Otto Skorzeny outside the Shelbourne Hotel

gizmo555

Fuinseog wrote: »

he served his country(austria was part of the Reich)

On the contrary, he was a traitor to his country. He participated actively in the coup d'état which initiated the Anschluss or annexation of Austria by Germany in 1938. 62,000 of his Jewish fellow Austrians died in the Holocaust. Their persecution began with a pogrom on the very day of the Anschluss which Skorzeny helped bring about.

The man was a supremely accomplished and courageous soldier. That does not take away from or excuse the fact that he was also fascist scum.

Tony EH

Oh for ****'s sake....get off the bleedin high horse.

:rolleyes:

FiSe

gizmo555 wrote: »

The man was a supremely accomplished and courageous soldier. That does not take away from or excuse the fact that he was also fascist scum.

No he wasn't. Not a fascist. Not a Communist. He was a Nazi.
Although all three regimes - Nazism, Fascism and Communism are very close together.

R.Dub.Fusilier

FiSe wrote: »

No he wasn't. Not a fascist. Not a Communist. He was a Nazi.

i was going to say a similar thing.i'm not sure if he was a dedicated 'nazi'. an honest patriot maybe. Skorzeny was a soldier and fought soldiers. he didnt guard camps and didnt kill prisoners . his taticts were the same as the British SAS and the Rangers from the USA. a brilliant soldier and a brilliant leader of men.

i am not an apolagist for the third reich but those who slag off the third reich rarely slag off the Allies or their war crimes.what about the 60 million killed by communists . the jews were not the only ones to die in the war.

gizmo555

FiSe wrote: »

No he wasn't. Not a fascist. Not a Communist. He was a Nazi.

OK. Nazi scum then. Is that better?

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

i was going to say a similar thing.i'm not sure if he was a dedicated 'nazi'.

If you're not sure, it can only be because you haven't bothered to find out. There is plenty of information available. The facts are that Skorzeny joined the Nazi party in the early 30s and was active in the party from then on. He only joined the military in 1939 on the outbreak of war. He wanted to be a pilot, but was rejected by the Luftwaffe, so he joined the SS instead. Not the army, the SS and not just any SS unit, but the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, Hitler's personal bodyguard regiment. Speaks for itself . . .

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

an honest patriot maybe.

He helped engineer the takeover of his country by another and helped to involve it in a disastrous war of aggression which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his fellow Austrians. Some patriot!

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

Skorzeny was a soldier and fought soldiers. he didnt guard camps and didnt kill prisoners . his taticts were the same as the British SAS and the Rangers from the USA. a brilliant soldier and a brilliant leader of men.

So what? Does his brilliance as a soldier excuse the criminal cause for which he fought? He was not a career soldier who got caught up in the war, he was first and foremost a Nazi who helped bring about the war in the first place.

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

i am not an apolagist for the third reich

It certainly seems to me that you are . . .

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

but those who slag off the third reich rarely slag off the Allies or their war crimes.what about the 60 million killed by communists .

Did your mother never tell you two wrongs don't make a right?

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

the jews were not the only ones to die in the war.

No indeed. Millions of German civilians and soldiers died in the war that the Nazis brought about. Millions more were maimed, like the father of my German sister-in-law, who was a 6 year old boy in the year that Hitler came to power and Skorzeny joined the Austrian Nazi party. Her father was conscripted towards the end of the war and still carries the disability he acquired in combat. I can assure you he would be incredulous at the respect being shown to and excuses being made here for scum like Skorzeny.

R.Dub.Fusilier

i said i'm not sure about him being a comitted nazi because imo he wasnt. i have read a few books about os and know quite a bit about him. i dont need the inter net to educate myself. any point of view can be proved on the net. os wasnt convicted of war crimes after the war so he was just doing his patriotic duty. any war criminals should face justice weather its from WW2 to bloody sunday. but you have a personal connection to the 3rd reich and your view is of course understandable. i like reading about Otto Skorzeny and if a stranger on the internet doesnt like that fact it doesnt realy bother me. but you shouldnt realy get so upset about it . forums are just the opinions of random strangers and most ,like myself, dont mean any offence.

FiSe

A bit of OT: In the 30's vast majority of Austrians felt to be German, so you have Anschluss or merging of Austria with Germany, not occupation of Austria by Germany.
It's interesting reading about how the Austrians behaved just after Anschluss too...

gizmo555

FiSe wrote: »

A bit of OT: In the 30's vast majority of Austrians felt to be German, so you have Anschluss or merging of Austria with Germany, not occupation of Austria by Germany.
It's interesting reading about how the Austrians behaved just after Anschluss too...

It is true that there was widespread support for Anschluss, but to say there was a majority in favour is speculative. The Austrian government had committed to a referendum to decide the issue. However, the Nazis were not prepared to wait for this, staging a coup - in which Skorzeny particpated - and then invading. The following month they held their own referendum which purported to show more than 99% support for Anschluss. Not even Mugabe would fix a poll that blatantly. At any rate, the fact that they wouldn't wait for the referendum would seem to show they were not certain it would be carried.

The issue is not OT, in that it bears directly on whether Skorzeny was a "patriot". Not by any stretch of the imagination, in my opinion . . .

Tony EH

It's not speculation in any way, shape, or form. The vast majority of Austrians were in favor of joining the greater Reich and many didn't care one way or another. In fact, the idea of linking the countries went back to the 1800's. Austrians spoke German, they felt German. It seemed natural enough for a union to exist between the two Nations.

To be fair, Schuschnigg wanted to keep separate and even forbade people under 24 a chance to vote in a plebiscite. Of course, his own position politically was under threat, if the union was to go ahead.

This weak idea that Austria was somehow a "victim" of Nazi aggression only came about after the war, when they wanted to desperately separate themselves from the obvious history that was going to be written about the Germans.

Tony EH

...and Skorzeny's role in the Anschluss was minor. He didn't "engineer" anything at all. In fact, his largest impact was his call for fair treatment of the fervently anti-nazi Wilhelm Miklas.

citizen_p

he was charged with using enemy uniforms in the battle of the bulge.....
the allies did it also on D Day.


h was a member of the nazi party but i dont remember anything said about him killing pows or mass murder. (off top of my head)

Fratton Fred

Was he on the side of good or bad?

He ended up being a great commander and a great soldier, bit at the end of the day, he was on the wrong side.

McArmalite

Mousey- wrote: »

he was charged with using enemy uniforms in the battle of the bulge.....
the allies did it also on D Day.


h was a member of the nazi party but i dont remember anything said about him killing pows or mass murder. (off top of my head)

" h was a member of the nazi party " So actually and bizarrely was Oskar Schindler.

marcsignal

McArmalite wrote: »

" h was a member of the nazi party " So actually and bizarrely was Oskar Schindler.

True, and although Claus von Stauffenberg was not a party member, his support for Hitler didn't wane until late 1942, when things started to go pear shaped.

He will always be remembered for the 1944 bomb plot to kill Hitler, but I often wonder which side of the fence he would have been on had Germany suceeded in Russia. It was events there that apparently swayed him in the end.

gizmo555

marcsignal wrote: »

True, and although Claus von Stauffenberg was not a party member, his support for Hitler didn't wane until late 1942, when things started to go pear shaped.

Von Stauffenberg and those like him, who only turned against Hitler when it became clear they had backed a loser, were moral pygmies compared to people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or Sophie and Hans Scholl.

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not speculation in any way, shape, or form. The vast majority of Austrians were in favor of joining the greater Reich

Since a free and fair referendum was never run, this is pure speculation. All we do know is that the Austrian chancellor was confident that a majority of voters aged over 24 were against Anschluss and the Nazis apparently concurred with his view, since they invaded before the referendum planned on this basis could take place. They then ran a completely bogus referendum of their own, from which about 10% of voters were excluded, mainly those with left-wing political sympathies and Jews. If a "vast majority" was in favour of Anschluss, why weren't the Nazis confident enough to just hold a legitimate referendum?

Tony EH wrote: »

and Skorzeny's role in the Anschluss was minor. He didn't "engineer" anything at all. In fact, his largest impact was his call for fair treatment of the fervently anti-nazi Wilhelm Miklas.

Miklas was the Austrian president. Skorzeny's role was to place him under effective house arrest and protect him from other hotter headed and less calculating Austrian Nazis, who hated Miklas and might have murdered him. It wouldn't have looked too well if the party supposedly taking power by popular acclamation assasinated the head of state in the process. They also needed Miklas to give the Anschluss a veneer of legitimacy since he formally appointed the Chancellor, in much the same way as our President formally presents the Taoiseach with the seal of office.

marcsignal

gizmo555 wrote: »

Von Stauffenberg and those like him, who only turned against Hitler when it became clear they had backed a loser, were moral pygmies compared to people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or Sophie and Hans Scholl.

I agree, but I think also it's important to remain cognisant of the fact, that we're all reflecting here in the context of the Allied victory. Consider what, and who, we would be pontificating about, had the Germans won (presuming for a moment that pontification would be allowed:D)

But seriously, that considered, we'd be discussing Russian Atrocities under Stalin against Ukranians and Poles and the rest, American Concentration camps for Japanese citizens in the U.S. British emergency order 18B arresting all prominent Fascists in Britain, and British Concentration Camps in Africa during the Crimean and Boer Wars, the Atrocities of SAS and Commando units, American Racial segregation in the U.S. and in the U.S. Army...... The list goes on

Skorzeny's memory and reputation will always be tainted because he was on the side that lost the war.

Tony EH

gizmo555 wrote: »

Since a free and fair referendum was never run, this is pure speculation. All we do know is that the Austrian chancellor was confident that a majority of voters aged over 24 were against Anschluss and the Nazis apparently concurred with his view, since they invaded before the referendum planned on this basis could take place. They then ran a completely bogus referendum of their own, from which about 10% of voters were excluded, mainly those with left-wing political sympathies and Jews. If a "vast majority" was in favour of Anschluss, why weren't the Nazis confident enough to just hold a legitimate referendum?

Well, then we're both speculating. But the general tone of the time was that most Austrians had no problem with a union with Germany and it's the general consensus among historians too.

It could be said that Schuschnigg's restrictive "referendum" was about as legtimate as the later Nazi one (who BTW, didn't have an age restriction on voters). So, if one side's referendum wasn't "free & fair", neither was the other. Whitewashing one side in favor of the other is simple bias.

I also think that it's obvious why the Jews were restricted in the vote, but I think your 10% reckoning is exaggerated and it's the first I've heard of it. Either way, it's probably less than Schuschnigg's restrictions in his attempt to engineer a favorable outcome to HIS political view.

Besides, after the union was complete, there was no outrage or objection amongst Austrians in general and in fact, Austria became an enthusiastic supporter of the union.

Again, I'll state that this "victim" status that some so desperately want to hang around Austria's neck is an extremely weak proposition and it simply doesn't hold any water.

gizmo555 wrote: »

Miklas was the Austrian president. Skorzeny's role was to place him under effective house arrest and protect him from other hotter headed and less calculating Austrian Nazis, who hated Miklas and might have murdered him. It wouldn't have looked too well if the party supposedly taking power by popular acclamation assasinated the head of state in the process. They also needed Miklas to give the Anschluss a veneer of legitimacy since he formally appointed the Chancellor, in much the same way as our President formally presents the Taoiseach with the seal of office.

Exactly, but this is hardly Skorzeny "engineering" anything, is it? That was his sole role in the Anschluss. In other words, he was small potatoes, carried along by events...not defining them, in the fashion you suggest.

imme

marcsignal wrote: »

I would have seig heiled at his funeral myself, if i'm totally honest

:eek:
why?
because he was a lucky guy who undertook the rescue of Mussolini or because he was unlucky and failed to blow up the bridge at Remagen, over the Rhine, thus enabling thousands of US troops to make their way into Germany. The guy was an SS officer you know.

FiSe

So he was an SS officer, like 100's others.

If we take away the name Scorzeny and will change it to, let's say Wittmann, Dietrich, Degrelle, Ancāns... would that make any difference?
Being a member of the Waffen SS does not necessary mean that you are a war criminal /although the organization itself was proclaimed as a criminal/ or annihilator of 'untermenschen' or die-hard Nazi.
Some frontline SS units have their origin in normal WH formations.

imme

FiSe wrote: »

So he was an SS officer, like 100's others.

If we take away the name Scorzeny and will change it to, let's say Wittmann, Dietrich, Degrelle, Ancāns... would that make any difference?
Being a member of the Waffen SS does not necessary mean that you are a war criminal /although the organization itself was proclaimed as a criminal/ or annihilator of 'untermenschen' or die-hard Nazi.
Some frontline SS units have their origin in normal WH formations.

The SS weren't 'ordinary' soldiers, not suggesting that you said they were. They were fanatical ideologues. I'm reading D-Day by historian Antony Beevor at the moment. There's a piece in it about an Alsatian SS soldier who'd had enough of the war, he was found by other SS soldiers in a refugee line. He was taken aside. The SS officer present order that his fellow soldiers beat him to death and break every bone in his body. What the SS was responsible for in terms of concentration camps and death squads is still frightening to read about or hear even after 65-75 years.

Dr Strange

imme wrote: »

The SS weren't 'ordinary' soldiers, not suggesting that you said they were. They were fanatical ideologues. I'm reading D-Day by historian Antony Beevor at the moment. There's a piece in it about an Alsatian SS soldier who'd had enough of the war, he was found by other SS soldiers in a refugee line. He was taken aside. The SS officer present order that his fellow soldiers beat him to death and break every bone in his body. What the SS was responsible for in terms of concentration camps and death squads is still frightening to read about or hear even after 65-75 years.

There's a difference between Waffen-SS and Allgemeine-SS and Verfuegungstruppen. Waffen-SS were soldiers while Allgemeine-SS carried out non-military duties such as administration, but also camp-guards. These were not soldiers.

They were fanatical ideologues

You can't say that for the individual Waffen-SS soldier. You don't know what each and every one of them thought or why they were in the SS.

imme

Preusse wrote: »

There's a difference between Waffen-SS and Allgemeine-SS and Verfuegungstruppen. Waffen-SS were soldiers while Allgemeine-SS carried out non-military duties such as administration, but also camp-guards. These were not soldiers.



You can't say that for the individual Waffen-SS soldier. You don't know what each and every one of them thought or why they were in the SS.

the SS was fundamental to the Nazi state, the ideology was evil imo.
for someone to say that they would give a Nazi salute at the funeral of an SS officer is quite sick.

FiSe

Preusse was a bit quicker...and I agree with imme's remark about the Nazi salute, it would be inappropriate and unjustified unless NSDAP member

Well, it depends on the point of view. Would you say that 101st behaviour during the defence of Bastogne was fanatical?
If the Waffen SS units would be part of allied forces they would be referred to as a 'highly motivated, determined and well trained and, perhaps, heroic'.

I do agree that at the beginning of the war the SS units were ' integral part' of the Nazi party, but latter in the war those units were totally different from those at the start.
For example Totenkopf, unit created from the concentration camp guards, not too many of the original members left after the 1942/43 winter.
Or Wiking/Nordland, which was originally formed from Scandinavian volunteers, but a lot of it's members came as a replacements from other countries too, like Bohmen und Mahren /Czech rep/ and Austria.
And, as I said, some of the front line SS units were formed from WH divisions - like Wallonien - after their success on the battlefield.

As well, I think it's good to know different parts of SS organization:
Allgemeine SS
SS Verfugungstruppe / Waffen SS
SS Totenkopfverbande

To your point of beating to death. It's terrible and it happened in some form on numerous occasions. And you would certanly think twice wether you should carry on fighting or be beaten to death by your mates.

imme

FiSe wrote: »

To your point of beating to death. It's terrible and it happened in some form on numerous occasions. And you would certanly think twice wether you should carry on fighting or be beaten to death by your mates.

does it highlight anything of inhumanity, brainwashing, fanaticism.

Dr Strange

imme wrote: »

for someone to say that they would give a Nazi salute at the funeral of an SS officer is quite sick.

Where did I say this? Please show me the thread where I said something like this.

FiSe

I think it was on this post:

Originally Posted by marcsignal
I would have seig heiled at his funeral myself, if i'm totally honest

imme wrote: »

does it highlight anything of inhumanity, brainwashing, fanaticism.

Yes it does, but you can't apply this to the SS only.
If we'd be talking about allied deserters shot or hung by their mates, would we be using the same words? ...Alrite doing some reserach on it and it looks like they were more tolerant to it, oficially and after the D-Day at least...
Are we using the same words when we are talking about barehanded attacks of the Red Army and its soldiers wiped out by their own officers while trying to get back under enemy fire?

I've seen a documentary about fighting around Dukla pass in late 1944, basically disastrous operation. Will not go into detail, but there was an interview with one of the Czech soldiers shooting his own mates from behind when they've crumbled under the German machine gun fire.
He said something like ...panic has no place on the battlefield...anything has to be done to stop panic... there must be order, no panic...

Dr Strange

FiSe wrote: »

I think it was on this post:

Originally Posted by marcsignal
I would have seig heiled at his funeral myself, if i'm totally honest



...

Yes, FiSe, I know, I just wanted it pointed out again that I did not say this. It was unfortunate, that Imme quoted this while responding to me about something different.

imme

Preusse wrote: »

Yes, FiSe, I know, I just wanted it pointed out again that I did not say this. It was unfortunate, that Imme quoted this while responding to me about something different.

I was referring back to an earlier post in the thread. I thought you were 'bigging up' the SS, maybe that was why I referred back to it. Maybe I was taken aback by what the 'seig heil' saluter posted as well.

marcsignal

imme wrote: »

:eek:
why?
because he was a lucky guy who undertook the rescue of Mussolini or because he was unlucky and failed to blow up the bridge at Remagen, over the Rhine, thus enabling thousands of US troops to make their way into Germany. The guy was an SS officer you know.

don't take that comment out of context, he was known as 'The Most Dangerous Man in Europe' if I was at his funeral, and everyone was jumping on one leg and barking like a dog, i'd have done the same, that's really what I meant