukrainians meant that they were given several SS divisions and even then many served in autonomous units outside of Nazi command but in-line in terms of loyalties.

There was only one SS division from Ukraine (the 14th Waffen Grenadier Divison "Galizien")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_%281st_Ukrainian%29