SS vs. VC

I finished a fascinating book, The Devil’s Guard.  It had been out of print for ages, so I had to buy it used from someone selling it for less than $200.

 SS.  This was the elite organization of Nazi Germany.  No Holocaust film is complete without SS guards, guarding the concentration camps and rounding up hapless Jews; brutal guards and cynical officers – even the charismatic and articulate Hans Landa from Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglorious Basterds”.  With their black uniforms and dramatic symbols, the SS runes and Totenkopf (Death’s Head), the SS is certainly a fascinating incarnation of evil.  Although the SS was a vast organization with its tentacles in all walks of German life, most of what the SS is infamous for nowadays is its role in the Holocaust.  The Totenkopfverbande (Death’s Head Detachment) manned the concentration and extermination camps.  The Einsatzgruppen were special squads operating in the forests of Ukraine, Byelorussia, and the Baltics mowing down Jews in vast open pits dug by the victims themselves.  After the war, the SS was seen as Nazi Germany’s primary organization responsible for the atrocities associated with the regime. Its leader, Heinrich Himmler, escaped justice by swallowing a cyanide capsule upon capture by the British; Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped from Argentina by Mossad agents and brought to justice in Jerusalem.  

Part of the SS, but not part of the Holocaust operations, was an elite army known as the Waffen SS (Armed SS).  This was originally designed partly as Hitler’s personal bodyguard (Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler), which became the First SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler (LAH), and a modest group of special disposal troops, the Vefugungstruppe (SS-VT), which later developed into the Second SS Panzer Division Das Reich. They were intended both as an elite fighting force loyal directly to Adolf Hitler, but also as a militarized police force after the war which would have gained credibility and respect on the battlefield.  Complicating the “we had nothing to do with the camps” argument, however, is the Third SS Division, Totenkopf, which was raised from concentration camp guards and led by Theodore Eicke, who was responsible for developing the camp system and establishing its rules.  The two major stains on the Waffen SS were the massacre of French civilians in Oradour, perpetrated by a unit from the Das Reich division, and the massacre of US prisoners at Malmedy, in Belgium, during the Battle of the Bulge, by the Leibstandarte Division.

 The majority of Waffen SS units, however, were concerned with fighting the Red Army on the Eastern Front.  They formed ad hoc kampfgruppes (battle groups) which combined for specific operations as necessary, a flexibility unique to that army.  SS units were the scourge of the Reds and later the Allies, always feared and underestimated at their enemies’ peril.  Fortunately for their enemies, the SS was limited in number, never more than 10% of the size of the Wehrmacht, a few core German divisions and many more foreign units (see below).

 The Waffen SS attracted some German Army mavericks who had unconventional ideas for training which were frowned upon by the traditional German Army.  The Waffen SS trained with live ammunition and upgraded the exercise, fitness and calisthenics of the soldiers, plus a healthy dose of Nazi propaganda training.  Its soldiers received the first camouflage uniforms, a distinctive dot cammo (green or brown, depending on spring or fall) and also received the best weapons and equipment, and its panzer divisions received the newest tanks.  Waffen SS soldiers are the ones seen in the last third of “Saving Private Ryan” almost overrunning Tom Hanks’ small group of soldiers and paratroopers. 

 Another fascinating aspect of the Waffen SS was its multinational composition.  It initially accepted “Aryan”/Nordic volunteers from Norway, Denmark, Holland, and Flemish Belgium, plus “Reichdeutsche” (foreign nationals of German ethnicity).  Later, the SS lowered its racial standards and allowed French, Walloons (French speaking Belgians), Hungarians, Estonians, Latvians, and even Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavs.  Leon Degrelle, commander of the SS Walloon Division, was the highest decorated non-German in the Waffen SS.  There was a Yugoslav unit, the Handschar Division, of Muslim Croatians.  However, the infamous “Britisches Freikorps” was little more than a 30 man unarmed unit which never saw combat.

 After the war, some of the Waffen SS veterans, fleeing what they perceived to be indiscriminate justice at the hands of the victorious Allies who labeled all SS personnel “war criminals”, wound up in France and received sanctuary in the ranks of the French Foreign Legion, which has a reputation for accepting disreputable characters from all over the world.  By this point the French were involved in a costly guerilla war in the mountains and forests of North Vietnam, against Ho Chi Minh’s US-trained and Chinese-supplied guerilla force, the Viet Minh.  The Foreign Legion allowed the Germans to form their own self-contained, independently operating unit.

 Viet Minh.  The precursor to the infamous Viet Cong (VC) was the Viet Minh, essentially the same organization under a slightly different name.  Without a sovereign state, North Vietnam, yet in existence, the army was purely guerilla but had substantial support from China and the USSR.

 The German unit operated behind Viet Minh lines and caused considerable problems for them.  Many of them were sharpshooters, carrying silenced rifles.  They learned fluent French and some Vietnamese, and were assisted by a Viet Minh turncoat, whose whole family had been wiped out by the Viet Minh.  Realizing that the Chinese were supporting the Viet Minh, the German unit went into China proper, dressed in black pajamas, tire sandals, the conical hats, and blew up several staging camps.  They also rescued several units of captured Legionnaires, and avenged others who were not so fortunate. 

 The Germans ruthlessly repaid Viet Minh atrocities in kind; on the rare occasion in which VM officers were lenient with French prisoners, the Germans acted likewise.  On one convoy, the Germans rounded up the wives and children of the local guerillas and used them as human shields to guarantee the safety of the convoy.  At another camp, besieged by a ruthless VM officer murdering captive Legionnaires outside the stockade of the camp, the Germans captured the VM unit’s local family and brought them to the camp, threatening to kill them if the VM officer didn’t back off.  This resulted in a mutiny in the VM ranks, who turned on their own officers.

On one remarkable occasion, one of the Germans challenged a VM officer to an open debate in front of the local villagers.  This German was well versed in Marxist ideology and ripped apart the VM’s arguments one by one; he was clearly excited and amused to engage in this battle of wits, words and ideas instead of bullets. 

  The Germans had also studied Mao’s guerilla warfare tactics and the writings of Spencer Chapman, a British officer who had been part of the UK advisors who remained in Malaysia after the Japanese took over, advising and organizing local guerillas to fight the Japanese; his book The Jungle is Neutral served as much as a primer in jungle warfare and counterinsurgency as Mao’s own teachings.  It turns out the French had done no prep work training the Legion for fighting in jungles (their training bases were in North Africa) nor had they bothered to study the tactics of the Viet Minh or of Mao himself, who literally wrote the book which Communist guerilla movements followed. 

 Unable to defeat the Germans in the forest, the Viet Minh used its political connections among the world’s Communist movement, particularly in France, to embarrass the French into disbanding the German unit.  Its men, unwilling to be parceled out piecemeal to the other Foreign Legion units, and having satisfied their enlistments, resigned from the Legion and found homes around the world.  In 1971, the leader of the unit, Hans Wagemueller (not his real name), met with the author of The Devil’s Guard and dictated his fascinating story. 

We Must Obey

A few weeks ago I was entering the parking garage in my apartment building, and to my immense disgust and frustration, the woman in front of me was going at a glacially slow pace, I mean REALLY slow.  It reached the point that I actually honked my horn at her, and her response was to point angrily at the speed limit sign in the garage, which reads “5 MPH”.  Talk about clueless.

First off, 5 miles per hour is how fast an automatic transmission-equipped car goes if you take your foot off the brake and the gas pedal.  It’s that slow creep which is appropriate for bumper-to-bumper traffic.  For a parking garage?  Come on.  I can see not shooting through the garage like a rocket, as people come and go, both pedestrians and other cars, so something like 15-25 mph is a sensible limit.  But 5 mph is idiotic.

What is with people who insist on obeying laws, no matter how idiotic?  What possesses them to turn off what little brains they have and militantly refuse to exercise independent judgment?

I’ve heard a prosecutor argue, when faced with the issue of obeying what are clearly inane, archaic, or obsolete laws, that giving ordinary citizens the prerogative to choose which laws to obey, and which to flaunt, would result in chaos and mayhem.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The speed limit is already an example of a law 85% of the population consistently ignores.  The police have a policy of not pulling anyone over for less than 15 mph over the limit, when theoretically they’re within their rights to pull over anyone exceeding the speed limit; so even cops realize the speed limit is arbitrarily low.  Yet somehow, the scofflaw speeders have not decided that, “hey, I’m violating the speed limit, why not rob, steal, cheat, rape, or murder??”  Failure to enforce zero tolerance for speeding has not resulted in a lawless society.  What these prosecutors fail to do is to give credit to ordinary citizens to distinguish bullshit laws (speed limits) from sensible laws (murder) – which we find, in fact, is a distinction which ordinary citizens are competent of making.  To be fair, I do recall that the Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office expressly declared that they would not be actively enforcing Virginia’s archaic fornication law (making consensual sex between unmarried people illegal) until recently when it was finally (!) repealed.  Maybe there are some sensible prosecutors after all, since we already have sensible non-murdering speeders, myself included.

We usually associate such mindless obedience to authority with Germans.  Yet (as I noted much earlier) even SS personnel refused to obey commands.  Himmler himself issued a ruling that no one would be forced to participate in “eliminations” of the Jewish population.  So even the Germans, even in the SS, could think independently and refuse to participate in these atrocities. To be sure, conscientious SS officers and men were an unfortunately rare minority, otherwise the Holocaust would not have occurred.  I simply bring it up as an extreme example.

The Milgram Experiment was a famous demonstration of this, disturbingly closer to home.  In 1961 Stanley Milgram conducted experiments with US college students, the results of which were published in his 1974 book Obedience to Authority.  He set up college students to test other college students, the latter to answer various questions, receiving a shock for a wrong answer, the strength thereof increased with every wrong answer.  After a few such wrong answers, the subject began making painful noises, then ominously ceased responding.  The true subjects (those administering the test) were told to continue the tests even after the responder began showing signs of extreme pain.  Results?  65% of the subjects obeyed orders to the full strength of shocks.  Although many subjects had misgivings, ultimately they obeyed orders.  Even after the Holocaust, even in the US, so-called normal people could be counted upon to obey orders even when it involved injuring or even killing innocent people.

Some people seem to take solace in security, in a lack of choice, in being told what to do by others, in being relieved of the responsibility of thinking independently, of exercising their own judgment.  To me, the sole legitimate role for such people in a civilized, democratic society is the military, and even then, solely in enlisted ranks.  They have turned off their brains, refuse to think, and turned themselves, voluntarily, by default, into nothing better than robots or animals.  Let them put on a uniform, carry a weapon, and mindlessly obey orders, and let the independent thinkers in the military come home.  Enough. 

Black Is The Color

It’s time for another somewhat esoteric and abstract discussion, this time about something pretty vague: the color black.

For a long time, it’s been my favorite color. I can’t explain why; I suppose it’s just a matter of taste. I’m not even a goth, nor have I ever been.


Cars. I had my Formula painted black in 1997-78 (from its original dark aqua metallic), and having seen Knight Rider, it’s clear that few cars suit the color as well as a ’92 Firebird Formula, with its sleek body and asymmetric hood. It suits the car even better than it does ’76-81 Trans Ams, especially the Special Editions (aka “Bandit models”) as I’m not a big fan of black & gold. Car manufacturers report that black is consistently a popular color, ever since the Model T, which of course was only offered in black. Unfortunately for cars, black is the color least forgiving of dents, dings, and other imperfections – and white is the most forgiving, which is why pickups and utility vans are so often white. Any car looks best in black, but it’s most alluring and flattering for performance cars.


Guitars. My Gibson Explorer and Fender Stratocaster are both black. I’d have bought my Gibson SG in black too, but that particular model, the ’62 Reissue, was only available in cherry. Since Stratocasters have been available in solid colors – after the two-tone sunburst they originally came in, in 1954 – since 1956, black has been the one color, year after year, which has always been available. Eric Clapton’s famous Strat is black, and the color is now available for his signature model. The Les Paul Custom is traditionally black, although it’s available in other colors as well, notably white and silverburst (favored by Adam Jones of Tool).


Race. I suppose as a white person, my own preferences are irrelevant, but I prefer the term “black” to describe that race, better than the alternatives. Obviously “colored” and “negro” are out of fashion, yet “African-American” seems a little too stilted. Those of us of European descent don’t refer to ourselves as “Polish-American”, “German-American”, or “Irish-American”, etc., especially since with such heterogeneity among not only whites but also multi-racial mix these days, it would be cumbersome, inconvenient, and really stupid for any of us who aren’t complete pedigrees to insist on that. Of course, black people are more brown (aside from some from deep, dark Africa), but aside from albinos, white people aren’t really “white” (more like pink), and Asians aren’t really “yellow” either. I’ve heard the expression “oreo” (black on the outside, white on the inside); is there a “snowball” (white on the outside, black on the inside)? Or a “twinkie” (yellow on the outside, white on the inside)? Or “egg” (white on the outside, yellow on the inside)? We could go on with these food/race analogies for awhile. Be that as it may, I think as a racial description, black is best: it’s simple, descriptive, and devoid of value-judgments.


Music/Songs. “Fade to Black” by Metallica, “Back in Black” (song and album) by AC/DC, “Paint It Black” by the Rolling Stones, not to mention Metallica’s self-titled fifth album, are just a few examples. Ritchie Blackmore tended to dress in black, but for some reason rarely favored black guitars. Black Sabbath also comes to mind. Then there's Spinal Tap....


Clothing. The black uniform of the Allgemeine SS (General SS) of Nazi Germany comes to mind, but these days, an all-black uniform is most likely the province of hair dressers. “Dieter” from Sprockets is long over…. I have a black suit, a black dress shirt, a black tie, and dozens of black t-shirts collected over the years of going to metal concerts, though I can’t say I wear black much more often than any other color.

Good vs Evil

This topic comes back to my mind time and time again. Are people basically good or basically evil? Are they the aggregate of their behavior? Can they change their nature?
Clearly "good" people are not perfect. They make mistakes. Some are "honest" mistakes, but some are not - selfishness, lying, etc. They try to do the best they can and, being human, fail from time to time; but not from lack of effort.Also, "evil" people sometimes do good.

Sometimes it's because, momentarily, it's in their best interests to do so. Sometimes it's a rare moment of goodness. Back during Nazi Germany, Himmler gave one high ranking SS general a sword for his birthday. The general, stunned by this act, took it upon himself to discover the factory which made the sword, and ordered an even more ornate and luxurious one to present to Himmler on HIS birthday. These are the men responsible for the Final Solution and the Holocaust, outdoing each other on birthday presents (!).

This context provides other examples of "good" and "evil". While many of the SS and police men the Germans assigned to Einsatzgruppen (the units which took Jews out to the forest to shoot them down) were outright sadists or indifferently accepted this duty as "just doing their job", many others had serious moral problems with it. Some even went insane and shot themselves. Recognizing that these jobs were... unpleasant...the SS freely allowed men to transfer to other jobs. So even within the SS at least some of its personnel could recognize evil when they saw it and refuse to participate in it.

On the other side are local civilians and German Army personnel who not only cooperated with the Nazis efforts to weed out and exterminate local Jewish populations, they enthusiastically volunteered. In Poland, Ukraine, and Romania, local civilians sometimes mistreated and even killed some of the Jews before the SS even got their hands on them. Clearly, the Nazis had no monopoly on evil. I won't even get into Nanking, where the Japanese even took pictures of themselves raping Chinese women or bayonetting prisoners as sport, to the point where a Nazi businessman, John Rabe, complained to Hitler and the Japanese about this.

The story of Faust has been told dozens of times, and resurrected in various forms. Professor Faust makes a pact with Mephistopholes, the devil, whereby he gets renewed youth and vigor and almost unlimited power for 24 years, after which time the devil claims his soul. But throughout that time, and all the adventures he has with the devil at his side, he uses these powers of evil for good. His last act, before the 24 year period expires, is to have the devil save an elderly couple whose house, located on Faust's property, went up into flames. The power of evil, used for good. This alone prompts God to rescue Faust's soul from Hell and breaks the pact he had with the devil.

Do the evil perceive themselves as evil? Another complex question. One rationalization is that "everyone does it". It's a slippery slope: to the extent no one is perfect, and even so-called "good people" occasionally lapse into selfishness, everyone is evil; some are more honest about it than others, and those who claim to be good are nothing more than arrogant hypocrites. But it only takes a moment of thinking to dispel this. Clearly there are those who lie, cheat, steal and kill without any reluctance or remorse whatsoever; not as a "last resort", not "compelled by unique circumstances", but as easily as they walk, talk, eat, sleep or breathe. I know several people who lie without hesitation about anything. Maybe no one can claim to never have lied in their lives, but that doesn't mean they're not honest in their dealings and even tell the truth when it hurts their own interests. At some level, the evil do recognize that others do not act they way they do, and there is some definite moral distinction. But rather than admit to themselves, much less to others, their own evil, they prefer to rationalize it away and continue with their business of lies, deceit and evil. To them, the "good" are simply those too stupid to lie effectively, too lazy, too weak or just plain not ambitious or competent enough to assert their will over others. I'm not sure how this translates into modern times.


Can evil people change? I hate to quote religious sources, but three examples jump out. First is St Paul, formerly Saul. He started out persecuting Christians to the death, but experienced a dramatic vision on the road to Damascus and converted. St. Augustine had a similar conversion; he previously lived a wild and debauched life until his mother and Bishop Ambrose of Milan helped him to convert. Finally, there is the famous parable of the prodigal son, who spent his inheritance on gambling and whores, returned home a wretched beggar, but sincere in his remorse, and was welcomed home by his father. 

In fact, a remarkable take on this is "My Name is Earl", a new TV show with Jason Lee, who is a frequent actor in many of the Kevin Smith films and the main role in "Mallrats". Earl is a redneck who leads a fairly decrepit lifestyle, lying, cheating, stealing, basically a bad person. Finally he gets hit by a car and figures that this major injury was well-deserved. He decides, from that point on, to turn his life around and only do good things. He makes a "list" of all the nasty, evil, dishonest things he's done over his entire life (the list is very long and can probably string the series over several seasons) and sets out to correct each and every evil deed, one by one. He invokes "karma", which he describes as "if I do good things, good things will happen to me." It's not completely selfless, as his motivation is to have a good life, not merely to do good for the sake of doing so. But he does recognize that certain things are "wrong" and that he shouldn't do them even if others around him are doing it.
More things to think about.