|
Post by insterburger on Mar 23, 2014 18:13:26 GMT -5
Not to derail the subject, but are there any other units under similar circumstances? The 33rd Waffen SS French Legion? (May have typed that wrong) No others were quite the same. All other foreign volunteer divisions certainly had volunteers who joined not "to serve the cause" but who simply preferred combat to a POW camp or slave labor, but it was only the Latvian divisions that were filled under conditions that were essentially conscription, and who escaped Nazi indoctrination. It is not for nothing that they were the only two W-SS divisions singled out as being non-criminal. So if you're doing 19th Waffen-SS, does that mean we're doing Eastern Front games? COUNT ME IN!!! Truth be told, Lettische 1 or Lettische 2 are the only SS units I would even consider portraying, for the reasons stated above.
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Mar 23, 2014 18:45:19 GMT -5
I am thinking doing the 19th Latvian then. And surely if we can get enough reds to fight, I'll put an eastern front event on!
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on Mar 23, 2014 19:06:52 GMT -5
Not to derail the subject, but are there any other units under similar circumstances? The 33rd Waffen SS French Legion? (May have typed that wrong) No others were quite the same. All other foreign volunteer divisions certainly had volunteers who joined not "to serve the cause" but who simply preferred combat to a POW camp or slave labor, but it was only the Latvian divisions that were filled under conditions that were essentially conscription, and who escaped Nazi indoctrination. It is not for nothing that they were the only two W-SS divisions singled out as being non-criminal. So if you're doing 19th Waffen-SS, does that mean we're doing Eastern Front games? COUNT ME IN!!! Truth be told, Lettische 1 or Lettische 2 are the only SS units I would even consider portraying, for the reasons stated above. General Vlasov anyone? But he was pretty bad.
|
|
|
Post by CharleyNovember on Mar 23, 2014 22:50:50 GMT -5
Thank you from dragging this back from getting ugly. I have been watching this concerned it would get out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on Mar 23, 2014 23:11:27 GMT -5
Maybe even a little political too.
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Mar 24, 2014 17:53:30 GMT -5
Brownien, I'd love foreign volunteer. Only problem is: don't put insignia on dot. Dot only was issued with eagles.
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Mar 24, 2014 18:11:30 GMT -5
That was actually my next question! The tunic is just a bit too small for me, so it would have to be a summer only uniform, with the sleeves rolled up.
|
|
Ersatzjack
Corporal
"That silly Franz... he thinks we are winning."
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by Ersatzjack on Mar 25, 2014 0:12:32 GMT -5
"Charlie November" - The original "Big Brother". I can't stand it any longer. Even the title of this thread is insulting to those of us who have decided to play as the "Indians". How about starting a thread, "The mindset behind allied impressions." It's not as silly a question as it seems. I mean without Allies there would be no Axis impressions (reenactors or airsofters) that would be seen in a kind light. No event wants just the Axis to show up. That would be not a crowd-pleaser at public outings. Usually they want the Axis side to loose too. That's understandable and fine with us. That's how it should be most of the time unless once in awhile the bad guys are allowed to win one. So your average German reenactor knows up front that in public outings he'll take a beating and lives with it. The Allies enable German participation. That word enable is important. For without Allies, there would be no Germans. So if you are an honest Allied member and truly principled and have convinced yourself that your friends and fellow hobbyists are bad for portraying Germans and since your involvement enables them, you should quit. Right? Follow my logic? But assuming that only the Germans were hounded out of the hobby. Allies alone would survive for some events where only Allied participation is wanted but the interest levels would lessen and the hobby would suffer. So when I hear an Allied player say, "I can do Allied but I wouldn't want to stoop to doing German, I just think it's pretty darn high and mighty since the two sides need one another. To tell me that my impression requires less moral character is an indirect insult and I'd rather you keep it to yourself. It applies to same side discussions too. To say that you'll do one type of SS but not another is silly. Do you think that most people know the difference or care. They just see the SS runes. You launching into a detailed explanation will just put you on the defensive and affirm in their minds that you're over thinking things and are self-conscious about your choice. For airsofters especially, this is a game and we need good guys and bad guys, or like us in the Midwest Ostfront Group, just bad guys (Russian and German). Now I'm not naive either. I understand that some folks do have bias against the bad guys in this hobby. I view them as small-minded and ignorant. It's not like we are indoctrinating or doing anything unpatriotic. Quite the opposite. We make the sacrifices so that the Good Guys win over and over. Aside from that - when first interested in 2007, I wanted to do Sgt Saunders of Combat fame but was convinced that the German side needed players and because their gear cost more and I was older with a larger discretionary income made the switch before I had much invested. Capt Zak who doesn't visit here much anymore made the pitch. One side done the way I have is all I can afford or I'd think about doing both. We started as SS and then switched to Heer as we saw a chance to add more members that way. (There were Minnesota members who wanted to come on board as Heer troops.) I didn't question their motives. I just wanted more members. I always liked playing the Germans in war games because you have the chance to change history if you do well and like it or not they have snappy uniforms and cool looking gear. But my hobby loyalties are just that, for the hobby. It's insulting when they are questioned however sneaky or surreptitiously the question is posed. The discussion BTW has been fun to follow and I'm not offended at anyone and speaking only in generalities.
|
|
|
Post by CharleyNovember on Mar 26, 2014 4:27:50 GMT -5
A wise experienced response from EJ. Well said sir.
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on Mar 26, 2014 9:22:20 GMT -5
Hey, I play as a German, but I personally would never do SS. If someone else wants to do it, I really don't care. We do need a bit of SS to make it accurate. I just will never be one. But I have said this many times in the thread...but thought I'd clarify for EJ.
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Mar 26, 2014 14:04:07 GMT -5
OK, I understand. Now, not trying to stir up controversy, but just more curious. How would you guys feel if somebody ever showed up to a living history event dressed up as a USAAF bomber pilot? Just curious, not trying to stir up an argument
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on Mar 26, 2014 15:16:30 GMT -5
they can't be completely blamed for the norton bombsite inaccuracies
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Mar 26, 2014 15:18:22 GMT -5
Well considering, the USAAF bombing campaign in the ETO, was aimed at industrial targets, the German people would be much more offended by a RAF bomber crewmen, as RAF bomber command largely targeted cities (think the firebombing of Dresden). I'm not saying that these RAF crewmen were evil for their bombings, the Luftwaffe bomber crews were equalled in their bombings of British cities durring the blitz. The real evil in play for both sides, was the commander's ideology that a bombing campaign of terror could will a population to surrender. The USAAF bomber campaign arguably contributed the greatest to the outcome of the war. It was them that crippled Germany's ability to wage war on both fronts. Not to mention that more aircraft crewmen were lost in Europe than all US Marines in the PTO, a sacrifice not for nothing
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Mar 26, 2014 15:20:55 GMT -5
And forvthe record, the Norton bombsight was one of the most accurate targeting systems of the era
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Mar 26, 2014 15:26:50 GMT -5
OK, yes, but completely dropping the "well they won" side of things, and just focusing on the actuality of it, I'd say the bombing campaign was equally bad. Stuka, the bombsights have NOTHING to do with it. You do realize that its not like in PC games where you can aim at one building, right? they knew they were bombing cities, but, its war. Its still civilian casualties, doesn't matter whether its on a military target or not.
|
|
Ersatzjack
Corporal
"That silly Franz... he thinks we are winning."
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by Ersatzjack on Mar 26, 2014 17:07:58 GMT -5
Hey, I play as a German, but I personally would never do SS. If someone else wants to do it, I really don't care. We do need a bit of SS to make it accurate. I just will never be one. But I have said this many times in the thread...but thought I'd clarify for EJ. ssgjoe - I'm clear with your position. I just don't agree with it. You gain nothing by broadcasting to potential teammates that position. You do understand that this is all make-believe... no? mlong0510 - You started this fray but there is hope for you. They say (don't ask me who they is) that in any debate only a tiny percentage of people will ever budge from their preconceived notions. No one changes their mind hardly ever. To concede a point is rare but it marks you as open-minded and intellectually honest. brownien - spot on about the Norden bomb-sight. But you have your argument about strategic bombing off a bit. The reason the Brits bombed at night was to save on planes and aircrew. The US could absorb the losses better so took on the job. The Allies determined that Germany would not rest day and night and so a division of labor was decided on. The doctrine for Strategic Bombing in WWII was not materially different between any of the participants. It allowed for breaking the will of the people in industrialized nations and saw little distinction between civilian and soldier with the reasoning being that civilians contributed to the overall war effort. Read this: www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a407815.pdf It is a good report on the doctrine both then and in the years following WWII. The only difference was in later years while doctrine changed little the political will to proceed was not there. In WWII, civilian populations were targets. To engage in revisionist thinking and now claim that bomber personnel are war criminals is ridiculous and I'm surprised to see those notions expressed. The "commander's ideology" was not evil. It was accepted doctrine by all the participants and proved to be largely correct thinking because it did bring about the surrender of Japan and Germany as the survey results in the document link above show. Also the fire bombings of Hamburg and Dresden were combined RAF USAAF operations so no one's hands were clean as you seem to imply by stating that RAF pilot impressions would be less acceptable. I'll grant that perhaps there was more collateral damage (civilian casualties) from the night bombing because it was less precise so perhaps that is what you meant. But neither the Brits or the Americans were overly concerned with civilian casualties. 1944 - To answer your question a WWII bomb crewman's impression at an event would spark no concern from me unless they were a total tool on other levels (like in as if they didn't agree with me on stuff and laugh at my jokes). But I must admit I'm surprised that you'd even pose the question. Must be the education system nowadays. If you're getting that spin on things at schools you really have to seek the knowledge independently.
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Mar 26, 2014 17:18:02 GMT -5
I was more interested on what people would say, considering the level of civilian damage done by bomber crews, considering all that they were bringing up about the WSS seemed to be civilian casualties, lol.
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on Mar 26, 2014 17:19:05 GMT -5
Part of the reason I don't do SS is also because I promised a good friend of mine, who collects, that I wouldn't do SS. He said many of the collectors of SS militaria that he's met we're a little bit National Socialist. Now I'm sure that collectors would more likely get caught up in the politics than an impressionists. I want to honor that promise. That, and I am not a fan of the SS. You choose your impression based on something you like, and I don't like SS whether its make believe or not. Not that I'd feel like a "dirty reenactor", but I'm just not a fan.
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Mar 26, 2014 17:48:25 GMT -5
I think I was a bit to cut and dry with my summary. A majority of the time, US bombers used "precision" bombing on industrial targets, while RAF bombers conducted area bombing of more civilian targets. That was my basic understanding. I don't claim to know all about it, and what I meant about 'command' being evil was it was a necessary evil. My thoughts and typing didn't completely line up there. In any modern war there is going to be civilian casualties. Durring the bombing campaigns, they were workers (mostly) contributing to the war effort, but for the WSS, they were blatantly committing atrocities that really didn't effect the outcome of battle. Thers is a bit of difference there.
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Mar 26, 2014 17:49:34 GMT -5
And btw, for awhile now, I have actually been working on a USAAF fighter/bomber pilot impression!
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on Mar 26, 2014 17:54:46 GMT -5
Usually places were bombed strategically too. The bombers didn't bomb some random city, there was strategic importance to the bombing. The SS executions (even executions committed by the Heer, while not as numerous as SS executions) have minimal to no strategic importance whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Mar 26, 2014 17:59:50 GMT -5
And forvthe record, the Norton bombsight was one of the most accurate targeting systems of the era True, but then you have to consider the appalling accuracy, under actual combat conditions in Northwest Europe, of virtually all targeting systems. Early in the war the Brits discovered that they were lucky to get their bombs within a mile of the target, and trying to do it in daytime was suicide. They had no choice but to aim for cities because a city was the smallest target they could hope to hit. But I also feel you can't hold the aircrew responsible for what the senior leaders of the various air forces ordered. In the pre-war years the air power promoters developed the theory that bombardment alone could force a country to capitulate. They didn't understand, a) the limitations of the technology, and b) the willingness of belligerent governments to let their people suffer rather than surrender. When Plan A didn't work all they could think of was repeating Plan A with more bombs, because the alternative was to admit failure. I think it was Curtis Lemay (though it might have been Spaatz or Arnold) who made a comment during the war that if the Allies lost, they (the Air Force commanders) would be tried as war criminals.
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on Mar 26, 2014 18:14:35 GMT -5
Oh they totally would. I for one am proud to be American, and am glad the allies won, but allied bombings were worse than axis bombings. I mean, London wasn't completely destroyed. But Dresden was. Berlin was St. Lô was pretty bad. It was an unfortunate thing that happened, but war is war. That is, war is terrible.
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Mar 26, 2014 20:29:28 GMT -5
Usually places were bombed strategically too. The bombers didn't bomb some random city, there was strategic importance to the bombing. The SS executions (even executions committed by the Heer, while not as numerous as SS executions) have minimal to no strategic importance whatsoever. Hardly. There were some 700-800 Heer divisions, while only 30 ss divisions. And of those 30, about half were Sturmbrigades. the Heer committed faaaar more atrocities than the waffen SS, simply based on the size. While I'm not denying that the WSS commited many, many atrocities, the heer did equally many. Its part of doing the German side. If you're going to do WW2 German, you need to realize that pretty much everyone did atrocities, and on a mass scale. this whole thing of blaming the SS for everybody else's atrocities is definitely very incorrect.
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on Mar 26, 2014 20:36:17 GMT -5
There are morale eliminates and in an attempt to lower morale cities were bombed sometimes intentionally and sometimes not since factories at times may have been near or in the middle of cities and civilian buildings.
No side is perfect, i just brought up the bombsight in a kind of joking way since i wasn't entirly sure of your intentions. The norton bombsight may have been the most advanced at the time but it still sucked, why do you think they sent so many bombers for one target area?
I forget the exact number but the required bombs to destroy a target was absurdly high. Also the formation of the bombers doesn't help much either since it is spread out, the bomb placement was also spread out which also lead to civilian causalities whether intentional or not.
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on Mar 26, 2014 20:36:41 GMT -5
I'm not blaming the SS on every atrocity
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on Mar 26, 2014 20:39:29 GMT -5
in terms of percentages(since you're having ss vs heer) i would beat the ss have a much higher quantity in concerns of ratio.
Likewise, the allies committed atrocities but in ratio wise (and because we won) they are very easily "ignored" or overlooked especially when compared to the axis atrocities. (Although russia was... well yeah, they didn't even bother)
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on Mar 26, 2014 21:15:15 GMT -5
Just like a jug of water with a cup of salt tastes saltier than sea water, but sea water has more salt. Bad metaphor, but it's all I could come up with.
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on Mar 26, 2014 21:44:47 GMT -5
supposedly there isn't necessarily but rather the two chemicals come together as it hits our mouth and it just taste like salt. That's what my marine bio teacher said, i don't really think thats right but w/e.
also, who's the jug and who's the sea?
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on Mar 26, 2014 22:08:35 GMT -5
SS is the jug, Heer is the sea.
|
|