Traitor, Hero, volunteers or involuntarily press ganged

[♔hammeredalways♔]

I would like to understand people’s thoughts on the soldiers that fought for the “other side” in a campaign, seen by some as heroes, by others as traitors. These men consisted of both volunteers and those who were given little option fight or die.

Initially I have considered WW2 and its aftermath though any period of course can be discussed.

Please feel free to comment on this example or indeed post one of your own, ideally do both

I would ask that in any proposal you simply state who you refer to, give some background on them and include any pertinent events, as a start I have used the French SS Division in WW2

Who :- 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French)
Formed in 1944 from the remains of two other French units fighting for the Germans the unit consisted of Frenchman with right wing views, ex.prisoners of war students and other men recruited from within Vichy France.

The unit was designated to fight on the Eastern Front as to avoid potential issues with facing French troops in the Western theatres.
The division itself had a little over 7,000 troops and was deployed in Feb 1945 in Poland where it was attacked during deployment by the 1st Belorussian Front (including 4 Soviet Inf. Divisions and 2 Tank Brigades). The French armed with little more than Panzerfausts managed to halt the attacks.

During further fighting the division broken up before the survivors were evacuated for refitting and redeployment within Germany (they had lost 60-70% of their strength)
By April the division was down to some 700 men (10% of their initial strength), when the remaining troops were split again with some 300 being deployed in the defense of Berlin where they were attached to the Waffen SS Nordland Division.

The French troops are credited with the destruction of over 60 Soviet tanks in their defense of Berlin and were the last defenders of the Führerbunker.
Reduced now to about 30 men most escaped Berlin and those that made it to France were then denounced and sent to prisons and camps. One Henri Fenet one of the last known recipients of the Knight’s Cross was given 20 years of forced labour. (released in 59 fighting the Soviets was no longer frowned upon then)

Some were alleged to have been shot when one Free French General when asking Charlemagne survivors why the wore a German uniform was asked why he wore an American, they were later executed without any form of military or other procedure.
Brave soldiers who fought for a cause they believed in, the opposition of Communism, or traitors to their country?.
Richard Landwehr - French Volunteers of the Waffen-SS
Marc J. Rikmenspoel - Waffen-SS Encyclopedia
George H. Stein - The Waffen-SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War 1939-1945
Gordon Williamson - The Waffen-SS: 24. to 38. Divisions and Volunteer Legions
http://www.feldgrau.com/33ss.html
http://axis101.bizland.com/Charlemagne1.htm

[conon394]

opposition of Communism, or traitors to their country?.

If the miserable traitors had fought that hard for France maybe they would never had the chance to defend the vile edifice that was the Nazi empire against the USSR which was after all a victim of German aggression not the attacker...

so I guess that kinda makes my vote clear huh?

Some were alleged to have been shot when one Free French General when asking Charlemagne survivors why the wore a German uniform was asked why he wore an American, they wer later executed without any form of military or other procedure.

Gosh call the wahambulance - I suspect more people died at the hands of those wearing SS uniforms lacking 'any form of military or other procedure' that the other way (like my wife's grandfather for example) - what comes around goes around.

[Poach]

I Brave soldiers who fought for a cause they believed in, the opposition of Communism, or traitors to their country?

In the specific case of the Frenchmen, I'd say brave soldiers who fought for their beliefs. At the time, Vichy France was the legitimate government of France and the Free French Forces, though fighting on the side of the Allies and thus fighting "the good fight", were technically the traitors.

They volunteered to fight against Communism for the Germans: they were under no obligation to enlist in the SS against the Russians who were easily the scarier force to fight.

[conon394]

Vichy France was the legitimate government of France

That seems like a stretch - perhaps I missed the vote for the Vichy government. Considering the suspect nature of the Vichy regime (no vote from the public; just some shotgun vote of the defeatist remnant of the various legislative bodies) , its method of assuming power, its leadership (and breaking of previous agreements) I don't see that it had any real legitimacy over the free french.

[♔hammeredalways♔]

obviously this could be an emotive subject but I still hope some good debate will happen as a result.

conon394 - I sympathise with your wifes grandfather's fate.
The Charlemagne Division as far as I am aware from a number of sources did not take part in any known atrocities, I have read in one source that one soldier with the division has served previously in the einzatzgruppen or concentration camps, but have not seen him named so it could have been a German officer within the division.

Equally there are reported atrocities by all sides so rather than throw accusation and counter accusation around and allow the thread to degenarate perhaps you could expand on the issue you have indicated, or if to painful perhaps cite another example there are of course many, to support your position factually.

In terms of this case as Poach said, the Government in France at the time were the government left in charge of France after capitulation whether they were legitimate is debate for another thread, the fact is they were the legal government of France at the time.

The shooting of prisoners no matter by what side is an abhorrent act and cannot be justified.

[hellheaven1987]

That seems like a stretch - perhaps I missed the vote for the Vichy government. Considering the suspect nature of the Vichy regime (no vote from the public; just some shotgun vote of the defeatist remnant of the various legislative bodies) , its method of assuming power, its leadership (and breaking of previous agreements) I don't see that it had any real legitimacy over the free french.

Na, it was not like Free France was created by voting of French men too.

Overall, Vichy had more legal claim than Free France, even though both, under the standard of French tradition, were illegal.

[conon394]

But the fact remains the men in question took up the uniform not of Vichy but their oppressor, and conqueror and served in the defense of one of the most evil governments in human history - rejecting every positive historical echo of the French revolution and thier own history - Liberté, égalité, fraternité had no place in the world these men fought to save. I'm sorry but even if my own Polish relatives and those of my wife had not perished at the hands of the Nazis I would still argue that the French soldiers in question remain miserable traitors.

Its one thing to stand aside, another to even serve Vichy in some way its quite another to willing serve your Nazi overlords by wearing the uniform of the SS,

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

This is a very interesting topic.

There are a few things to keep in mind when judging the actions of people in the distant past. This does not mean that are impervious to judgment though.

1) Human rights - our modern concepts of human rights are wonderful. It has not always been this way.
2) Poverty - we forget that in some eras, particularly at the outbreak of WWII, there was a global depression. So many people were out of work...these people were dissolutioned and desperate. The army provided a roof and meal to many people who had access to neither. When you are starving, you tend not to ask hard political questions of the people who are feeding you.
3) Education - in this era, in the modern west, it is hard to find large groups of people who are ignorant of the ways of the world (insert joke HERE). But, you don't have to go far back in time to an era when many people, living in rural Europe (in this example) were unaware and uneducated as to event in the next CITY, let alone the rest of the world. If the smartest guy in the village says "our government is legit! we must defend it from terrible commies!", many followed. Remember - no internet, no easy access to post-secondary education, and in most cases, no car or telephone.
4) Hindsight - history is written by the victors. And think on this...EVERY victor in history has always said "Yes, history is written and warped by the victors, but our cause was just so this doesn't apply to us!". The 20th Century is no different. So when people respond to this thread, rather than fall back on the easy points of commie=bad or vichy=nazi puppet, it may be more relevant to ask:

Do I really understand what daily life was like for a poor, half starved [insert nationality HERE] peasant, who had few if any legal rights and education, and had the local "recruiter" tell him he had to fight for his unelected oppressive government (whoever that was), or else...?

This doesn't get our peasant off the hook. But before we jump on him, let's look at the world from his perspective.

My Grandfather was killed in WWII in Italy fighting against the Germans, btw.

[♔hammeredalways♔]

a good post and valid view point from conon394, and some excellent points by Nanny.

I have been reviewing a number of posts in the VV over the last week of so and there was an interesting fact from a chap, Cegorach I believe who said the there were no Polish members of the SS something that I was not personally aware of

[Manco]

I believe who said the there were no Polish members of the SS something that I was not personally aware of

If that's true, I'd reckon that's more due to Poles being classified Untermenschen and occupying the Lebensraum Hitler wanted, than a lack of willing collaborators.

I don't tend to qualify people on their allegiance to country and nation, hence I don't give a rat's ass about treason.
However I do care about one's individual views, and that light I find the Charlemagne Division despicable. These weren't some simple soldiers ordered to fight. They wilfully joined forces with an army that had started an aggressive war and sympathized with a set of despicable and abhorrent beliefs.
I don't care how bravely they fought, they were scum of the worst possible kind.

[♔hammeredalways♔]

actually the poster I believe it was a chap called cegorach who seems quite well informed on that area, I believe he is Polish and have no reason to doubt his statement, I can not personally recollect having read about Polish SS units and some simple or complex searches draw an equal blank,

As opposed to why, I am sure that the said gentleman will enlighten us if he reads the thread

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

off topic, facts about Poland

It is worth noting, too, that Poland was the only country invaded and defeated by the Nazis that neither officially surrendered nor collaborated, and its armed forces were the only ones who fought, in one place or another, from the very first day of the war to the very last.

Cryptographers in Poland were the first to crack Germany’s Enigma code system and pave the way for the entire Ultra codebreaking operation – the most important Allied intelligence coup of the war. After the war, a top British cryptographer, Gordon Welchman, said that Ultra would not have been possible without the Poles.

With regard to your other point the problem is they are either war criminals or national heroes, depending on who is telling their history, The thread intent was not to be about Charlemagne specifically, (I used them as an example) but to invite views and instances so we could all hopefully learn something new. The French troops in Charlemagne thought they were combating "the bolsheviks" and I would refer to The Nanny's post as well, sometimes there are other circumstances to be considered

For example you could have said
"Seydlitz troops" Germans who fought for the Russians
Vlasov troops Russians who fought for the Germans
Cossacks who fought for the Germans
Ukrainians - like SS Galicia who fought for the Germans hoping to free their homeland from the USSR, likewise many of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) had troops fight for/with the Germans in the hope of defeating the USSR and gaining liberation for their own country, I also believe that despite serving in the Waffen SS I believe that none of these organisations are considered "war criminals"

Whilst on Ukraine you could say the UPA who fought against both Soviets and Nazi's

You could also say the French Foriegn Legion elements of which fought for Vichy and Free France, fighting against each other in Syria

Equally you could also talk about the Germans who were alleged to have fought for France in Indo-China after WW2, choosing fighting over detention/hard labour/other

etc. etc.

[Poach]

Vichy was the government of France because force of arms had made it so. Yes, it was undemocratic but that doesn't make it illegitimate. The Vichy government was in charge of France, their rules were to be followed and their administration handled the country. While I fully support the Free French and agree that they were fighting on the right side on the war, it still technically made them the traitors.

Even then, after the Fall of France and setting up of Vichy, the Third Reich was no longer at war with the French state. Any French volunteers for the SS weren't betraying their country because their country was not at war with the nation whose banner they served under. As such, any man who volunteered to fight in the SS because of his beliefs is, in my opinion, a brave soldier, not a traitor.

It can be argued differently for the British men who volunteered to fight in the SS for the same thing (I believe most volunteers ended up back in prison because they used it as an escape attempt, but not all), their country was still at war with Germany and as such they can be regarded as traitors.

[Manco]

Vichy was the government of France because force of arms had made it so. Yes, it was undemocratic but that doesn't make it illegitimate. The Vichy government was in charge of France, their rules were to be followed and their administration handled the country. While I fully support the Free French and agree that they were fighting on the right side on the war, it still technically made them the traitors.

Even then, after the Fall of France and setting up of Vichy, the Third Reich was no longer at war with the French state. Any French volunteers for the SS weren't betraying their country because their country was not at war with the nation whose banner they served under. As such, any man who volunteered to fight in the SS because of his beliefs is, in my opinion, a brave soldier, not a traitor.

It can be argued differently for the British men who volunteered to fight in the SS for the same thing (I believe most volunteers ended up back in prison because they used it as an escape attempt, but not all), their country was still at war with Germany and as such they can be regarded as traitors.

France's surrender was signed by Petain, and not Reynaud who was forced to resign after refusing to sign an armistice.
Hence it's disputable whether France was still at war or not.

[♔hammeredalways♔]

Whilst I understand your point there is no doubt that France surrendered, equally in the eyes of nearly all major WW2 protaganists (Germany, GB, USSR, & USA) Vichy France was the recognised as the legal govt., and all enabled diplomatic relations with Vichy France (some were broken off quicker than others)


equally until cegorach comes by and add his sources I have done further investigations in the Polish question

http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=47

http://www.ioh.pl/artykuly.php?Wypisz=242

http://www.wehrmacht-polacy.pl/index.html
On Poles in Waffen-SS:
http://www.wehrmacht-polacy.pl/wcielenia_waffen.html

According to that article there are interesting sources that states that there where Poles or Poles of German origin that served in different Waffen-SS formations, like 1. SS-Panzerdivision "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler" and 12. SS-Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend". But the document that is presented on the homepage tells us about Ukrainians, Czechs and Poles.
Marc J. Rikmenspoel writes in his Waffen-SS: The Encyclopedia: "Individual Poles ended up in the Waffen-SS, though usually as nominal ethnic Germans or ethnic Ukrainians."
He also writes that: "Some of the volunteers for the 14th Waffen-Grenadier Division were almost certainly ethnic Poles..."
But Rikmenspoel does not provide any sources, so his statements can not be checked, however further reference

In March 1945, Ukrainian émigrés established the Ukrainian National Committee to represent Ukrainian interests in the Third Reich. Simultaneously, the Ukrainian National Army was created with the intention of combining all Ukrainians fighting on Germany’s side, the first being the SS Galizien Division. The C-in-C was General Pavlo Shandruk [Pawlo Szandruk], a decorated former colonel in the Polish army. He was assigned command of the Galizien division (which he renamed as "1st Ukrainian Division of the Ukrainian National Army" so as to remove the SS association). On 7 May 1945, the division capitulated to British and American forces and its members were interned in Italy. The renaming of the division, the fact that its members had been until 1939 de facto citizens of interwar Poland and the intervention of the Vatican all combined to save its members from deportation to the USSR. Following its surrender, 176 members of the division joined General Anders' Polish army. In 1947, former members of the Waffen SS Galizien Division were allowed to emigrate to Canada and to Britain, where they worked on farms.

This explains how former members of a Waffen SS division turned up in British refugee camps in 1947, to mingle and live together with Polish refugees who had been mobilised into the army originally formed by General Anders [3] in the USSR (to fight on the side of British and US allies against the Nazis in Italy).
http://www.henrypavlovich.com/Waffen...ro-Nazi-Forces

In total up to 500,000 Poles served in the Wehrmacht during WW2. Most of them were from the areas of Poland incorporated by the III Reich in October of 1939 (so called Neue Ostgebiete - Provinz Oberschlesien, Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreussen, Reichsgau Wartheland, Bezirk Bialystok), the remaining ones were from the areas of Poland captured in 1941 (Reichskomissariat Ostland, Reichskomissariat Ukraine), from GG and from all other areas. Poles from the incorporated areas - especially those who signed the Volksliste (and most of them on these areas did it, from practical reasons - to survive) were obliged to fulfil military duty in the German army in the same way as German citizens.
That's why Poles from the incorporated areas were being conscripted to the German army (contrary to those from GG, who were not being conscripted and those of them who served in the German army were either those who signed the Volksliste - and signing the Volksliste in GG was not as helpful to survive the occupation as in incorporated areas so very few did it - or those who volunteered).
Out of them around 350 - 400 thousands were from Silesia (like Ludwik Machalica, Robert Uszok, Alojzy Lysko, Robert Czarnynoga, Franciszek Siedlaczek and others). Further 80,000 were from the areas of Pomerelia (Pommern) incorporated by Germany in 1939, so from the pre-war Województwo Pomorskie. In that second group (those from Pomerelia) was for example the grandfather of present Polish prime minister (Donald Tusk) - Józef Tusk, who served in 328. Grenadier-Ersatz-und Ausbilldungsbatallion and fought on the Eastern Front and later on the Western Front (in October of 1944 he deserted or was captured by English forces and by the end of November 1944 he joined the Polish Forces in the West). The remaning 20+ thousands were from other incorporated regions, GG and other areas.
Polish soldiers of Wehrmacht captured by Allied forces as well as Polish deserters from Wehrmacht were the most important source of reinforcements for Polish forces fighting alongside the Allies in Western Europe. For example Polish 2nd Corps under command of gen. Wladyslaw Anders alone (the same which successfuly fought for Monte Cassino in 1944) absorbed 16,500 Polish "Wehrmachters" in 1944 and further 18,000 in period January - May 1945.
Over 2,000 Poles - former soldiers of Afrika Korps - reinforced the 1st Polish Armoured Division of gen. Maczek and later fought in France, Belgium and Holland.
In total over 85,000 Polish Wehrmacht POWs reinforced Polish forces in the West. Most of them were Silesians. On the other hand, only 70,000 Polish POWs from Wehrmacht reinforced the Polish People's Army fighting alongside the Red Army, despite the fact that probably much more Polish "Wehrmachters" were captured on the Eastern Front. It is not known exactly what happened to the remaining ones. Probably their situation in Russian captivity was very hard.
Aditionally, it is worth noticing, that over 240,000 Poles from Kresy (areas of Poland incorporated by the Soviet Union in October of 1939) were serving in ranks of the Red Army when the Great Patriotic War started, on 22 June 1941.
The exact number of Poles who died while serving in Wehrmacht is still unknown, but is estimated

[hellheaven1987]

Vichy was the government of 1/3 France because force of arms had made it so.

Fixed.

France's surrender was signed by Petain, and not Reynaud who was forced to resign after refusing to sign an armistice.
Hence it's disputable whether France was still at war or not.

Nope, the government already decided to surrender. Petain just did what his government asked him to do.

[Darkhorse]

That British unit, once the escapees were taken back, was only 22 strong, at its largest point.

[RomanSoldier9001]

I would like to understand people’s thoughts on the soldiers that fought for the “other side” in a campaign, seen by some as heroes, by others as traitors. These men consisted of both volunteers and those who were given little option fight or die.

Initially I have considered WW2 and its aftermath though any period of course can be discussed.

I would ask that in any proposal you simply state who you refer to, give some background on them and include any pertinent events, as a start I have used the French SS Division in WW2

Who :- 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French)
Formed in 1944 from the remains of two other French units fighting for the Germans the unit consisted of Frenchman with right wing views, ex.prisoners of war students and other men recruited from within Vichy France.

The unit was designated to fight on the Eastern Front as to avoid potential issues with facing French troops in the Western theatres.
The division itself had a little over 7,000 troops and was deployed in Feb 1945 in Poland where it was attacked during deployment by the 1st Belorussian Front (including 4 Soviet Inf. Divisions and 2 Tank Brigades). The French armed with little more than Panzerfausts managed to halt the attacks.

During further fighting the division broken up before the survivors were evacuated for refitting and redeployment within Germany (they had lost 60-70% of their strength)
By April the division was down to some 700 men (10% of their initial strength), when the remaining troops were split again with some 300 being deployed in the defense of Berlin where they were attached to the Waffen SS Nordland Division.

The French troops are credited with the destruction of over 60 Soviet tanks in their defense of Berlin and were the last defenders of the Führerbunker.
Reduced now to about 30 men most escaped Berlin and those that made it to France were then denounced and sent to prisons and camps. One Henri Fenet one of the last known recipients of the Knight’s Cross was given 20 years of forced labour. (released in 59 fighting the Soviets was no longer frowned upon then)

Some were alleged to have been shot when one Free French General when asking Charlemagne survivors why the wore a German uniform was asked why he wore an American, they were later executed without any form of military or other procedure.
Brave soldiers who fought for a cause they believed in, the opposition of Communism, or traitors to their country?.
Richard Landwehr - French Volunteers of the Waffen-SS
Marc J. Rikmenspoel - Waffen-SS Encyclopedia
George H. Stein - The Waffen-SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War 1939-1945
Gordon Williamson - The Waffen-SS: 24. to 38. Divisions and Volunteer Legions
http://www.feldgrau.com/33ss.html
http://axis101.bizland.com/Charlemagne1.htm

I dont think they were in anny way "traitors" no more than de Gaulle for that matter.
When the French Survivors of CharleMagne were asked by General Leclerc how they could wear german uniform one soldier aswered how could they wear american uniform(free fench forces used american uniform).
Their bravery should be remember as great warriors.

[conon394]

how could they wear american uniform(free fench forces used american uniform).

And the obvious answer well I'm fighting to restore freedom a democracy to my own country and unlike you ... donning an SS uniform is a bit more than just choosing sprinkles on your donuts

edit or how about - Lafayette did - at least America and France had a historic bond of Democracy and aid, and the US was not in the business of crushing and subjecting France...
---

Vichy was the government of France because force of arms had made it so. Yes, it was undemocratic but that doesn't make it illegitimate. The Vichy government was in charge of France, their rules were to be followed and their administration handled the country. While I fully support the Free French and agree that they were fighting on the right side on the war, it still technically made them the traitors.

It seems to me that is not so clear. The nature by which the Vichy government came into power was hardly clear (ie the procedure was not regular as I understand it in French law at the time and lacking any general plebiscite to confirm a new frame work the Vichy government seems easily call a coup) and as far as I know it never sought formal support from the people and by 42/43 it had lost most of the international recognition it had initially. Control at the behest of its German masters does not equal legitimacy.

Also even foreign recognition does not imply legitimacy from a democratic perspective. Thus I think it is equally logical to argue the Vichy government was in fact traitorous and those who served with Germany where in fact betraying the last legitimate government of France that was dissolved under German pressure by questionable means at the hands of men who frankly were either (at best) defeatists or (more likely) actively seeking to aid Nazi conquest. In this one need only look at how much better off the allied cause would have been if France had simply removed its government to Algeria and contained fighting. I have to say Pierre Tissier was quite correct the men who formed Vichy for all intensive purposes betrayed their country (for almost no gain) and seem to have desired a long term German victory.

to fight in the SS because of his beliefs

Racial superiority(in its lowest an most vile form), mass murder, totalitarian dictatorship (a corrupt and inefficient one at that), offering up your own country to an eternity of subjugation, genocide, am I missing something??? Sorry I don't care how brave you are volunteering to fight for those beliefs doesn't rate very high for me. Again its one thing to acquiesce, to collaborate at a distance, to be forced or conscripted, to close ones eyes, and look away - but to volunteer is just not acceptable.

[Poach]

It seems to me that is not so clear. The nature by which the Vichy government came into power was hardly clear (ie the procedure was not regular as I understand it in French law at the time and lacking any general plebiscite to confirm a new frame work the Vichy government seems easily call a coup) and as far as I know it never sought formal support from the people and by 42/43 it had lost most of the international recognition it had initially. Control at the behest of its German masters does not equal legitimacy.

I think it does. The people living in Vichy France were administered by the Vichy government. The police, Armed Forces and all other faculties of state reported to them. That is a government, regardless of how it came to be installed.

Also even foreign recognition does not imply legitimacy from a democratic perspective. Thus I think it is equally logical to argue the Vichy government was in fact traitorous and those who served with Germany where in fact betraying the last legitimate government of France that was dissolved under German pressure by questionable means at the hands of men who frankly were either (at best) defeatists or (more likely) actively seeking to aid Nazi conquest. In this one need only look at how much better off the allied cause would have been if France had simply removed its government to Algeria and contained fighting. I have to say Pierre Tissier was quite correct the men who formed Vichy for all intensive purposes betrayed their country (for almost no gain) and seem to have desired a long term German victory.

I agree that the men who formed Vichy were indeed defeatist in nature, and seem to have decided that joining the German war effort and keeping the southern chunk of their country was a better option than fighting against such an enemy from abroad.

Racial superiority(in its lowest an most vile form), mass murder, totalitarian dictatorship (a corrupt and inefficient one at that), offering up your own country to an eternity of subjugation, genocide, am I missing something??? Sorry I don't care how brave you are volunteering to fight for those beliefs doesn't rate very high for me. Again its one thing to acquiesce, to collaborate at a distance, to be forced or conscripted, to close ones eyes, and look away - but to volunteer is just not acceptable.

I disagree. You are correct, all those beliefs are horrific and I would certainly never respect anyone who held such beliefs, but that does not rob them of bravery. Volunteering to put yourself on the line, especially fighting something like the Red Army, is a brave thing to do. Regardless of what these men fought for, volunteering to fight is a brave act.

[♔hammeredalways♔]

good posts, as Poach has said and I think we accept, France was beaten and surrendered, her leaders thought that they would get the best they could in the circumstances for France.

As to whether a a new non-elected govenment that takes power after being beaten by another country is legitimate the same could be said of many countries in Europe in and after WW2 (and throughout history)

I think that many of the soldiers who fought for the Germans did so as result of their fear of the spread of communism, this does not make them Nazi's, simply right wing.

The history of the French units prior to the formation of Charlemagne was that of fighting alongside the Germans, some were not happy at being transferred to the Waffen SS but once it had occurred they had little choice.

There were also a many Europeans who joined the Waffen SS because of the fear of communism, some of these countries troops were not considered war criminals by the allies, given Charlemagnes record, and the lack of any recorded atrocities against it I am unclear as why they should not have been afforded the same status, after all fear of communism is what pretty much drove Western policy after WW2.

I will give some thought as to another unit as the thread is not just about Charlemagne, unless anyone wants to suggest another unit