Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich

[IronDuke_slith]

LOL

Please spare me. . .

The personal attacks upon me by you and the spurious logic you have displayed in the last several pages has ended ANY discussion I care to have with you.

I will never spare you searching questions about the things you say, because I do not believe you have the evidence to back them up, as evidenced by your continuing refusal to give it to us. If you wish to avoid the searching questions, it would be advisable to stop posting or provide the evidence like everyone else has to.

IronPyschic hereby predicts that you will reply, thus invalidating your statement above about not caring to have a discussion......

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

VR, I would like a reasonable discussion based on corroborated evidence. Quite what you mean by 'I guess you showed your true colours and intent' I'm really not sure[&:] Dietrich's 'testimony' is a major bone of contention a) since there is some doubt that it ever existed and b) if it did, then Dietrich withdrew it (incidentally I haven't seen a reference that specifically refers to Dietrich in this matter, only that 'confessions' extracted by dubious methods prior to the Dachau trial were withdrawn). Since you said that you had read books on the Dietrich trial I presume you must be able to provide corroborating evidence as to the content of the testimony and from there whether Hitler actually issued the 'Terror' order you mentioned on the first page of the thread. Do that and your contested post on page one will be validated and we can move on.

Kev:

Ya got a lot of nerve requesting to have a "reasonable" discussion with me.

Any chance of that happening ended a couple of pages ago in this thread, when you and several others engaged in nothing less than the most illogical series of posts I have seen in some time, not to mention the personal attacks upon me.

My opinion of several of you has fallen several notches.

So please have this "reasonable discussion" with a few of the others here, and where you can all pat yourselves on the back for believing in the same nonsense and in turning logic on its head.

Good-bye.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Kev:

That example I used was just an initial example.

Here I actually thought you wanted a reasonable discussion. I guess you showed your true colours and intent, eh?

ID:

Deep, thorough analysis as usual.

Whatever happened to you claiming all those websites were wrong about 6th SS Panzer surrendering to Third Army?

As you can see from my previous proof, YOU were WRONG, and those websites were RIGHT.

The logic displayed by several people in the last three pages of this thread is just about as bad as it can possibly be.

I must correct you here, Von Rom. I never denied most of 6th SS Panzer Armee surrendered to 3rd Army, to suggest this is a straw man. I merely pointed out that Dietrich did not order them to surrender, because they had begun to surrender before he even knew the war was over.

If you can find a quote in this thread to the contrary, please reprint it and prove me wrong. (I sense this is another challenge). However, it's not an important one so avoid it as you see fit.

For the record, I think you have also so far ignored my request for a quote from Farago concerning where the Patton/Undersecretary evening of 7th May was located. You merely stated it was in Austria, not demonstrated it with a quote. I don't expect a reply, but when I read Farago, I will of course report back here if I find anything different that you have left out.

IronDuke

Nope.

End of discussion.

I am this close to placing you and several others on my ignore list.

I am surprised with you in particular. Attacking me through my avatar?

You sank to an all time new low. . .

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

LOL

Please spare me. . .

The personal attacks upon me by you and the spurious logic you have displayed in the last several pages has ended ANY discussion I care to have with you.

I will never spare you searching questions about the things you say, because I do not believe you have the evidence to back them up, as evidenced by your continuing refusal to give it to us. If you wish to avoid the searching questions, it would be advisable to stop posting or provide the evidence like everyone else has to.

IronPyschic hereby predicts that you will reply, thus invalidating your statement above about not caring to have a discussion......

Nope.

End of discussion.

This is my LAST post in this thread.

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Kev:

Ya got a lot of nerve requesting to have a "reasonable" discussion with me.

Any chance of that happening ended a couple of pages ago in this thread, when you and several others engaged in nothing less than the most illogical series of posts I have seen in some time, not to mention the personal attacks upon me.

My opinion of several of you has fallen several notches.

So please have this "reasonable discussion" with a few of the others here, and where you can all pat yourselves on the back for believing in the same nonsense and in turning logic on its head.

Good-bye.

I'm sad you feel that way given that one small piece of information would have saved a lot of unnecessary effort. As a peer I requested a few more details on a contentious issue about which you seemed to have more knowledge than I. I do not feel that this was an unreasonable request. I hope that when the 'dust settles' you will see this clearly.

No hard feelings[:)]

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

LOL

Please spare me. . .

The personal attacks upon me by you and the spurious logic you have displayed in the last several pages has ended ANY discussion I care to have with you.

I will never spare you searching questions about the things you say, because I do not believe you have the evidence to back them up, as evidenced by your continuing refusal to give it to us. If you wish to avoid the searching questions, it would be advisable to stop posting or provide the evidence like everyone else has to.

IronPyschic hereby predicts that you will reply, thus invalidating your statement above about not caring to have a discussion......

Nope.

End of discussion.

This is my LAST post in this thread.

Which means I get the last word, then. [;)] I am sorry you have withdrawn, but since further discussion is stalled awaiting your replies to the challenges that have been made, and your references for the evidence which has been requested from you, we weren't really getting anywhere, anyway, so it is for the best.

Perhaps I can now bring the thread back on track.

With Von Rom refusing to give us further details of Dietrich's testimony, we're rather stuck with the trial, as Reynolds dosn't carry so much detail he quotes the depositions.

Should we broaden the discussion to look at the Waffen SS in general and the subject of war crimes? I often wonder whether the mystique about them and their combat proficiency sometimes blinds us to what they were really like. Men like Meyer and Peiper and Hausser etc. Many of the senior Officers in their thirtes during the war were in the SS from the early 1930s, several of them from Hitler's personal bodyguard.

Sydnor's book on the SS-T was particularly interesting in this regard. He showed how several SS divisions swapped drafts of men between units, and how SS-T in particular was made up of concentration guards. Not just the initial draft, but replacements during the war could be drafted from the Guard battalions and wounded SS-T men on convalescense could spend time on light duties guarding camps. Some SS-T men became Commanders and Officers in other SS formations.
So, the question is. How much truth is there in the common Waffen SS image of elite soldiers detached from the excesses of the Third Reich (although committed NAZIS). An image heavily promoted after the war by the Waffen SS veterans themselves?

Regards,
IronDuke

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


Should we broaden the discussion to look at the Waffen SS in general and the subject of war crimes? I often wonder whether the mystique about them and their combat proficiency sometimes blinds us to what they were really like. Men like Meyer and Peiper and Hausser etc. Many of the senior Officers in their thirtes during the war were in the SS from the early 1930s, several of them from Hitler's personal bodyguard.

Sydnor's book on the SS-T was particularly interesting in this regard. He showed how several SS divisions swapped drafts of men between units, and how SS-T in particular was made up of concentration guards. Not just the initial draft, but replacements during the war could be drafted from the Guard battalions and wounded SS-T men on convalescense could spend time on light duties guarding camps. Some SS-T men became Commanders and Officers in other SS formations.

So, the question is. How much truth is there in the common Waffen SS image of elite soldiers detached from the excesses of the Third Reich (although committed NAZIS). An image heavily promoted after the war by the Waffen SS veterans themselves?

Regards,
IronDuke

I think it depends on the particular formations of the Waffen SS. Come the end of the war there were 38 SS divisions and it would be wrong to suggest that they were any better than the ordinary divisions of the heer.

The Totenkopf division (I presume that's what you're referring to by the term 'SS-T') are an interesting case. Williamson points out that since Totenkopf units were raised to provide guards for the concentration camps (before they became synonynous with the extermination camps) they tended to be a 'dumping ground' for men considered to be 'low quality' by the SS administration. Despite being one of the first SS divisions to be formed (along with the Polizei) it was not regarded as being a part of the 'proper' SS. Thus we have a division made up of brutal camp guards, commanded by Theodor Eicke (as vicious and brutal as any Nazi) and with a point to prove. No wonder they were responsible for many of the hideous war crimes committed by the SS during the war.

This site gives a brief overview of Eicke's career and a history of the Totenkopf division. - http://www.fact-index.com/t/th/theodor_eicke.html

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

Hersay or not, since Dietrich retracted the statement during trial, one cannot assume it as fact. While it may be plausible that Hitler would issue such a crazy order, it is more plausible that these written, sworn testimonoes was produced under stress. I think you are right vonRom that semantics and details are important, and should be discussed. That is why I think IronDuke does right in challenging your statement of Dietrich surrendering to Patton (which you said was just unnessessary hassel )
VonRom, I believe you said Patton became a 4 star general at the time (prior) to Dietrich surrender. In your avatar (I assume its Pattons helmet and guns), I see only 3. I assume this picture was taken after the war. What happened?


JT

Hersay or not, since Dietrich retracted the statement during trial, one cannot assume it as fact.

This is an example of the type of reasoning of why I will not discuss the Dietrich trial.

You are claiming that because Dietrich retracted his sworn testimoiny, that it is no longer fact.

Think about what you are saying.

You have just turned logic and jurisprudence on its head.

A murderer makes a written confession, and then swears under oath it is true. He has confessed to murdering dozens of people.

Then weeks later, after he has thought it over, talked to others and his lawyers, he then decides he will retact that confession.

That murderer can do whatever he wants.

But retracting it:

a) Does not make the murderer innnocent

b) It does NOT change the facts of the case

c) It does not mean he did not murder all those people

d) It Does not make his initial confession any less relevant or hearsay

You really need to do some reading up on what constitutes evidence, hearsay, and testimony.

As to my avatar: So what?

Of course an actual murderer could retract a confession, and still be guilty. But, if a person did not lie during a confession, why swhould we believe he lies later on? We cannot know when of these 2 times he lies, so therefor we must assume we cannot trust him on either occation. So his testimony cannot be trusted. In the case of Dietrich it is clearly a chance he was forced this testimony, like he claimed, and so for you to press this testimony to your heart as the only fact, is not right.

As to your avatar; i was wondering if Paton lost a star before he was murdered.


JT

[VicKevlar]

Enuff..........I do believe it's about time for an example.