Quotes on the Waffen-SS
Thomas Hessler
the Waffen-SS was a Elite Military Force with in reality little or not ties
to Nazism, I wanted you to consider following quotes:
"I can assure you that the Leibstandarte enjoys an oustanding repuation, not
only with its own superiors but with its Army comrades also. Every division
wishes it had the Leibstandarte as its neighbour. Its inner discipline, cool
daredevilry, cheerful enterprise, unshakeable fortitude even when things
become difficult or serious, exemplary toughness and its camaraderie, all of
these are outstanding and cannot be surpassed."
- General Eberhard Von Mackensen.
"To the SS-Panzergrendier Division Wiking. Today (19 September 1942) the
SS-Panzergrenadier Division Wiking leaves the units attached to my
Panzerkorps (to switch to the East Caucasus). From the very first day of its
attachement up on the last, the division had been admirably succesful in
bold attacks and determined defence in continual weeks-long battles under
unfavourable weather conditions and against an enemy almways numerically
superior. It has proved itself to have an outstanding fighting spirit, which
has caused great damage to the enemy. Thanks to the excellent steadfastness
of the Division, the enemy has been prevented from achieving his goal of
breakthrough and envelopment. So, today, I watch the brave men of the Wiking
Division leave my forces with a heavy heart. My thanks and full recognition
go equally to its officers and men. My best wishes go with the division on
its way to new battles and new successes."
- General Friedrich Kirchner
"My old chief in Stettin, former Army General Paul Hausser, was tasked with
the develoment of the officer corps of the Waffen-SS. General Hausser was an
exeptional officer, an intelligent and gallant soldier and an outstanding,
honest and blameless charachter. The Waffen-SS had much to thank this
distinguished officer for. I have encountered the SS divisions Leibstandarte
and Das Reich in battle and later, as General-Inspector of the Panzer
Troops, have inspected the Waffen-SS Divisions many times. They always
distinguished themselves through their self-discipline, comradeship and good
soldierly behaviour in battle. They fought shoulder to shoulder with the
Army Panzer Divisions and became, the more so the longer the war lasted,
'one of us'."
- General Heinz Guderian
"I had it (Totenkopf) under my command on frequent occasions later on, and I
think it was probabely the best Waffen-SS division I ever came across."
- Field Marshal Von Manstein
"In the few past days the Korps has recorded tow great successes. First, the
defensive victory by the SS-Panzergrenadier Division Wiking, which after the
engagement by the Tiger detachement resulted in the destruction of 84 enemy
tanks. Second, the daring advance across the Merla by 3rd SS-Panzergrenadier
Division Totenkopf. My thanks and appreciation to the command and to the
troops."
- General Otto Wohler [Headquarters of the 8th Army, 20 August 1943]
/Thomas
http://reitersturm.tripod.com/blackguard/index.html
James Paulsen
> Since the majoryty in thus groups fails to acknowlegde the simple fact that
> the Waffen-SS was a Elite Military Force with in reality little or not ties
> to Nazism, I wanted you to consider following quotes:
<snip quotes by German officers who noted the high quality of the Waffen-SS
units that served under or with them>
I think they were an elite unit(s), or at least some of them. I also think they
were very exceptional soldiers, that in my opinion, has never been a point of
contention.
However, none of the quotes you provided, as interesting as they might be,
supported your statement above, " with in reality little or not ties to
Nazism..." Just being excellent soldiers does not make them any less culpible
<sp?>.
Just my observation,
Jim Paulsen
V-Man
>the Waffen-SS was a Elite Military Force with in reality little or not ties
>to Nazism, I wanted you to consider following quotes:
To quote a great, if fictional, politician:
"Ahh... Arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How convient of
you."
Mr. Hessler, we *refuse*, not fail, to acknoledge your points simply as your
points are not facts, they are propoganda. I have, on several occasions, put
to you and Teruzo the same question, as have others, and you fail to answer it.
This is telling - as you cannot answer it.
Tell us, what was the objective reason that the villagers of
Oradour-sur-Glane were, in repraisal for a resistance attack on Das Riech,
rounded up and murdered in a premeditated and methodical fashion? Ensure to
explain in your thesis why it is significant that none of those killed were
either members of the resistance in general or the parties responsible for the
attack on Das Riech.
>"I had it (Totenkopf) under my command on frequent occasions later on, and I
>think it was probabely the best Waffen-SS division I ever came across."
>- Field Marshal Von Manstein
Therefore, it was the best of a bad lot.
V-Man A Knight is sworn to Valor, His Heart knows only Virtue
=/\= His Blade defends the Weak, His Word speaks only Truth
(-o-) His Wrath undoes the Wicked
<*>
Fredrik Rask
> To quote a great, if fictional, politician:
>
> "Ahh... Arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How
> convient of you."
My favourite TV character. Actually, I think the quote is "Ahh...
Arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you."
And from the same character:
"I thought the purpose of filing these reports was to provide accurate
intelligence."
"Vir, intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
> Mr. Hessler, we *refuse*, not fail, to acknoledge your points
> simply as your points are not facts, they are propoganda.
<snip>
I notice something odd about this whole dicussion.
The SS fanboys stick with the party line that the Waffen-SS was an
elite force and pretty much ignore any reference to atrocities
committed, or justify it with "it was such a dirty war so they had no
choice". The refusal to believe that Waffen-SS troops took part in
atrocities is so silly it's harldy worth commenting on, since there are
numerous veterans who openly admit it. The excuse about "they started
it!" is very poor, at best.
Another odd thing I've seen in this thread is the backpeddling on the
issue about nazi indotrination and comittment in the Waffen-SS. It is
also a well-documented fact that training in the Waffen-SS included a
very large dose of indoctrination and propaganda compared to the
regular branches. I'll be happy to dig up quotes from SS volunteers,
especially from other countries, who were quite shocked about the level
of nazi fanatisiscm and propaganda they found in what they thought was
a crusade against communism. A lot of them got out and went home when
they realized this.
On the other hand, there is also plenty of evidence that many were
indeed very honorable, and held themselves to a very high standard of
conduct through many years of terrible warfare. Having just finished a
book on Swedish volunteers in the Waffen-SS, there are plenty of
stories about people who just wanted to go on a big adventure or fight
communism. Many of these people dropped out of the Waffen-SS school in
Bad Tölz (I think it was) when they realized how geared toward nazism
it was. Others accepted this as a neccessary evil and went on to serve
for several years, but still claim that they held themselves to the
very highest standards and never saw any atrocities. The best example
of this is probably SS-Unterscharführer Ingemar Somberg, who (in the
book mentioned above) never misses a chance to spew bilge on nazi
ideals, the holocaust, einsatzgruppen, neo-nazis, etc, but always
defends the Waffen-SS, claiming that he never saw any atrocities
committed by his unit or the Waffen-SS in general.
In the end I think one has to accept that the eastern front was a BIG
place, and that people are people. Some people ended up comitting
atrocities because they were driven to it, or actually wanted to do
it. There are bad people and there are good people, but one doesn't
exlude the other in an organization of this size.
The title of the book I mentioned earlier translates to "The Swedes who
fought for Hitler", and is pretty decent read on the topic discussed
here, since different people have such different experiences, with some
ending up guarding Treblinka and some not having seen any atrocities at
all beyond the generally unpleasant atmosphere on the eastern front.
If I have time I might translate and post some quotes from the book,
supporting either (or rather none, when viewed together) of the hard-
line views currently being thrown back and forth in this thread.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Martin Rapier
<8q8kco$2iac$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> Since the majoryty in thus groups fails to acknowlegde the simple fact
that
> the Waffen-SS was a Elite Military Force with in reality little or not
ties
> to Nazism, I wanted you to consider following quotes:
{snip}
> "I had it (Totenkopf) under my command on frequent occasions later on,
and I
> think it was probabely the best Waffen-SS division I ever came across."
> - Field Marshal Von Manstein
Why not quote the rest of what Manstein had to say about the Waffen SS in
the following paragraph? Alas my copy of 'Lost Victories' is not to hand
but I dimly recollect the phrases "excessive casualties", "poor training"
and a number of other criticisms - I'll have a look tonight.
I'm not sure many people would dispute that the Waffen-SS (as opposed to
the Waffen-Grenadier etc divisions) viewed themselves as elite, however
whilst it would be incorrect to say that every member of the W-SS was a
raving Nazi, the organisation _was_ the military branch of the Nazi Party -
it certainly wasn't part of the Army, Airforce or Navy, and therefore it is
difficult to disassociate it from Nazism. OTOH I gather there was a dispute
between Goering and Doenitz about which arm of military service constituted
'The embodiment of National Socialism' - I seem to recollect the U-Boats
came out on top.
Cheers
Martin.
Anders Albrechtsen
"Thomas Hessler" <panze...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8q8kco$2iac$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> Since the majoryty in thus groups fails to acknowlegde the simple fact
that
> the Waffen-SS was a Elite Military Force with in reality little or not
ties
> to Nazism, I wanted you to consider following quotes:
I must strongly disagree with this statement, since just about every
historical fact proves that the opposite is in fact true: The Waffen SS was
closely tied to National Socialism!! And these so-called quotes, which I
didn't post here to save room, don't prove anything. They are all
statements
made by german army generals that can hardly be considered "objective"
witnesses!! Also, they comment on the military achievements of the
Waffen-SS, probably all true, which really isn't the issue here!
Here're some facts:
1. The Waffen-SS, or SS-Verfügungtruppen, originate back to March 17 1933,
when "Sepp" Dietrich established a special detachment the "Leibstandarte
Adolf Hitler", as Der Führer's special Body Guards in Berlin. This
detachment later became the infamous military formation of the same name.
Sepp Dietrich belonged to the inner circle around Hitler and had been
around
him since the beginning of National Socialism in the 1920s, so it's fair to
call him a one hundred percent nazi.
2. As the Waffen-SS expanded even concentration camp units, the so-called
Totenkopf Verbände, were enrolled in the Waffen-SS and formed the Totenkopf
Division. The commander Theodor Eicke was one hundred percent nazi and were
responsible for the assasination of Hitlers rival Ernst Röhm back in 1934.
3. The officer and NCO education was based on the Nazi Ideology and one of
the most important courses the students had to pass was "Weltanschaung",
something like world view. This course taught the students the purpose of
the war Germany was going to fight to win absolute domination in Europe to
the Urals, in other words the basic ideology of Hitler's book "Mein Kampf".
It was expected of every SS officer and NCO to use this ideology to
motivate
their men.
4. Heinrich Himmler wanted the Waffen-SS to replace the Wehrmacht to form a
political army one hundred percent loyal to the regime.
These facts clearly prove that you cannot separate the Waffen-SS from the
Allgemeine-SS in practice, since the two organizations overlap. I'm not
saying that every Waffen-SS soldier was a die hard Nazi, they probalt
weren't. But I have to clear out the common misunderstanding that the
Waffen-SS had nothing to do with neither the other SS branches or National
Socialism.
Suggested reading on this subject:
1. Heinz Höhne: "The Order of the Death's Head: The story of Hitler's SS".
(translated form german). New York: Ballantine Books 1971.
2. Charles W. Sydnor: "Soldiers of Destruction: The Death's Head Division
1933-1945". 2nd Ed. Princeton UP 1990.
Best regards,
Anders Albrechtsen
Geoffrey Sinclair
Thomas Hessler wrote in message <8q8kco$2iac$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>Since the majoryty in thus groups fails to acknowlegde the simple fact that
>the Waffen-SS was a Elite Military Force with in reality little or not ties
>to Nazism,
The majority of people in this group have a good working
knowledge of WWII and know the SS was a creature of the
Nazi party, with its own names for ranks and using the nazi
salute.
>I wanted you to consider following quotes:
Snip of quotes about how good different commanders thought
the following SS divisions were.
> Leibstandarte
>- General Eberhard Von Mackensen.
>
> Wiking
>- General Friedrich Kirchner
>
>Leibstandarte and Das Reich in battle and the other SS
>panzer units inspected.
>- General Heinz Guderian
>
> Totenkopf
>- Field Marshal Von Manstein
>
> Wiking and Totenkopf
>- General Otto Wohler
The quotes cover 4 of the SS Panzer divisions. Do you consider
these the only SS formations that would qualify for the title elite?
What do you consider to be the fighting quality of the other
SS units, elite, average or below average? How about a
note on each of the following divisions,
Verfungungs division
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 12th SS Panzer Divisions
6th, 7th, 13th, 21st, 23rd, 24th SS Mountain divisions
8th, 22nd, 33rd, 37th, SS Cavalry divisions
11th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 23rd, 26th, 27th, 28th, 32nd,
34th, 38th, SS Panzergrenadier divisions
14th, 15th, 19th, 20th, 25th, 29th (twice), 30th, 31st,
33rd, 35th, 36th, SS Grenadier divisions
Units numbered 23 (there were two 23rd, 29th and 33rd Divisions) or above
did not usually achieve divisional strength.
In deciding the combat ratings what discount should be
applied for the fact the SS Panzer and Panzergrenadier
divisions had higher equipment establishments, for
example 59 versus 48 tanks per battalion in 1943, often
an attached heavy tank unit and heavier artillery? Plus
priority for both replacements and the newer more
capable equipment. Note the mention of the Tiger unit
in General Wohler's quote.
What standard are you going to use to decide elite? The
SS Panzer units with their equipment advantages would
be expected to perform better than a standard, usually
understrength, regular division, and many regular divisions
fought very well, even when reduced to company sized
battalions.
The SS men would have also been aware that a Nazi
victory meant their higher place in the new social order
was secured, a defeat meant the exact opposite. Even
before we talk about the treatment of prisoners and
civilians. Victory meant more to the average SS man
than men in the regular armed forces. Indeed there
were plans for the SS to supplant the Heer and become
the army, heirs to Frederik the Great.
There is the school of thought the SS Panzer divisions
were not an effective use of manpower.
"Thus, instead of putting 50 reliable army infantry divisions
back into action the air force (Luftwaffe) infantry division
program only added 20 unreliable infantry divisions which
turned out to be more of a liability than anything else.
The same, to a lesser extent, could be said for the SS
and the other "elite" armored divisions. None of these
units were the products of any outstanding training
program. Few of them were commanded by men of
exceptional competance. In fact, many of the leaders
in these units had been appointed to their positions
for reasons other than military skill. On average each
of these units had 50 percent more men and equipment
than the regular army motorized or armored divisions.
By late 1944 there were 9 of these units. There could
have been 14 regular army divisions instead."
"Qualified men who would be NCOs or officers in
regular units were used as privates or NCOs in the
"elite" units".
Quotes from James Dunnigan et al, the book of their
research for the War in the East wargame.
The obvious way to compare the performance of the
SS formations is to compare them to the regular
army formations, correcting for any strength advantages
for both the attackers and the defenders. What data
do you have on this?
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Thomas Hessler
James Paulsen heeft geschreven in bericht
<8qbcsj$g2lc$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>I think they were an elite unit(s), or at least some of them. I also think
they
>were very exceptional soldiers, that in my opinion, has never been a point
of
>contention.
Good, so we're clear on that part. It's a mystery to me why even some
people
choose to even ignore that fact.
>However, none of the quotes you provided, as interesting as they might be,
>supported your statement above, " with in reality little or not ties to
>Nazism..." Just being excellent soldiers does not make them any less
culpible
><sp?>.
The fact that I chose quotes from Wehrmacht Officers already means
something. James, it depends what you mean under 'culpible'.
I cannot give you any quotes or facts saying that Waffen-SS soldiers were
not evil Nazi tirans. That is up to you to find out. All you need to is
read
a book that is fully tributed to the Waffen. You'll get a perfect look on
the esprit de corps, what drove them and what they tought. You can't come
to
know the Waffen-SS by discussing issues on this third rate forum. It takes
more then that.
You can argue and argue more, but you can't beat stupidity.
/Thomas
Geoffrey Sinclair
Thomas Hessler wrote in message <8q8kco$2iac$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
To put into context one of the quotes used, here is more of the text from
Lost Victories by Von Manstein, from Chapter 8, Panzer Drive, pages
187 and 188 in the Arms and Armour press hardcover version (the
chapter starts at page 175).
I have left the part of the quote Thomas Hessler used and
complete it.
"Better ground - though it included a strong line of concrete
fortifications - was struck by the SS Death's Head Division
in it's advance on Zebash. And now there emerged a
weakness that was bound to be inherant in troops whose
officers and NCOs lacked solid training and proper
experience. As far as its discipline and soldierly bearing
went, the division in question undoubtedly made a good
impression. I had even had reason to praise its extremely
good march discipline - an important requirement for the
efficient movement of motorized formations.
The division always showed great dash in the assault and
was steadfast in the defence"
>"I had it (Totenkopf) under my command on frequent occasions
>later on, and I think it was probabely the best Waffen-SS division
> I ever came across."
Its commander in those days was a brave man who was
soon wounded and later killed.
None of these things, however, could compensate for
deficient training in leadership. The division suffered
excessive losses because its troops did not learn until
they got into action what army units had mastered long
ago. Their losses and lack of experience lead them in
turn to miss favourable opportunities, and this again
caused unnecessary actions to be fought. I doubt if
there is anything harder to learn than gauging the
moment when a slackening of the enemy's resistance
offers the attacker his decisive chance. The upshot of
all this was that I repeatedly had to come to the division's
assistance, without even then being able to prevent a
sharp rise in casualties. After a matter of ten days three
regiments of the division had to be regrouped to form
two new ones.
Yet, bravely as the Waffen-SS divisions always fought,
and fine though their achievements may have been,
there is not the least doubt that it was an inexcusable
mistake to set them up as a separate military
organisation. Hand-picked replacements who could
have filled the posts of NCOs in the army were
expended on quite an inadmissable scale in the
Waffen-SS, which in general paid a toll of blood
incommensurate with its actual gains. Naturally this
cannot be laid at the door of the SS troops themselves.
The blame for such unnecessary consumption of
manpower must lie with the men who set up these
special units for purely political motives, in the face of
opposition from all the competant army authorities.
In no circumstances must we forget, however, that
the Waffen-SS, like the good comrades they were,
fought shoulder to shoulder with the army at the
front and always showed themselves courageous and
reliable. Without doubt a large proportion of them
would have been only too glad to be withdrawn from
the jurisdiction of a man like Himmler and incorporated
into the army."
>- Field Marshal Von Manstein
As can be seen the quote does a lot to shoot down
the "elite" claims for the SS, rather than strengthening
the case. It is funny the idea that people think they
can use partial quotes to make a case in front of
an audience that has access to and memories of the
full text.
Far from strengthening the case for the Waffen SS,
Mr Hessler is sending it backwards rapidly.
V-Man
>Good, so we're clear on that part.
Yes, Hessler, he *THINKS* they were an elite unit. He does not admit to
being knowledgable enough to speak authoritatively.
>The fact that I chose quotes from Wehrmacht Officers already means
>something.
Oh, you are too modest! This should read:
The fact that I chose only the part of the quotes from Wehrmacht Officers
that supports my position already means something. Had I included all of
the
contextual quote, you'd have readily seen I was decieving you, or, at
least,
trying to.
So, Herr Hessler, what army have you served in that you can make these
outlandish claims?
So, Herr Hessler, what was the objective reason for the murder of several
hundred villagers in Oradour-sur-Glane? Be sure to include, in your
theory,
the justification wrt the fact that these villagers were NOT the partisans
that
killed the Division HQ staff.
>I cannot give you any quotes or facts saying that Waffen-SS soldiers were
>not evil Nazi tirans.
Since I don't think English is your first language, you should have said:
"I *will*not give you any quotes or facts saying that Waffen-SS soldiers
were not evil Nazi tirans."
That reflects reality and what you really meant to say far better, given
the
extensive passage from von Manstien's book that Mr. Sinclair posted.
>All you need to is
>read
>a book that is fully tributed to the Waffen.
Find a book that is "tributed" to the W-SS? That is, find a book that
ONLY
sets out to glorify the W-SS, instead of relate *facts*?
Thomas Hessler
Martin Rapier heeft geschreven in bericht
<39dbb2f...@news.dialix.com.au>...
>Why not quote the rest of what Manstein had to say about the Waffen SS in
>the following paragraph? Alas my copy of 'Lost Victories' is not to hand
>but I dimly recollect the phrases "excessive casualties", "poor training"
>and a number of other criticisms - I'll have a look tonight.
The Waffen had 'exessive casulties' due to two reasons. One was it's
stubborn charachter to do everything on it's own, without support from the
Heer -as clearly demonstrated in Poland, where the sealed the fate of an
enire Army group- and the other one was that it was always given the
hardest
tasks, thus with the inevitable result of losing more comrads.
>I'm not sure many people would dispute that the Waffen-SS (as opposed to
>the Waffen-Grenadier etc divisions) viewed themselves as elite, however
>whilst it would be incorrect to say that every member of the W-SS was a
>raving Nazi, the organisation _was_ the military branch of the Nazi Party -
>it certainly wasn't part of the Army, Airforce or Navy, and therefore it is
>difficult to disassociate it from Nazism. OTOH I gather there was a dispute
>between Goering and Doenitz about which arm of military service constituted
>'The embodiment of National Socialism' - I seem to recollect the U-Boats
>came out on top
The Waffen-SS was, on paper, the armed wing of the Nazi party. That's as
far
as most people here think. They base themselves on what they have read in
some third rate historical work and always claim to "have read many
testimonies of SS veterans!" Yet they can't even spell Oradour-sur-glâne
right.
I have respect for your neutral approach on the issue, which deserves
credit.
Crimson Tears
>
> As can be seen the quote does a lot to shoot down
> the "elite" claims for the SS, rather than strengthening
> the case. It is funny the idea that people think they
> can use partial quotes to make a case in front of
> an audience that has access to and memories of the
> full text.
>
> Far from strengthening the case for the Waffen SS,
> Mr Hessler is sending it backwards rapidly.
True, some of Mansteins comments were not overly flattering, and probably
is factual. However, how much of his judgement can also be stemmed from
his position as a Wehrmacht general commenting on the SS?
>From what I have gathered, the Wehrmacht did harbour some resentment
against the SS for having better equipment and support, etc. Can this
split also be a reason for his less favourable impression?
Though today we would be hard press to find a similar situation, but the
closest I can see would be the Red Army and the KGB (who also had an armed
branch, though mostly of light equipment). The Red Army never commented
favourable on the KGB either, though not as loud perhaps as Manstein.
V-Man
>stubborn charachter to do everything on it's own, without support from the
>Heer -as clearly demonstrated in Poland,
After throwing out several quotes from HEER officers as to the great fighting
qualities of the W-SS, isn't this of yours above just a bit dishonest?
> the other one was that it was always given the
>hardest
>tasks, thus with the inevitable result of losing more comrads.
But these supersoldiers were up to the task, weren't they? They were better
than any other fighting force in Europe at that time, *weren't they*???
>The Waffen-SS was, on paper, the armed wing of the Nazi party. That's as
>far
>as most people here think.
No, most people here think they were, in reality, FAR more than NAZI on
paper. MOST people *HERE* think (and since there are a lot of facts to back it
up) BELIEVE that the Waffen-SS was the military arm of the NAZI party. It felt
itself superior to the Wehrmacht, and in action, held itself responsible to the
PARTY, in the form of Himmler, instead of the General Staff.
>They base themselves on what they have read in
>some third rate historical work and always claim to "have read many
>testimonies of SS veterans!"
Uhm, the only person here that has trotted out any references that aren't
findable on Amazon.com (and, therefore, are obscure) is you.
>Yet they can't even spell Oradour-sur-glâne
>right.
I have. But I gather, since I keep asking a question and am NOT getting an
answer, that you are talking to me.
What is the *OBJECTIVE* reason for the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane?
Please include the justification for killing a village full of people that were
not in anyway related to the Partisan attack on the Das Riech Division CP.
>http://reitersturm.tripod.com/blackguard/index.html
Well, this webpage is a whitewash. The section on Pieper doesn't mention
the Malmedy killings except to say:
"By midnight the seventy bodies of murdered American prisoners had been
covered with snow. It would be another two months before they would be seen
again."
BTW, folks, Herr Hessler is realy Herr Barkmann. Thomas Barkmann - it's on
his website.
Did you know that in *English* a "Blackguard" is a thug and a criminal?
Specificially, from Webster's online dictionary"
2 words found.
Main Entry:
1black·guard Pronunciation: 'bla-g&rd, -"gärd; 'blak-"gärd
Function: noun
1 obsolete : the kitchen servants of a household
2 a : a rude or unscrupulous person b : a person who uses foul or abusive
language
- black·guard·ism /-g&r-"di-z&m, -"gär-/ noun
- black·guard·ly /-g&rd-lE, -"gärd-/ adjective or adverb
2blackguard
Function: transitive verb
: to talk about or address in abusive terms
Glenn A. Steinberg
> Since the majoryty in thus groups fails to acknowlegde the simple fact that the
> Waffen-SS was a Elite Military Force with in reality little or not ties to Nazism, I
> wanted you to consider following quotes:
>
Little or no ties to the Nazis?!?!?! The Waffen-SS was a PARTY organization.
It wasn't Army, Navy, or Air Force. It wasn't created or controlled by the
Reich government or any Land government in Germany. It was a PARTY
organization. The PARTY gave it life and sustained and controlled it.
I would hardly call that having "in reality little or not ties to Nazism." It
would be like saying that the U.S. army has little or no ties to the U.S.
government.
And as for "quotes" on the Waffen-SS, why didn't you include the one below
(from the memoirs of Alexander Stahlberg, Field Marshal von Manstein's
adjutant)?
"[The] 'Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler' . . . had once 'taken care of' the
suppression of the Roehm Putsch and had 'proved itself' in the liquidation of
political undesirables between 30 June and early July 1934. Now its commander
since those days, Sepp Dietrich, was here [at the headquarters of Army Group
South] as a divisional commander. I was ashamed to have to shake hands with
him. . . . Sepp Dietrich, already grown somewhat plump over the years, was
positively burning with zeal to become the reconqueror of Kharkov, and Manstein
had to take some pains to prevent him from making a frontal attack on the big
town. The idea of achieving military targets with as few casualties as
possible was apparently unfamiliar to the SS."
Stahlberg continues, "At Manstein's briefing session with the SS commanders, it
was obvious that Sepp Dietrich had difficulty in reading a big situation map.
He was ignorant of numerous military symbols. . . . Without a second's
hesitation he flung himself on the map table from the 'southern margin' on his
stomach, which in turn was extremely damaging to the entries."
Very impressive.
Did you catch all that? Did you especially note Stahlberg's comment that "I
was ashamed to have to shake hands with him"? Is that usually how army
personnel feel upon meeting an officer of an elite unit?
And by the way, you may think that soc.history.war.world-war-ii is a "third
rate forum," but if it is, the inaccurate, uninformed posters like you are what
make it so.
V-Man
incompletely, thereby showing the General *praising* the Waffen-SS, Glen
Steinberg provides the complete quote which effectively shows that the
General
was NOT praising the Waffen-SS. Then you ask:
>However, how much of his judgement can also be stemmed from
>his position as a Wehrmacht general commenting on the SS?
I'm not sure what your point is.
>Can this
>split also be a reason for his less favourable impression?
The statements seemed rather clear - the General was stating his position
that with teh equipment that the W-SS had, they *Should* fare better in
combat
than a Wehrmacht division of a similar, if less lavishly equipped, type.
He also stated that the W-SS suffered a far HIGHER casualty rate in
combat,
due to the lack of professional experience on their officers and a
dangerously
fanatical attitude.
Having been a soldier myself, if only a private, what the General wrote,
if
it described a unit that I was relying on, woudl have scared me. These
guys
seem to LIKE the idea of dieing for their country, or, at least, Hitler,
when
their JOB is to make the other porr dumb SOB die for his. When these guys
go
and get into action, and take a beating, is my unit going to get caught up
in
that?
>The Red Army never commented
>favourable on the KGB either,
This is NOT a favorable comparison, since the KGB elements existed as
*Border Guards* or as political officers in Red Army units. The Political
officers *WERE* despised, let alone "commented favorably" on. These
officers
existed to ensure the reliability of the Army, a slap on the face of said
army.
The Professional officer corps of the Red Army thought of themselves as
professional soldiers serving their country, but that very country decided
that
they needed watching. That is galling.
Andrew Clark
Thomas Hessler <panze...@hotmail.com> wrote
> The Waffen-SS was, on paper, the armed wing of the Nazi party.
Perhaps you would like to give me a translation of the German phrase "Die
Schuzstaffeln der Nationalsocialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei", which
was the full title of the organisation condemned by the Nuremburg Tribunal
as a criminal organisation? I have recently acquired the full text of the
Tribunal's judgements, plus a good majority of the bound volumes of
evidence
submitted to it, and find myself in a position to provide chapter and verse
on the attested, witnessed and proven atrocities of the Waffen SS. Where
shall we start?
And, BTW, what was your reply about the Waffen SS child molesters?
Thomas Hessler
Glenn A. Steinberg heeft geschreven in bericht
<8qoask$42r2$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>Little or no ties to the Nazis?!?!?! The Waffen-SS was a PARTY
organization.
>It wasn't Army, Navy, or Air Force. It wasn't created or controlled by the
>Reich government or any Land government in Germany. It was a PARTY
>organization. The PARTY gave it life and sustained and controlled it.
Your statements above or historically incorrect. The Waffen-SS Divisions
were under Wehrmacht HGK(Heeresgruppenkommando) and AOK
(Armeeoberkommando).
The Schutzstaffel itself came up besides the SA as party-troop of the NSDAP
to cover party events. During Republic of Weimar there had been comparable
troops like the communist Rotfrontkämpferbund, the Red Ruhr Army, or the
nationalistic Stahlhelmbund. Why are you trying to blacken the Waffen-SS
banner?They fought for the same thing the Heer, Luftwaffe und der
Kriegsmarine did - for Hitler and Vaterland.
>I would hardly call that having "in reality little or not ties to Nazism."
It
>would be like saying that the U.S. army has little or no ties to the U.S.
>government.
You misundertood. When I said that the 'Waffen-SS had little or no ties to
Nazism' I ment that on the field, the men cared little about their leaders
high and dry in Berlin, covered in golden emblems. The SS soldaten called
the party offcials 'golden peasants', I think that says enough. Yes, the
Waffen became more or less Hitler's last instrument to gain contol over the
tide that was swallowing our Vaterland, but it never had a thing to do with
the Nazi party itself.
>"[The] 'Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler' . . . had once 'taken care of' the
>suppression of the Roehm Putsch and had 'proved itself' in the liquidation
of
>political undesirables between 30 June and early July 1934.
We know for sure that it was the Leibstandarte who dragged Röhm out of his
hotel chamber, but the enitre liquadation was a task that required all
available SS men.
> Now its commander
>since those days, Sepp Dietrich, was here [at the headquarters of Army
Group
>South] as a divisional commander. I was ashamed to have to shake hands
with
>him. . . . Sepp Dietrich, already grown somewhat plump over the years was
>positively burning with zeal to become the reconqueror of Kharkov, and
Manstein
>had to take some pains to prevent him from making a frontal attack on the
big
>town. The idea of achieving military targets with as few casualties as
>possible was apparently unfamiliar to the SS."
Indeed just another example of those Wehrmacht high offcial pigs who didn't
like anyhting better but save their own arse by showing just how much 'they
hated hitler and how they never were a nazi' by making the Waffen-SS the
scapegoat of a Nation. I admire Guderian when it comes to that. He still
stood up for the Leibstandarte and the Waffen until his last days. Rather
then being a backstabber like Von Paulus!
>Stahlberg continues, "At Manstein's briefing session with the SS
commanders, it
>was obvious that Sepp Dietrich had difficulty in reading a big situation
map.
>He was ignorant of numerous military symbols. . . . Without a second's
>hesitation he flung himself on the map table from the 'southern margin' on
his
>stomach, which in turn was extremely damaging to the entries."
It's known that Sepp Dietrich couldn't read a map properly. Jodl didn't
really appreciate him for that. He was aware of the fact that he lacked
military skill. He was never a real military either. He was one of those
first hour Bully boys, who were to protect Hitler and engage in the usual
street fighting with communistst in the 20'. He always let to commanding to
his younger officers, as clearly demonstrated in the tough battles during
that harsh winter of 41'. He went with his 'boys' as he called them
everywhere, simply because he was their leader. He always went with his
troops to the front, and he spend the battles around Kharkov watching sein
men through his binoculars at the Leibstandarte Artillery HQ. He was a
soldier's general.
>Very impressive.
No, impressive were the Tigers of the Leibstandarte riding right into that
swarm of 200 T-34's at Prokarovka. Impressive were Peiper's
Panzergrenadiere
rushing here and there too prevent wounded SS Panzer crews to be shot by
the
Russian infantry. Impressive were the Wehrmacht Panzer Regiments who
deployed 'en masse' against the French lines and filled the air with dust
and making a sound from another world when they advanced, engines roaring.
>And by the way, you may think that soc.history.war.world-war-ii is a "third
>rate forum," but if it is, the inaccurate, uninformed posters like you are
what
>make it so.
Inaccurate and uninformed? Yes, I'm sure that's right.
/Thomas
Andrew Clark
V-Man <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote
> Uhm, the only person here that has trotted out any references that
aren't
> findable on Amazon.com (and, therefore, are obscure) is you
While approving of your comments to Mr Hessler/Barkmann, I think you are
drawing the criteria for obscure references way too tight. Amazon and other
net-retailers sell, by and large, popular books published in the last few
years. Even my local bookshop has a far wider range of highly reputable
military books. And some of the great source materials - the Official
Histories, the USSBS, biographies, official documents etc - are only sold in
highly specialist bookshops. And that's without mentioning the out-of-print
stuff written immediately after the war.
One of the big problems with discussing WW2 is that so many people use one
or two modern "controversy" books, written essentially to make a profit,
which they have often bought off the web.
Glenn A. Steinberg
> Your statements above or historically incorrect. The Waffen-SS Divisions were
> under Wehrmacht HGK(Heeresgruppenkommando) and AOK (Armeeoberkommando).
You, I'm afraid, are incorrect here. The Waffen-SS was a Party organization --
not a part of the German Army.
In the field, the German Army had operational control of the Waffen-SS. In the
Balkans, the German Army also had operational control of 11 and 12 Italian
Armies. Are you saying that those armies were not part of the Italian Armed
Forces? If 11 and 12 Italian Armies were still part of the Italian Armed Forces
despite being under the operational control of the German Army, why isn't the
Waffen-SS still part of the SS -- and a Party organization -- despite being
under the operational control of the German Army in the field?
The Waffen-SS was a Party organization. It was *not* part of the German Army or
the German Armed Forces. OKW and OKH had no control over the Waffen-SS.
Himmler had control over the Waffen-SS. Army field commanders had temporary,
operational control of Waffen-SS units in their area of operations and no more.
> The Schutzstaffel itself came up besides the SA as party-troop of the NSDAP to
> cover party events. During Republic of Weimar there had been comparable troops
> like the communist Rotfrontkämpferbund, the Red Ruhr Army, or the
> nationalistic Stahlhelmbund.
And how many death camps were run by the Rotfrontkaempferbund or Stahlhelmbund?
Was the SS really "comparable" to them?
> Why are you trying to blacken the Waffen-SS banner?
Because it was already black -- with two big S's on it.
> They fought for the same thing the Heer, Luftwaffe und der Kriegsmarine did -
> for Hitler and Vaterland.
Really? Then, why did Manstein's adjutant write that he was *ashamed* to shake
hands with Sepp Dietrich? We'll talk more about that below.
> You misundertood. When I said that the 'Waffen-SS had little or no ties to
> Nazism' I ment that on the field, the men cared little about their leaders
> high and dry in Berlin, covered in golden emblems. The SS soldaten called the
> party offcials 'golden peasants', I think that says enough. Yes, the Waffen
> became more or less Hitler's last instrument to gain contol over the tide that
> was swallowing our Vaterland, but it never had a thing to do with the Nazi
> party itself.
How can a Party organization not have anything to do with the Party?
You may not know much about institutional organization, so let me enlighten
you. If an institution (such as the SS) creates a body (such as the Waffen-SS)
to carry out a particular task (such as to become the armed force of the Nazi
Party), people from that body in the field may talk disparagingly about the
"golden pheasants" back in Berlin, but if the Waffen-SS didn't do what the Party
intended for it to do, the Party could simply dissolve it, change its
leadership, or otherwise force it into carrying out the Party's wishes.
No more support from Himmler = no more Waffen-SS. As long as the Waffen-SS
pleased Himmler, its existence was assured. If it ceased to please Himmler, its
existence was history.
> We know for sure that it was the Leibstandarte who dragged Röhm out of his
> hotel chamber, but the enitre liquadation was a task that required all
> available SS men.
How courageous and honorable.
> [Of Lieutenant Stahlberg's statement that he was ashamed to shake Sepp
> Dietrich's hand:] Indeed just another example of those Wehrmacht high offcial
> pigs who didn't like anyhting better but save their own arse by showing just
> how much 'they hated hitler and how they never were a nazi' by making the
> Waffen-SS the scapegoat of a Nation. I admire Guderian when it comes to that.
> He still stood up for the Leibstandarte and the Waffen until his last days.
> Rather then being a backstabber like Von Paulus!
But I didn't bring up Paulus (*not* VON Paulus). I brought up Lieutenant
Alexander Stahlberg. He wasn't a "high official." He was Manstein's adjutant
and, before that, a front-line officer in the Leningrad sector.
Do you know anything about him? Let me enlighten you.
He didn't have to save his arse "by showing just how much 'they hated hitler and
how they never were a nazi' by making the Waffen-SS the scapegoat of a Nation."
You see, he had been an active opponent of the Nazi regime from the start and
was recognized as such by the Allies after the war. Like Otto John, for
example, Stahlberg had such a spotless reputation that the Allies trusted him to
aid in the denazification process.
So, his arse was never in danger. He didn't have to make up lies about the
Waffen-SS to save it.
So, what could have motivated his shame at having to shake Dietrich's hand?
> No, impressive were the Tigers of the Leibstandarte riding right into that
> swarm of 200 T-34's at Prokarovka. Impressive were Peiper's Panzergrenadiere
> rushing here and there too prevent wounded SS Panzer crews to be shot by the
> Russian infantry. Impressive were the Wehrmacht Panzer Regiments who deployed
> 'en masse' against the French lines and filled the air with dust and making a
> sound from another world when they advanced, engines roaring.
Really? I would have thought that moral integrity, impeccable reputation, and
unstained virtue would have been much more impressive than big, loud machines.
But then again, what do I know? I care about silly things like honor and good
and right.
V-Man
>drawing the criteria for obscure references way too tight.
Fair enough. Still, nobody here who is well read on the subject has heard
of most of his references. The few that *were* known are known to be full of
apologist propoganda (IIRC).
The Wasteland
>hundred villagers in Oradour-sur-Glane? Be sure to include, in your
>theory,
>the justification wrt the fact that these villagers were NOT the partisans
>that
>killed the Division HQ staff.
IIRC it is believed that the SS men came across a medical team that had ben
slaughtered, by whom is not clear but could certainly be partisans. Though
this brutal murder is disgusting it may help us to try to understand what
state of mind the SS-men may have been in. That is, if the above mentioned
story is true.
History is written by the victors, yes? There are certainly similar cases
including Allied units that we have never heard of. There are many stories
about the brutality of Soviet soldiers, not surprising since USSR wasn't a
"friend" any more after the war.
>>I cannot give you any quotes or facts saying that Waffen-SS soldiers were
>>not evil Nazi tirans.
>
> Since I don't think English is your first language, you should have said:
>
> "I *will*not give you any quotes or facts saying that Waffen-SS soldiers
>were not evil Nazi tirans."
Hm? English is not my first language either but isn't "tyrants" correct
instead of "tirans"??
Flosi.
V-Man
>pleased Himmler, its existence was assured. If it ceased to please Himmler,
>its
>existence was history.
More likely, the specific offender, whomever that might be, would cease to
exist as anything other than expensive fertilizer.
Thomas Hessler
V-Man heeft geschreven in bericht <8qvta3$ijo4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>Fair enough. Still, nobody here who is well read on the subject has heard
>of most of his references.
No basher no, it's YOU who has read too many 'glorious and undefeated
Allies' books. My quotes are all taken from the eminent historican William
Gordonson's "My Loyalty is Honour", which not only provides the whole Battle
history of the Proud Wolfsangel Korps but also lists many veteran's stories.
>The few that *were* known are known to be full of
>apologist propoganda (IIRC).
Your postings totally lack military facts and you always have the arrogance
to critisize every aspect and move made by our SS grenadiere. You totally
blacken the Waffen banner, shouting the whole ng together with your vicious
lies and preposterous assumptions backed up by no facts whatsoever.
I find it suspicous that you are extremly quiet about the Front actions made
my the Waffen and you always divert and bend the Waffen-SS discussion to
either the death camps are the brutal war in Russia, where you seem to blaim
only the SS men. Where you there, V-man? Where you up to your knees in
Russian mud pushing the panje wagon forward? Did you had to hold the line
against wave after wave of Russian soldiers? Then how can you lie so
shamefully about history? Look at Vietnam, am I allowed to say now that the
GI's there were all 'nothing but muderers and thieves'?
Yes, that's always the final argument by your kind of peope, everything you
don't like is always "apologist propaganda". A term who is very popular by
people by can comfortable sit in their armschairs and comment history, in
their arrogance they have the right to say that our comrads were 'pure
evil'.
/Thomas
David Thornley
Thomas Hessler <panze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>V-Man heeft geschreven in bericht <8qvta3$ijo4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>
>>Fair enough. Still, nobody here who is well read on the subject has heard
>>of most of his references.
>
>No basher no, it's YOU who has read too many 'glorious and undefeated
>Allies' books. My quotes are all taken from the eminent historican William
>Gordonson's "My Loyalty is Honour", which not only provides the whole Battle
>history of the Proud Wolfsangel Korps but also lists many veteran's stories.
>
examples in my own library. Since one of the quotes, the von Manstein
quote, is obviously distorted (since the full text of where the quote
came from is *not* favorable), I would suspect the rest of the book
of such distortion.
If the quotes were from several books, then this would imply that
only some of the quotes were taken from a book known to distort
its subject matter, and so the rest of the quotes would be a bit
more credible.
>>The few that *were* known are known to be full of
>>apologist propoganda (IIRC).
>
>Your postings totally lack military facts and you always have the arrogance
>to critisize every aspect and move made by our SS grenadiere.
Actually, he doesn't. He criticizes certain SS actions, with good
reason.
>I find it suspicous that you are extremly quiet about the Front actions made
>my the Waffen and you always divert and bend the Waffen-SS discussion to
>either the death camps are the brutal war in Russia, where you seem to blaim
>only the SS men.
No, that's considered. Some of the SS divisions were very effective in
battle, although there's room for speculation for whether they were
worth the resources that went into them. Some of them were useless,
which you seem to overlook. Most of them were at least very prone to
commit atrocities.
Where you there, V-man?
Were you?
>shamefully about history? Look at Vietnam, am I allowed to say now that the
>GI's there were all 'nothing but muderers and thieves'?
>
Well, it would seem to me to be consistent with the rest of your
statements. That being said, the US Army in Vietnam was in some ways
a disgrace to the country.
>Yes, that's always the final argument by your kind of peope, everything you
>don't like is always "apologist propaganda".
Well, when the source deliberately distorts quotes, by taking them out
of context to make them mean something different from what the person
quoted meant, it does look more like propaganda than history.
A term who is very popular by
>people by can comfortable sit in their armschairs and comment history, in
>their arrogance they have the right to say that our comrads were 'pure
>evil'.
>
I don't remember the term "pure evil" as applied to all SS troopers.
All had their honor besmirched by voluntarily giving allegiance to
Himmler, and many committed horrifying atrocities. You're exaggerating.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
V-Man
>IIRC it is believed that the SS men came across a medical team that had ben
>slaughtered, by whom is not clear but could certainly be partisans.
No. French partisans, operating from areas other than Oradour-sur-Glane,
attacked and destroyed a HQ van with part of the division staff. They did this
after DAYS of harassment as Das Reich tried to march to Normandy.
Among the things Das Reich had been putting with was a sabotage of the
lubricants on teh axles of the rail cars that would have moved them to Normandy
in days. Sand was put in the lube filler pipe. Within ten miles of leaving
the train station, Das Reich was off loading.
Then, ambuses, blown bridges, topped off finally with the ambush and
destruction of the van with part of the Division staff, including a popular
officer.
It took Das Reich 17 days to travel to Normandy, when it should have taken 4,
and they were BADLY in need of rest and repair, as the road march had worn out
the tanks.
When the DIV HQ Van was attacke,d they were fed up, so a detachment was sent
in to a village that had NO partisans in it, the men were lined up and shot,
the women and children burned up in a church.
>That is, if the above mentioned
>story is true.
It is.
>History is written by the victors, yes?
No. That is a clever notion that might have been true once, when wars
involved the execution of ALL losing forces, but given the number of memoirs
written by German generals and political figures *AFTER* the war, this is a
tired old thing that needs to be laid to rest.
>There are certainly similar cases
>including Allied units that we have never heard of.
If we have never heard of them, how do you know? I'm sorry, but there *WERE*
Allied troops that acted improperly, and they were punished for it. Whereas
the Waffen SS were *ENCOURAGED* by the German government to be cruel and
inhumane.
It would REALLY help if you knew what you were talking about or stuck to
asking questions, as you did above.
>There are many stories
>about the brutality of Soviet soldiers, not surprising since USSR wasn't a
>"friend" any more after the war.
Yes, but the difference is that there was NO WAY for us to hold the USSR
accountable for the actions of Russian troops. What's more, those were, in
contrast, battlefield actions of men who had found the results of NAZI
"generous occuparion" on their familes and countrymen. German actions were the
result of STATE policy.
This is NOT the first time I or others have said this, so it *SEEMS* you are
jumping into this thread in the middle. Sorry if I come off harsh, but your
statements are awefully forgiving of a group that was responsible for the
butchery of millions as a matter of deliberate state policy, as oppsed to "heat
of battle" events that are common to ALL armies.
Oradour-sur-Glane, if I took it to a jury trial in the US, was NOT a crime of
passion, in the heat of combat. It took over an hour, from start to finish, to
round people up, separate them, prepare the machineguns and the incindaries.
This is premeditation.
>
>Hm? English is not my first language either but isn't "tyrants" correct
>instead of "tirans"??
I wasn't trying to correct his spelling, that's bad form and I suffer from
dyslexia, so bad spelling shows up all the time in my postings, too. Merely to
ensure my point was made.
If you have a specific point to make, that is clear, please do so. This
post of yours wasn't clear where you stood on the matter, and in this sort of
discussion, I want it to be perfectly clear where the others stand. I am.
V-Man
>>of most of his references.
>
>No basher no, it's YOU who has read too many 'glorious and undefeated
>Allies' books.
Actually, you posted a list of several German titles that nobody here knew.
SEVERAL posters stated they had heard of this or that, and that they were
considered, by real historians of the war, to be apologist propoganda.
>to critisize every aspect and move made by our SS grenadiere.
Oh, no. There are cettain things I won't criticise about the "Waffen".
First, they upheld the oath they took to Hitler. *I* criticise the fact they
took one to Hitler and not to Germany.
I also don't criticise their battlefield abilities, when properly employed.
The only problem with thier battlefield abilities was their tendency to NOT
obey senior officers and that they sucked up precioous resources that the
Regular army could have done well to get.
You are NOT relating facts, per your usual. You are trying to deflect
legitimate issues WRT the Waffen-SS. You will NOT answer specific charges,
instead, you trot out stories of "honor and glory" which have, in reality,
little to do with soldiering and a LOT to do with articles in Signal.
>shouting the whole ng together with your vicious
>lies and preposterous assumptions backed up by no facts whatsoever.
Explain to us, since you are a paragon of truth and virtue, how the acts
attributed to the Waffen-SS unit "Das Reich" are lies.
Elements of Das Riech, in response to a two week period of harassment by
French Partisans cumulating in an ambush of the Division HQ van, while
attempting to reach the fighting in Normandy, entered the village of
Oradour-sur-Glane and DID murder all but three of the villagers without
provocation.
Explain to me how this is a lie. If you *can*.
>I find it suspicous that you are extremly quiet about the Front actions made
>my the Waffen
It's not a part of the war that I am as familiar with as I am the French
campaign. Also, I *did* address the Eastern Front in my reply WRT the quotes
you so *carefully* edited.
>you always divert and bend the Waffen-SS discussion to
>either the death camps
Not me. I divert it to your (appearant) refusal to answer my question,
which is:
What was the "Objective" military reason for the massacre of the French
Civilians in Oradour-sur-Glane?
>are the brutal war in Russia,
First you state that I ignore Eastern Front activities, then you state I only
discuss Eastern Front atrocities. You can't have it both ways, buddy.
>Look at Vietnam, am I allowed to say now that the
>GI's there were all 'nothing but muderers and thieves'?
Ahhh... It's wrong for me to talk about things that are ON TOPIC and ON
SUBJECT (WW II & the Waffen-SS), but when you bring up other events, it's OK -
fine, we'll play by your rules a bit (Not really p you won't address what I am
about to mention).
In WW II, in the Eastern Front, Waffen-SS atrocities were the result of STATE
POLICY. Hence the "We were only following orders" defense at Nuremberg.
In Viet Nam, the actions you refer to were battlefield events that were
punished by the US Army for their illegality.
You have been TOLD THIS *BEFORE*. What part did you miss?
>in
>their arrogance they have the right to say that our comrads were 'pure
>evil'.
OK - how would you describe a group of people that butchered, as a matter of
state policy, 20 million civilians? Don't forget, the Allied Bombing Campaign
was LEGAL by international treaty. So long as the cities were defended by the
Luftwaffe and by flak, they were fair game.
Oh, what's that? Why didn't Germany get the benefit of this when they
bombed Warsaw? Because that city wasn't defended.
CAN you answer my questions without resorting to ad hominem? *WILL* you?
Or do those answers defeat your agenda?
Copied and Poster to ensure delivery - any replies by Email are considered to
be in teh public domain and will be posted here is of interest to the group.
V-Man
No, Barkmann, they are not. The German High Command had this interesting
habit of intentionally confusin lines of authority. We don't know
sepcificially why they did it, but it *did* tend to cement their (poor
legal)
authority. The Waffen-SS was owned and operated by the SS, and lent out,
when
needed, to the Army. But it was ALWAYS owned by the SS, and, therefore,
Himmler & Hitler.
>Why are you trying to blacken the Waffen-SS
>banner?
Because you are trying to make it lily-white.
>They fought for the same thing the Heer, Luftwaffe und der
>Kriegsmarine did - for Hitler and Vaterland.
No, the Army, Kriegsmarine, & Luftwaffe fought for GERMANY. Only the
Waffen-SS fought for Hitler & the Vaterland. (the latter being, not a
national
identity, but a political slogan).
>When I said that the 'Waffen-SS had little or no ties to
>Nazism' I ment that on the field, the men cared little about their leaders
>high and dry in Berlin, covered in golden emblems.
Well, that is obvious. Those men had signed agreements with other
nations
and the Waffen-SS never paid those agreements any mind. Those men in
Berlin
lived high on the hog, so to speak, while their troops ate hard black bread
and
corned beef (if they were lucky) and slept in the mud.
>Yes, the
>Waffen became more or less Hitler's last instrument to gain contol over the
>tide that was swallowing our Vaterland, but it never had a thing to do with
>the Nazi party itself.
Your ability to ignore assembled facts is stunning. It's boderline of
fanatical. Too bad your were born 60 years too late.
>We know for sure that it was the Leibstandarte who dragged Röhm out of his
>hotel chamber, but the enitre liquadation was a task that required all
>available SS men.
So what? It still doesn't change the fact that this was a political,
illegal,
act that the Waffen-SS was part and party to. But, no, the Waffen-SS
wasn't
controlled by the NAZI party, it was part of the Army.
Who gave the orders to turn the Waffen-SS out to liquidate undesirables?
OKW? Or Hitler/Himmler?
>Rather
>then being a backstabber like Von Paulus!
No, you don't have an emotional attachment to the Waffen-SS, you are
completely objective.
>He was aware of the fact that he lacked
>military skill. He was never a real military either.
BUt you said previously that all the Waffen-SS high commanders were
professional military personnel. You can't have it both ways, hero.
>He always let to commanding to
>his younger officers, as clearly demonstrated in the tough battles during
>that harsh winter of 41'. He went with his 'boys' as he called them
>everywhere, simply because he was their leader.
If he didn't command them, he wasn't a leader, he was a warm body.
>He was a
>soldier's general.
A "soldier's general" is one that knows his chosen profession and knows
it
well enough he can minimize friendly losses. A "soldier's general" is one
that
NEVER stops learning his trade, the use of arms in furtherance of his
nation's
cause. A "soldier's general" is one that obeys orders and the laws of his
nation and his service. A "soldier's general" has a conscience and
recognises
his moral obligations.
>No, impressive were
>Impressive were
>Impressive were
No, impressive was the fact that despite the great Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe,
Kriegsmarine, & Waffen-SS, the five divisions put ashore on D-Day took 90
minutes to breach the Atlantic Wall, which took four years to build.
Since you don't know it, all those things you listed as impressive go
hand
in hand with human suffering. You are describing the deaths, at German
hands,
of over 20 *MILLION* human beings, and these are JUST the civilians. You
are
glorifing the deaths of Jews, Poles, Russians, millions of people that did
Germany NO HARM until Germany attacked them without provocation.
You are *reveling* in what Germany did. You are, overall, disgusting.
>Inaccurate and uninformed? Yes, I'm sure that's right.
Thanks for admitting it.
Dave Robertson
>
> Glenn A. Steinberg heeft geschreven in bericht
> <8qoask$42r2$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>
> >Little or no ties to the Nazis?!?!?! The Waffen-SS was a PARTY
> organization.
> >It wasn't Army, Navy, or Air Force. It wasn't created or controlled by the
> >Reich government or any Land government in Germany. It was a PARTY
> >organization. The PARTY gave it life and sustained and controlled it.
>
> were under Wehrmacht HGK(Heeresgruppenkommando) and AOK
> (Armeeoberkommando).
No, his statements are correct. While it is true that W-SS divisions
were under the *operational* control of the army high command, the W-SS
was a part of the SS, and hence was a party organization. It was raised
by the party to serve party ends, and indoctrinated with party
ideology. It may be that its ideological character was weakened
somewhat as the war progressed (e.g., as pressure increased to shorten a
recruit's political training in order to get him to the front quicker),
but to deny that it existed -- even at the bitter end -- is an exercise
in revisionist fantasy.
> They fought for the same thing the Heer, Luftwaffe und der
> Kriegsmarine did - for Hitler and Vaterland.
Well, one could probably take exception to this, but I will let it
pass. The issue at hand is *how* the W-SS fought, and the fact is that
it consistently showed a remarkable disregard for the laws of warfare,
particularly as they apply to noncombatants in occupied areas and POWs.
To put it bluntly, the W-SS left a record of brutality and violence
against such protected persons that places it in a quite separate
category from most, if not all, other military organizations of the
war. These exesses were worst in the East, of course, but they were
hardly uncommon even in more "civilized" theaters. For anyone
interested in an "objective" view of the W-SS, these facts (and many
others, not least the connections between the W-SS and other branches of
the SS, including the camp guards) simply must be faced.
However, I think it is pretty clear that this is not what you are
interested in. Your selective quoting of Manstein -- edited to make it
appear he was praising the combat effectiveness of the W-SS when in fact
he was criticizing it -- tells me a lot.
> No, impressive were the Tigers of the Leibstandarte riding right into that
> swarm of 200 T-34's at Prokarovka. Impressive were Peiper's
> Panzergrenadiere
> rushing here and there too prevent wounded SS Panzer crews to be shot by
> the
> Russian infantry. Impressive were the Wehrmacht Panzer Regiments who
> deployed 'en masse' against the French lines and filled the air with dust
> and making a sound from another world when they advanced, engines roaring.
It appears you may be reading too many True Stories of Heroic Combat,
and not enough actual history.
Cheers,
Dave
---
To reply, remove NO and SPAM.
Andrew Clark
The Wasteland <fl...@mail.tele.dk> wrote
> There are certainly similar cases
> including Allied units that we have never heard of.
I am aware of no incident where Commonwealth or US troops committed an
atrocity like Oradour: deliberately rounding up civilians and killing them
in reprisal for a nearby resistance attack. Please post the case you had in
mind.
> There are many stories
> about the brutality of Soviet soldiers,
Indeed there are. But two wrongs do not make a right, do they? Otherwise the
Allies would have had the moral right to slaughter most German POWs and
indeed most of the population of Germany "in reprisal" for atrocities
committed by Germans during WW2. And, of course, in your moral universe, the
members of this NG who find Nazi apologists irritating would have the moral
right to find out where you are and kill you and your family. Do you see?
Geoffrey Sinclair
Thomas Hessler wrote in message <8r0t5h$j1i$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU>...
>>of most of his references.
>
>No basher no, it's YOU who has read too many 'glorious and undefeated
>Allies' books.
So you have proof of the reading list in question?
>My quotes are all taken from the eminent historican William
>Gordonson's "My Loyalty is Honour", which not only provides the whole
Battle
>history of the Proud Wolfsangel Korps but also lists many veteran's
stories.
So why did you only include part of the Von Manstein quote? What does
the book say about the charges the Waffen SS killed prisoners often
enough to make it look like a regular occurance? What evidence does
it present the Waffen SS were elite as opposed to better equipped and
more fanatical, and therefore suffering more casualties? What evidence
does it present the average Waffen SS general was better than the
equivalent Herr General?
What SS Divisions are we talking about, all of them?
>>The few that *were* known are known to be full of
>>apologist propoganda (IIRC).
>
>Your postings totally lack military facts
Which is not surprising since the post was about the availability
of source materials, not a discussion on a particular battle, nice
non relevant insert.
>and you always have the arrogance
>to critisize every aspect and move made by our SS grenadiere.
There is plenty to criticise both in terms of combat performance
at times (Von Manstein) plus the treatment of non Germans.
>You totally
>blacken the Waffen banner, shouting the whole ng together with your vicious
>lies and preposterous assumptions backed up by no facts whatsoever.
>From reading this thread my conclusion is you are the one with the
lack of facts and silly assumptions. As has been pointed out the
evidence used to charge (amongst others) Waffen SS of war
crimes has been republished. The Waffen SS banner is black
because of that evidence.
>I find it suspicous that you are extremly quiet about the Front actions
made
>my the Waffen and you always divert and bend the Waffen-SS discussion to
>either the death camps are the brutal war in Russia, where you seem to
blaim
>only the SS men.
Atrocities were commited by troops of all sides in the war, the
SS institutionalised them by failing to act against those who
did so.
>Where you there, V-man? Where you up to your knees in
>Russian mud pushing the panje wagon forward? Did you had to hold the line
>against wave after wave of Russian soldiers? Then how can you lie so
>shamefully about history? Look at Vietnam, am I allowed to say now that the
>GI's there were all 'nothing but muderers and thieves'?
So if you are claiming we all need to have been there to be able
to advance a view how about letting us know about your combat
experience. If you were not there then by your standards you
should stop posting.
Also unless being there translated to more than just a private just
how much can one person see? Is this action or event typical
or atypical? To find that out we need to consult the records.
>Yes, that's always the final argument by your kind of peope, everything you
>don't like is always "apologist propaganda". A term who is very popular by
>people by can comfortable sit in their armschairs and comment history, in
>their arrogance they have the right to say that our comrads were 'pure
>evil'.
Present your evidence that the information gathered by the allies
during and after WWII and published is incorrect, otherwise that
evidence stands and ignoring it is the revision.
People who go into life threatening situations deserve to be
called brave, to call them heros means the way they fought
and what they fought for were worthwhile. There were many
brave SS men, but no heros, not the way they behaved, and
I am mainly thinking of the frontal assault mentality that meant
more casualties, the need to prove how tough they were
rather than how smart.
Thomas Hessler
David Thornley heeft geschreven in bericht
<8r2gaj$7o1m$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>No, that's considered. Some of the SS divisions were very effective in
>battle, although there's room for speculation for whether they were
>worth the resources that went into them.
The Waffen-SS Divisions were the best to see service during the second
World
War. Wehrmacht Formations such as Grossdeutschland or the 116th Pz were
very
high standard quality divisions also, but they lacked the expierence, élan
and morale of the Wolfsangel Formations. I must admit that American Tank
units (Hell on wheels) could certainly give our frontline a dint too.There
can be no serious debate wether or not the Waffen was worth the material it
recieved, since they have proven themselves to be more then worthy
opponents. Even with limited material (Poland) the Waffen-SS performed
outstanding, smashing attack after attack and denying the Poles a chance on
retreat to Warsau. There would be no escape for the Poles.
>Some of them were useless,
>which you seem to overlook.
Yes, I'm afraid that I have no choice but to agree with the honourable
gentleman there. Formations such as the Albanian or Juguslavian units
(Handschar) were no doubt a disgrace to our Banner, but please keep in mind
that those units did hardly ever see any combat action. When I talk about
the Waffen, I refer to the prominent Divisions, always present when
situation required their skills such as the Leibstandarte, Das Reich and
the
later formed units such as Hohenstauffen or Hitlerjugend.
>Most of them were at least very prone to
>commit atrocities.
It seems like this conversation repeats itself over and over. Herr
Thornley,
according to you the 'SS' was 'very prone' to commit atrocities. My
reaction
on this is that -when the Waffen committed exesses- this was done to avenge
their fallen comrades. Yes, the shameful side on our units was that some
individuals also got though Brunswick and Bad Tolz and were all to keen in
seeing true Nazism turned into reality. Knochlein jumps into mind here. But
Steinberg, what -according to you- were the motives of our men to commit
warcrimes?
>>Yes, that's always the final argument by your kind of peope, everything
you
>>don't like is always "apologist propaganda".
>Well, when the source deliberately distorts quotes, by taking them out
>of context to make them mean something different from what the person
>quoted meant, it does look more like propaganda than history.
I find this rather offensive coming from someone who hasn't read Panzer
Leader, or you would know what I was talking about. I can grab 'Panzer
Battles', open the Ardennes section and give you a quote on the LSSAH's
actions and write it down now. Would that be 'apologist propaganda'? No, it
would just be facts, end of line.
Have you ever been to Westpoint, Thornley? There's an oil painting of a
Waffen-SS soldier in the entrance hall.
>I don't remember the term "pure evil" as applied to all SS troopers.
>All had their honor besmirched by voluntarily giving allegiance to
>Himmler, and many committed horrifying atrocities. You're exaggerating.
The whole Himmler involving thing is just another technique used to let it
seem like the Waffen-SS was a pure Nazi Organisation, consisting of Nothing
but yelling killer machines, and all with the rank of captain (Ami films
down't know yet there's a rank higher or lower in the German Army).
quotes from the SS soldaten:
"My feelins about the Reichsheini were the same. To me he was a man who
wasn't trustworthy at all, a weak little man who was nothing without his
uniform."
- Hans-Gerhard Starck, 1st SS Leibstandarte
"As for the political leadership, all I can say is that we believed what
Hitler said, and I myself was convinced that Germany would win the war
right
up to March 1945. I only really knew that war was lost for sure when we
heard Hitler was dead. We regarded Hitler as a true man. He was only a
corporal when he earned the Iron Cross First Class in World War I. In those
days that was quite an achievement. When he spoke at meetings or rallies he
managed to capture the audience. He was able to get us in a mood where we
believed everything he said and we left fired with enthusiasm. Everyone I
met respected Hitler and shared the same opinions. As for Himmler, he
certainly was not a man. He gave the impression that he could not be
trusted, and he certainly wasn't a shining exeample of an Aryan super-race,
either in appearance or charachter. We tought Himmler as a miserable person
to be the head of the Waffen-SS."
- Jan Munk, SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment Westland, 5th SS Wiking
Did I made my point, Thornley?
With kind regards,
/Thomas
Jussi Jalonen
"Glenn A. Steinberg" <gste...@TCNJ.EDU> wrote:
> Little or no ties to the Nazis?!?!?! The Waffen-SS was a PARTY
> organization. It wasn't Army, Navy, or Air Force. It wasn't created
> or controlled by the Reich government or any Land government in
> Germany. It was a PARTY organization. The PARTY gave it life and
> sustained and controlled it.
And would there have been any difference if SS had been a government-
controlled organization? This was a totalitarian state, one-party
system. The German Reich in itself was sustained and controlled by the
Nazi party.
> Did you catch all that? Did you especially note Stahlberg's comment
> that "I was ashamed to have to shake hands with him"? Is that
> usually how army personnel feel upon meeting an officer of an elite
> unit?
In this case, the uniform probably made little difference. It's the man
inside who matters.
> And by the way, you may think that soc.history.war.world-war-ii is
> a "third rate forum," but if it is, the inaccurate, uninformed
> posters like you are what make it so.
No reason for that judgement, this is a simple diversity of opinion.
Cheers,
Jalonen
--
The Lapua co-op dairy has come to the village
with skimmed milk they're civilizing the Lapuans...
When the hinds finish eating,
their belts are still loose
the farmhands must labour half-famished.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Thornley
Thomas Hessler <panze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>David Thornley heeft geschreven in bericht
><8r2gaj$7o1m$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>
>>No, that's considered. Some of the SS divisions were very effective in
>>battle, although there's room for speculation for whether they were
>>worth the resources that went into them.
>
>The Waffen-SS Divisions were the best to see service during the second
>World
>War.
That's going to be a difficult statement to back up. There were some
very good formations in most armies. I could mention SS vs. British
paratroops at Arnhem Bridge.
Wehrmacht Formations such as Grossdeutschland or the 116th Pz were
>very
>high standard quality divisions also, but they lacked the expierence, élan
>and morale of the Wolfsangel Formations.
They frequently had more experience, and some of the Panzer divisions
were very adept. Weigley ("Eisenhower's Lieutenants") seems consistently
impressed by Eleventh Panzer Division. Some of the Luftwaffe formations
were also very, very good (and some were useless).
I must admit that American Tank
>units (Hell on wheels) could certainly give our frontline a dint too.
The Second Armored Division (Hell on Wheels) had been commanded by Patton
before the war. The Fourth was also superb, the Sixth perhaps a bit
less so.
There
>can be no serious debate wether or not the Waffen was worth the material it
>recieved, since they have proven themselves to be more then worthy
>opponents.
The problem is:
1. The better Waffen-SS divisions did very well in combat.
2. The Waffen-SS in the latter part of the war absorbed more resources,
including weapons and high-quality men.
The question is whether the enhanced performance was worth the
resources. Given the superb performance of some of the Panzer and
"Fallschimjaeger" divisions, it seems likely that giving them the
same crack at high-quality recruits and weapons would also have helped
the Reich a good deal. This is still a matter for debate.
Even with limited material (Poland) the Waffen-SS performed
>outstanding, smashing attack after attack and denying the Poles a chance on
>retreat to Warsau. There would be no escape for the Poles.
>
The Waffen-SS was present in very small numbers in Poland, however
well it fought.
>>Most of them were at least very prone to
>>commit atrocities.
>
>It seems like this conversation repeats itself over and over.
It does that, doesn't it?
Herr
>Thornley,
>according to you the 'SS' was 'very prone' to commit atrocities. My
>reaction
>on this is that -when the Waffen committed exesses- this was done to avenge
>their fallen comrades.
There are limits on how much vengeance one can use before it turns into
a war crime. The Waffen-SS was far to quick to avenge, and didn't
pay all that much attention to whether they were getting the right
people. (This is being conservative on my side.)
>>>Yes, that's always the final argument by your kind of peope, everything
>you
>>>don't like is always "apologist propaganda".
>
>>Well, when the source deliberately distorts quotes, by taking them out
>
>I find this rather offensive coming from someone who hasn't read Panzer
>Leader,
Um, I haven't read "Panzer Leader"?
or you would know what I was talking about. I can grab 'Panzer
>Battles',
Read that one, too.
open the Ardennes section and give you a quote on the LSSAH's
>actions and write it down now. Would that be 'apologist propaganda'? No, it
>would just be facts, end of line.
>
Actually, I was referring to the book you claimed you had gotten the
quotes from. It appears to have taken a von Manstein quote out of
context to make it seem much more favorable to the Waffen-SS than
it was. That makes the rest of the quotes suspect.
>>I don't remember the term "pure evil" as applied to all SS troopers.
>
>The whole Himmler involving thing is just another technique used to let it
>seem like the Waffen-SS was a pure Nazi Organisation,
It was a Nazi organization.
consisting of Nothing
>but yelling killer machines, and all with the rank of captain (Ami films
>down't know yet there's a rank higher or lower in the German Army).
>
I think that there is room for opinions other than yours and those of
bad US movies.
In other words, this is a complete irrelevancy dragged in to avoid the
fact that the Waffen-SS *was* a Nazi organization, that it *was*
administered (although rarely operationally commanded) by Himmler,
that it *was* indoctrinated with Nazi thinking, and there was no
clear separation between the members of the Waffen-SS and the even
less savory other branches.
>quotes from the SS soldaten:
>
>"My feelins about the Reichsheini were the same. To me he was a man who
>wasn't trustworthy at all, a weak little man who was nothing without his
>uniform."
>- Hans-Gerhard Starck, 1st SS Leibstandarte
>
He could think that, for all he liked. However, he was in an organization
that was essentially designed by Himmler.
>"As for the political leadership, all I can say is that we believed what
>Hitler said,
Right. They believed what Hitler said.
Are you aware of what Hitler said?
Are you aware that the Nazi Party strongly espoused (but did not
practice) the "Leader Principle", and that creating this attitude
towards Hitler and his beliefs was precisely what Himmler was
supposed to be doing?
James Paulsen
demand for facts. How are people to live up to your standards?
Thomas Hessler wrote:
The Waffen-SS Divisions were the best to see service during the second World
> War. Wehrmacht Formations such as Grossdeutschland or the 116th Pz were
> very high standard quality divisions also, but they lacked the expierence,
> élan
> and morale of the Wolfsangel Formations.
This, of course, is a borad sweeping subjective statement.
Even with limited material (Poland) the Waffen-SS performed
> outstanding, smashing attack after attack and denying the Poles a chance on
> retreat to Warsau. There would be no escape for the Poles.
Yes, weren't they grand. They defeated a poorly equipped, and very brave force
fighting to defend its own nation.
>
> When I talk about the Waffen, I refer to the prominent Divisions, always
> present when
> situation required their skills such as the Leibstandarte, Das Reich and the
> later formed units such as Hohenstauffen or Hitlerjugend.
So, only the portion of the organization that you want to talk about, correct?
>
> on this is that -when the Waffen committed exesses- this was done to avenge
> their fallen comrades.
Here you refer to them as "their"
> Yes, the shameful side on our units was that some
Here it is "our" which is it? I assume you were not a member of the Waffen
SS,
but you desired to be? Is that it? If so, that speaks volumes...
> individuals also got though Brunswick and Bad Tolz and were all to keen in
> seeing true Nazism turned into reality. Knochlein jumps into mind here. But
> Steinberg, what -according to you- were the motives of our men to commit
> warcrimes?
Aside from being soldiers from the most totalitarian state of the 20th Century?
A state that encouraged--even thrived on--military expansion, hatred, murder,
and racism? It should be easy to figure that out, now shouldn't it.
> The whole Himmler involving thing is just another technique used to let it
> seem like the Waffen-SS was a pure Nazi Organisation,
It was a Nazi organization.
> consisting of Nothing but yelling killer machines, and all with the rank of
> captain (Ami films down't know yet there's a rank higher or lower in the
> German Army).
They were the tool of a totalitarian state. If they were so innocent, they
should have felt foolish and used when it was over.
> quotes from the SS soldaten:
<snip quote of these two Waffen SS veterans complaining about Himmler>
>
> - Hans-Gerhard Starck, 1st SS Leibstandarte
>
> - Jan Munk, SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment Westland, 5th SS Wiking
>
> Did I made my point, Thornley?
The opinion of two people hardly constitues a concesnus. And disliking Himmler
makes them no better. If they hated him so much, why join the organization?
V-Man
>David Thornley heeft geschreven in bericht
><8r2gaj$7o1m$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>>Well, when the source deliberately distorts quotes, by taking them out
>>of context to make them mean something different from what the person
>>quoted meant, it does look more like propaganda than history.
>
>I find this rather offensive coming from someone who hasn't read Panzer
>Leader, or you would know what I was talking about.
Barkmann, you posted a series of quotes, one of them savagely edited to show
ONLY what you wanted us to see. Another poster, Mr. Steinberg, graciously
showed us what you left out of von Manstein's quote, and it shows the Waffen-SS
to be EVERYTHING we have been saying.
Wasteful of lives (German), brave to a fault, and profligate in it's
expenditure of priceless equipment.
Now, when somebody calls you to task on this, you act as if Mr. Steinberg
didn't ever post the larger quote. How dishonest.
>quotes from the SS soldaten:
What have you left out of these? The last time you postd quotes, there was a
LOT of careful editing to ensure that we didn't see anything damaging to the
W-SS.
Stephen Graham
><8r2gaj$7o1m$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>
>>No, that's considered. Some of the SS divisions were very effective in
>>battle, although there's room for speculation for whether they were
>>worth the resources that went into them.
>
>The Waffen-SS Divisions were the best to see service during the second
>World
>War. Wehrmacht Formations such as Grossdeutschland or the 116th Pz were
>very
>high standard quality divisions also, but they lacked the expierence, élan
>and morale of the Wolfsangel Formations.
There a number of other, more senior units than the 116th Panzer Division
that can be used for comparison. For instance, 1st, 2d and 7th Panzer
Divisions, 44th Infantry Division, 1st, 2d and 3d Mountain Divisions,
et al.
One should also recall that the SS divisions were substantially
overstrength in comparison with Wehrmacht divisions.
>Even with limited material (Poland) the Waffen-SS performed
>outstanding, smashing attack after attack and denying the Poles a chance on
>retreat to Warsau.
The performance of the SS troops in Poland was rather poor compared to
Wehrmacht formations. Leibstandarte in particular showed a poor grasp
of operational and tactical principles, relying instead on simplistic,
head-on assaults. Casualty rates among company-level offices and
enlisted personnel were extraordinarily high. All SS field formations
were so short of qualified officers prior to the French campaign that
officer schools had to be stripped of their senior cadets to provide
enough officers. See Wegner's Hitlers Politische Soldaten.
>>Some of them were useless,
>>which you seem to overlook.
>
>Yes, I'm afraid that I have no choice but to agree with the honourable
>gentleman there. Formations such as the Albanian or Juguslavian units
>(Handschar) were no doubt a disgrace to our Banner, but please keep in mind
>that those units did hardly ever see any combat action.
The reason why these units saw very little action is that they
disintegrated upon entry into combat. That doesn't allow you to
dismiss them as part of the Waffen SS.
>It seems like this conversation repeats itself over and over. Herr
>Thornley,
>according to you the 'SS' was 'very prone' to commit atrocities. My
>reaction
>on this is that -when the Waffen committed exesses- this was done to avenge
>their fallen comrades.
This is hardly true of the atrocities committed during the Polish and
French campaigns or of those members of the Waffen SS seconded to
the Einsatzgruppen.
>The whole Himmler involving thing is just another technique used to let it
>seem like the Waffen-SS was a pure Nazi Organisation, consisting of Nothing
>but yelling killer machines, and all with the rank of captain (Ami films
>down't know yet there's a rank higher or lower in the German Army).
Approximately 30 seconds of reading will point out that the SS as a
whole was an organ of the NSDAP. After all, the SS was formed out of
the SA, a party organization, in April 1925 specifically as an armed
bodyguard for Adolf Hitler. The Verfugungstruppe were formed by
the various Gauleiter as paramilitary forces directly under their
own control and then consolidated and deployed in the Standarten
that would later form Das Reich.
In any case, the Waffen SS ultimately reported to Himmler and SS
headquarters. Do you deny that the SS as a whole was a party apparatus
that had also taken over some governmental functions?
Thomas Hessler
James Paulsen heeft geschreven in bericht
<8rd1rm$9vl8$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>Mr. Hessler, over and over again you mix subjective claims with the
>demand for facts. How are people to live up to your standards?
>A state that encouraged--even thrived on--military expansion, hatred,
murder,
>and racism? It should be easy to figure that out, now shouldn't it.
>It was a Nazi organization.
>The opinion of two people hardly constitues a concesnus. And disliking
Himmler
>makes them no better. If they hated him so much, why join the organization?
The strange things seem to be part of a new and current "witch-prosecution".
Comparable is, that again reason and logic are overtaken by myths, feelings
and a hunting spirit, spread by interested groups amongst a mass crowd,
always following the leading wolf. Also typical again is, that not provable
facts are what decides a judgement but only what is regarded to be "correct"
while fighting a "current danger" and "public enemy" established in phantasy
by political interests. Here, simply my focus on the Waffen-SS erased the
discussion, no matter that my informations also stem from a site still
present on the web or that are present in scientific studies and
publications, or even the fact that once you were one of those dashing young
men, wearing the Wolfsangel. Just imagine that people still fear Dracula and
Nosferatu, still fight demons with garlic, and that they are told by
interested groups, that Dracula and Nosferatu have come back from hell in
the shape of SS. Then you understand what is going on. People have run mad
andnagain like in the witch-hunt time, reason is no medicine against such a
desease.
There always is the chance to learn something more or to be hinted on new
sources. This offer is not worth a second time as mostly such red painted
Nazis are not really interested in facts and reality but in the proud
feeling to have messed up somebody else using the cover of the
wolfe-pack.They don´t dispose of discussable knowlede. Their mood is the
same like that of the old witch-hunters: They want to see some victims
burning at the stake, want themselves staying in front of the pyre, lighting
it with their matches. Sixty years before they would have become the most
active jew-hunters or would have served as guard of a
concentration camp. Nowadays they simply changed the disguise, the color and
hunting-topic, manners and
procedures remain the same.
/Thomas
Tommi Syrjanen
> The Waffen-SS Divisions were the best to see service during the
> second World War.
Yup. Like SS-Division Nord that fought so skillfully and bravely in
its first attack that (according to Finnish sources, I haven't read an
official German account of the event) one of its batallion was
decimated for cowardice. That is, one man out of ten was executed.
Though, since this happened in July 1941 it was probably one of those
late-war war subhuman formations that you hold in contempt.
Later, during the battles of Kiestinki Waffen-SS held a line that was
half the length of Heer and Finnish lines with twice as many men and
still Soviet patrols could get through their defence at will.
And speaking of quotes on Waffen-SS. Here's a part of a report that
Finnish captain Y.P.I. Kaila wrote for the army headquarters in 1942
after he had returned to Finland after serving in SS-Div. Wiking for
about 10 months:
"I noticed much bravery but almost no skill. The officer corps of
Waffen-SS didn't train themselves with tactical questions! The combat
and leading one's troops in battle were seen to be so simple that no
special expertise would be necessary and Germanic bravery would be
enough.
As I mentioned before, the war begun so soon that I didn't have
opportunities to examine combat training in the unit. Therefore my
opinion on training in SS forces is based on the results, actions on
the front, both on battlefield and outside of it. I got very poor
picture on this; poor terrain use, short-sighted bravery, actual mania
in gathering in large groups, non-existent fire control, companies
were led by being a champion warrior, etc. On marches one of the basic
requirements of motorized troops, driving discipline, was poor and the
troop accommodation was impractical and unhygienic. I notices
significant signs of non-professionalism everywhere and true expertise
was either not known or arrogantly belittled.
The lack of training was compensated, though with a bloody price, by
common bravery and I hold the SS-troops in high regard in this
respect. The discipline was faultless. I didn't observe a single
occurrence where a man would have disobeyed any order from his squad
leader, not even a displeasing or a highly dangerous one. A leader,
especially an officer, could maintain his authority even better than
what his rank in SS-Kameradscath would have required."
This extract is from Jokipii's `Panttipataljoona'.
- Tommi
Thomas Hessler
Tommi Syrjanen heeft geschreven:
>Yup. Like SS-Division Nord that fought so skillfully and bravely in
>its first attack that (according to Finnish sources, I haven't read an
>official German account of the event) one of its batallion was
>decimated for cowardice. That is, one man out of ten was executed.
>Though, since this happened in July 1941 it was probably one of those
>late-war war subhuman formations that you hold in contempt.
Let's see here. You give me an unknown fact (?) from a Finnish (?) source,
and you seem to rub it in over the whole Waffen-SS organisation. Secondly,
is the 6th SS Nord one of those glorius Panzer Divisions that arrived on the
batteflied wielding 19,000 men and 5,00 tanks? No, it isn't.
<snip blackening Waffen-SS Kameraden>
Allow me to give you a better illustrated example of the behaviour of
Waffen-SS troops on the Eastern front.
On 7 March 1942 Stalin turned his attention to the Demyansk pocket and
ordered it to be destroyed. Trapped in this pocket were 7 Army Divisions.
This pocket would be eliminated by elite Siberian ski troops, brought over
from the far east. The first wave of Ivans was scheduled to hit to pocket in
a SE direction at Kokovuno, 18 SE of Demyansk itself. But what Ivan didn't
know what that the 5th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment Thule had arrived there
before the first attack could began. Our comrades had only arrived at their
positions an hour ago and were in the process of digging as the they could
see the first wave coming in. It was the 983rd Ski Brigade, attacking in
full strength. It wielded 5 Ski Battalions, the 632th Mortar Battalion, the
252th anti-tank company and the 1st Tank Battalion. This Tank formation was
equipped with the formidable KV-1, 6 T-34 M41 and a dozen of T60 tankettes.
Against this force Thule could only place it's I, II and III SS Grenadier
Battalions and an Artillery Battery -consisting of 150mm guns- against Ivan.
The first attack was simply stopped dead in it's tracks and decimated when a
small counterattack was ordered. Thule held out for 30 days in this
position, recieving no reinforcements and having to face the snow and cold
as well as the mass attacks of the Ivans. Eventually a WH Kampfgruppe -von
Seydlitz-Kurrbach- comprising four Divisions smashed it's way through the
28km thick Soviet lines.
Before you blacken our image -you seem pretty keen to do so and excuse your
fellow countrymen- give me details, locations and names first. Just summing
up some data without any details is not how history is dealt with.
/Thomas
Stephen Graham
Thomas Hessler <panze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Let's see here. You give me an unknown fact (?) from a Finnish (?) source,
>and you seem to rub it in over the whole Waffen-SS organisation. Secondly,
>is the 6th SS Nord one of those glorius Panzer Divisions that arrived on the
>batteflied wielding 19,000 men and 5,00 tanks? No, it isn't.
To begin with, you've misdesignated the unit. At the time of the
described incident, it's SS Division Nord. There were no division or
regimental numbers until later in the war - 1943 if I recall correctly.
Nor were there any SS Panzer Divisions at the time. Those also didn't
come into being until late 1943.
And your source also misdesignates the unit. There was no 5th SS
Panzergrenadier Regiment "Thule" on 7 March 1942. Now it might be
discussing SS Regiment Totenkopf or 1. SS Regiment Totenkopf. The
Panzergrenadier designation wouldn't come until November 1942.
Nord's record in Finland in 1941 is easily verifiable as being
particularly poor. Any reliable history of the Waffen SS will discuss
this. Or you could read any number of volumes on World War II in
Finland. Nor can one blame the ethnic composition of Nord for it's
poor performance - most of its manpower was Reich Germans.
When you discuss any institution such as the Waffen SS, you don't get
to pick and choose which parts to hold up as examples. You have to
take it in its entirety. So the performance of SS Division Totenkopf
at Demyansk has to be balanced against that of SS Division Nord
in Finland.
Glenn A. Steinberg
> The strange things seem to be part of a new and current "witch-prosecution".
Those of us in this thread who have questioned the moral judgment of the
Waffen-SS have not simply said, "Waffen-SS -- bad! Yuck! Kill them! Burn them
at the stake!"
We have presented cogent reasons, evidence, and arguments for why we believe the
Waffen-SS to have been a criminal and/or dishonorable organization.
Instead of responding to these reasons, evidence, and arguments, you simply fall
back on accusations of an alleged "witch-hunt" mentality on our part.
Let's talk FACTS.
The Waffen-SS was a Party organization. You have denied it repeatedly, and you
can deny it till your dying day, but the FACT is and always will be that the
Waffen-SS was a Party organization.
That the Waffen-SS was under the operational control of the German Army in the
field is irrelevant. 11 and 12 Italian Armies did not cease to be part of the
Italian Armed Forces and become part of the German Armed Forces just because
they were under the operational control of German Army Group E in the Balkans.
If they had, why would the Germans have had to disarm them when Italy
surrendered to the Allies in 1943?
So, why would the Waffen-SS cease to be an SS organization simply because it was
under the operational control of the Armed Forces on the battlefield? OKW and
OKH had no control over Waffen-SS units; Himmler did. So, how is the Waffen-SS
not subordinate to Himmler and not a Party organization?
The Waffen-SS was a Party organization that wore the shameful, dishonorable
insignia of Himmler's SS. That's a FACT for you.
As for the military qualities of the Waffen-SS, others are more qualified than I
to argue that point, but your quotations of a smattering of German generals
(some of them quoted out of context in a way that distorted what they really
said) have very little to do with FACTS at all.
So, what FACTS exactly have you presented in favor of the Waffen-SS?
You've argued that some of the Waffen-SS officers made fun of Himmler behind his
back. Many Army officers made fun of Hitler and Keitel behind their backs too.
Does that mean that they ceased to be part of the Wehrmacht?
You've argued that some of the Waffen-SS units, with all the best equipment at
their disposal and with no regard for casualties, sometimes fought well. Is
that something to be proud of?
You've admitted that Waffen-SS officers such as Sepp Dietrich were military
idiots. Very impressive.
You've claimed that the Waffen-SS had great esprit de corps. Great. So did
Attila the Hun's hordes, I bet. What does esprit de corps have to do with
anything? It doesn't prove military skill or prowess, and it certainly doesn't
guarantee sound moral judgment.
You've pointed out that some German officers praised the Waffen-SS, while others
can only be made to have seemed to have praised them by taking their words out
of context. Wow. How impressive.
Those are really compelling FACTS, aren't they?
We're on no "witch-prosecution" here. If we were, we'd offer no *reasons* to
think ill of the Waffen-SS. But we've offered *plenty* of reasons for that.
You haven't offered much by way of reasons to think well of the Waffen-SS.
So, stop with the snivelling accusations about "witch-hunts." They're pretty
pathetic.
Instead of whining about "witch-hunts," why not consider that maybe you've put
your loyalty in the wrong place. Just consider the possibility. If you do,
then you'll understand why so many people are more than a little appalled at
your passionate defense of the honor of an institution that was dishonorable to
its core and a blot of shame on the memory and history of Germany.
It would be like someone in the United States glorifying General George
Armstrong Custer as a hero. When you choose a shameful group as your heroes,
you shouldn't be surprised if people react with sharp criticism and very little
approval.
David Thornley
Thomas Hessler <panze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>James Paulsen heeft geschreven in bericht
><8rd1rm$9vl8$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>
>>Mr. Hessler, over and over again you mix subjective claims with the
>>demand for facts. How are people to live up to your standards?
>
Nope. It's an old one. People who willingly swear allegiance to
evil and are in an organization known for evil acts are considered
suspect. People who defend such organizations are also considered
suspect, unless they offer good evidence that the previous beliefs
are wrong, which you haven't done.
>Comparable is, that again reason and logic are overtaken by myths, feelings
Many of us are perfectly agreeable to reason and logic. Try it sometime.
Now, what reason tells us is that the Waffen-SS was a Nazi organization.
History tells us that there was always some movement of men back
and forth between the Waffen-SS field units and the concentration
camps, and that the Waffen-SS was known for committing war crimes.
Logic tells us that they were not completely nice people.
>always following the leading wolf. Also typical again is, that not provable
>facts are what decides a judgement but only what is regarded to be "correct"
Right. Like statements that the Waffen-SS had the best fighting forces
in the world. That is not based on provable fact, and indeed insufficient
facts of any sort have been shown to support it. Taking the facts
presented at face value, one could conclude that the Waffen-SS had
some very good divisions, but there is no evidence presented that any
Waffen-SS division was better than, say, Second Panzer Division or
even the US Fourth Armored Division.
>by political interests. Here, simply my focus on the Waffen-SS erased the
>discussion, no matter that my informations also stem from a site still
>present on the web or that are present in scientific studies and
>publications,
Which information? (And are you trying to tell us that everything
you read on the web must be true?)
or even the fact that once you were one of those dashing young
>men, wearing the Wolfsangel.
I wasn't, actually. I understand that people who were part of the
Waffen-SS may have a need to glorify that organization and hide its
shameful parts, though.
>There always is the chance to learn something more or to be hinted on new
>sources.
Well, yes. Why not provide one?
This offer is not worth a second time as mostly such red painted
>Nazis are not really interested in facts and reality but in the proud
>feeling to have messed up somebody else using the cover of the
>wolfe-pack.
Right. This is a Nazi tactic. The Waffen-SS was a Nazi organization.
The conclusion is that the Waffen-SS, and by extension its fanboys,
are not really interested in facts, but prefer proud feelings.
We *know* they liked the feeling of having messed up somebody else,
since they did it enough.
They don´t dispose of discussable knowlede. Their mood is the
>same like that of the old witch-hunters: They want to see some victims
>burning at the stake, want themselves staying in front of the pyre, lighting
>it with their matches.
Right. You are describing Nazi tactics very well. The Nazis needed
victims, and used the Jews as scapegoats long before they attained
power. Once they attained power, they didn't hesitate to hurt
these victims. As far as fire, well, recently somebody commented on
the saying "Up the chimney like a Jew".
The Waffen-SS was also apparently fond of the pyre, such as shown at
Oradour-sur-Glane.
Sixty years before they would have become the most
>active jew-hunters or would have served as guard of a
>concentration camp.
They did, they did. Waffen-SS soldiers *did* serve as concentration
camp guards fairly frequently.
Nowadays they simply changed the disguise, the color and
>hunting-topic, manners and
>procedures remain the same.
>
Although hampered by the fact that there are no Nazi governments in
power anymore.
V-Man
>and you seem to rub it in over the whole Waffen-SS organisation.
Sure, it's the same tactic you use to defend the Waffen-SS. Refer to
books
nobody has heard of and cannot find references to.
jann...@hotmail.com
"Thomas Hessler" <panze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Let's see here. You give me an unknown fact (?) from a Finnish (?)
> source,
The battle history of SS Division Nord is hardly unknown. Its first
attack ended on Day One with a flight, complete with its artillery, in
total panic, and the unit was deemed unfit for combat for several days.
It did with well - or with bravery - later, though.
There were soldiers executed for cowardice, but I don´t remember reading
about the "decimation"(it could be a legend?).
> and you seem to rub it in over the whole Waffen-SS organisation.
If it´s stated that the Waffen-SS was the greatest military force that
ever existed - or whatever - then the performance of any single genuine
SS Division cannot be overlooked.
> Secondly, is the 6th SS Nord one of those glorius Panzer Divisions
> that arrived on the batteflied wielding 19,000 men and 5,00 tanks? No,
> it isn't.
SS Division (sometimes called Kampfgruppe, sometimes Brigade) consisted
of two motorized regiments (SS-I.R. 6 and 7) - with artillery, AAA etc -
which had earlier served in Norway. The troops were German, IIRC a
majority from and around Berlin. But so what?
> <snip blackening Waffen-SS Kameraden>
It´s not "blackening". It´s simply a clear description of the
well-considered views of a professional soldier. Or do you mean that if
reality fails to fit the image, so much worse for the image?
> This pocket would be eliminated by elite Siberian ski troops,
I don´t think there were any "elite Siberian ski troops".
> Before you blacken our image
Eh? "Our image"?
> -you seem pretty keen to do so and excuse your fellow countrymen -
Don´t worry so much about what anyone seems to be pretty keen
on, or seems to do - concentrate on the discussion.
> give me details, locations and names first. Just summing
> up some data without any details is not how history is dealt with.
You can look up Jokipii in any decent university library.-)
Janne Glad
Thomas Hessler
Stephen Graham heeft geschreven in bericht
<8rgeer$7hta$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
<nach de.kinder.sandkasten>
Graham you misunderstood the point completly (as usual). The hounorable
Finnish gentleman was making a reference to 6 SS Gebrigsdivision Nord, but
with a total lack of facts including details, date's and names. In addition
to that he was just another one of those bashers burned on re-writing
history. Nord was indeed part of the 20th Mountain Army on the Finnish
front. I simply give him another example of Waffen-SS performance in the
East. Nord was never one of our classic fighting units. It was never given
adequate personnel either, it's last commander -Friedrich Kruger- had
terrorised the civilian population of Krakau while commander there from
39'-44'. Nord is a border case. But if you call it's performance 'poor'
(Keep in mind Nord fought the whole war on the Eastern Front) then the
performance of the US Divisions in the West is below average.
I knew a posting like yours was following: "but you have misdesignated the
unit! it was not a panzergrenadier regiment until after Karkhov!"
I find that pathetic.
/Thomas
James Paulsen
Thomas Hessler wrote:
<snip defense of Waffen SS, comparison of Waffen SS to witch hunt victims
and
vampires>
Well, I guess we agree to disagree?
Jim Paulsen
Tommi Syrjanen
> Let's see here. You give me an unknown fact (?) from a Finnish (?)
> source, and you seem to rub it in over the whole Waffen-SS
> organisation. Secondly,
And where in my post did I generalize the experiences of SS-D Nord to
whole Waffen-SS. My response was to your statement:=20
> The Waffen-SS Divisions were the best to see service during the
> second World War.
English is not my native language but I parse that sentence as
claiming that all Waffen-SS divisions were elite. I presented an
example of a spectacularly bad unit that fought under the Waffen-SS
banner.=20
Also, at the time the division fought in Finland. So it should not be
particularly strange that Finnish sources may contain accurate
information. All Finnish sources state that Nord's first attack was a
catastrophe and ended in a large-scale rout. Some sources add that as
a punishment, one of its batallions was decimated. I have a couple of
further quotes with attributions later in the post.=20
> is the 6th SS Nord one of those glorius Panzer Divisions that arrived=
on the
> batteflied wielding 19,000 men and 5,00 tanks? No, it isn't.
No. It consisted of 8000 poorly trained men, more than half being
between 26-40 years old. But it was one of the original Waffen-SS
divisions, it fought for the whole war in the East Front and its men
were almost exclusively German (there were some Austrians in it). And
remember that most of the Waffen-SS divisions were not "those glorious
Panzer Divisions". You seem to want to define Waffen-SS so that it
includes only the good units and forget the bad.
Here's a snippet from "Jatkosodan historia" (volume 4) that is pretty
much the authoritative source on the Finnish war 1941-44 (my
translation):
"In South the 6th Division [Finnish] started its attack July 1 at
02.30 and at Salla Germans started a bombardment by artillery and
dive bombers at 16.00. The SS division Nord that attacked along the
road was incapable to continue the attack after the battles of the
first day had ended. The division commander General Major
(SS-Brigadef=FChrer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS) Karl Demelhuber eve=
n
cast a doubt on his unit's capabilities to defend the area. In the
next morning the Army Corps commander Cavalry General Feige ordered
the division to switch to defense."
Later the division was attached to Finnish Group J. Finnish General
Major Siilasvuo wrote following instructions to the Lieutenant Colonel
who commanded it (I didn't write his name up and I forgot it):
"The SS troops have to be gradually introduced to combat since they
are not ordinary troops. The men are good but both officers and
enlisted men lack all military training".
Demelhuber and his staff thought that being assigned under the command
of a foreign Lieutenant Colonel was a personal insult and a
humiliation so in the end Colonel General von Falkenhorst had to ask
Siilasvuo to take command of Group J.
Another book, "Suomi sodassa" states that in June 1941 Demelhuber sent
the following message to his superiors:
"I've convinced that the training level of the troops that have been
assigned to me is so poor that we cannot take the responsibility of
using them in combat."
Another interesting Demelhuber quote is reported by Eino Pohjamo (who
served as a platoon leader in the 6th division and later turned into a
war historian and novelist). This is from "Tiet=F6n divisioona":
"The main force of XXXVI Army Corps, the Germans, started its attack
against Salla on the afternoon of the same day, July 1, as Viikla's
division [6th] but not before four o'clock in the afternoon after a
10-minute bombardment. When dust clouds of the explosions covered the
objectives, Salla village and Salla fjeld, the Army Corps started its
advance. The 169th Division attacked along Savukoski road with one
regiment encircling from the North. The SS-division Nord attacked
along Kemij=E4rvi-Salla road and on the South side of it.
Scarcely had the first regiment of 169th Division crossed the border
when the enemy counterattacked and threw it back. This caused a short
panic in the regiment sector and the advance along Savukoski-Salla
road was stopped.
The SS-division fared even worse. SS-men, alone and in small groups,
routed to their rear areas, even past the divisional headquarters.
Only few SS-batallions stayed in the combat area. Early in the next
morning the division commander Demelhuber reported to Army Corps that
his division couldn't attack."
Note that none of the above sources mention the decimation. This is
because they were the only sources that were present in the local
library this morning. I can dig up those decimation sources also, but
it will take some time because I have to go to other libraries.=20
=46or evaluation of their later performance, this is from Pohjamo's
"J=E4nk=E4j=E4=E4k=E4rit" (page 188):
"After Nord took the front line on the North section on September 6
strong enemy attacks continued against its Southern parts. Some enemy
detachments broke through the line of SS troops South to the road. The
point elements of the attackers advanced as far as to the artillery
firing positions.
The next day it became evident that the German reserves couldn't throw
back the 80 men enemy detachment that had lodged itself in their rear.
Siilasvuo had to strengthen Nord with one SS batallion that he had
held in reserve. However, the situation grew still worse.
In the railroad section parts of a German MG batallion were encircled.
The encirclement lasted until Breiholtz's batallion (I/JR53) cut a
wedge through encirclers and the German MG men could return to their
comrades.
Siilasvuo's confidence in German and in particular SS troops
capability of forest and marsh fighting dwindled even more. He had to
reduce Nord's front by moving the divisional boundary to the North
side of the railroad."
And on the next page:
"The difficulties forced the German sector to be reduced more. Because
of incompetent leadership and inexperienced troops the German's
couldn't get their act together. That is why the Nord's front line was
finally narrowed to be only 5 km wide and the Finns had to man more
than twice that length of fixed line and additionally secure the large
lake area in the South and patrol the wildernesses North of
Kiestinki."
> <snip blackening Waffen-SS Kameraden>
In case you didn't notice, the author of the report _was_ one of the
Waffen-SS Kameraden for 10 months. To be honest, the Wiking division
got better and in late 1942 it was pretty good. Kaila reported the
status of the unit when he served in it.=20
> Allow me to give you a better illustrated example of the behaviour of
> Waffen-SS troops on the Eastern front.
[snip an account of Demyansk pocket]
I'm perfectly aware and ready to admit that some of the Waffen-SS
units performed pretty well in the East Front, at least at times. But
you seem unwilling to concede that there were also poor units in
Waffen-SS.=20
> Before you blacken our image -you seem pretty keen to do so and
> excuse your fellow countrymen-
It is pretty interesting that you use the pronoun `our' in the
connection to Waffen-SS. Did you serve in Waffen-SS during WWII?
And about excusing Finns. In case that you haven't noticed, in this
newsgroup I've
1) given examples of Finnish war crimes (in both Civil War and
WWII) ;
2) given examples of cases where Finnish units fought poorly
(reinforcement divisions in February 1940) ; and even=20
3) mentioned that it is possible that my own ancestor may have
taken part in the atrocities of the Finnish Civil War.
> give me details, locations and names first. Just summing
> up some data without any details is not how history is dealt with.
Well, above you have some, though quite limited, data on SS-Nords
performance in July 1941. Note that no other German unit got stopped
as quickly as it did; only after some 18 hours of combat duty it had
to be removed from the attack, and it took a week before it could be
taken near the front again. The 169th division that fought along it
regrouped on the next day and after a week-long battle of attrition it
managed to capture the Army Group's first day's objectives after the
=46innish 6th division was diverted to threaten the supply route of the
Soviet forces.
- Tommi
Dave Robertson
>
<snip>
> Just imagine that people still fear Dracula and
> Nosferatu, still fight demons with garlic, and that they are told by
> interested groups, that Dracula and Nosferatu have come back from hell in
> the shape of SS. Then you understand what is going on. People have run mad
> andnagain like in the witch-hunt time, reason is no medicine against such a
> desease.
I can't make much of this, but I gather you feel the SS is the unjust
victim in a witch hunt. Perhaps you are worried that in its judgment of
the SS history has not properly balanced the systematic, industrialized
killing of millions against, e.g., the sponsorship of a milk program for
expectant mothers? Possibly, even though you say "SS" above, you really
mean "Waffen-SS"? If this is the case, is your concern that historians
have insufficiently praised the exceptional bravery of (some) W-SS units
when considering the completely unrelated question of their often
atrocious behavior towards POWs and civilians? Or is is that they fail
to recognize that the only true W-SS units were the Leibstandarte and
Das Reich, and insist on dragging all that Albanian and Yugoslavian
riff-raff into the discussion?
<snip>
> Sixty years before they would have become the most
> active jew-hunters or would have served as guard of a
> concentration camp. Nowadays they simply changed the disguise, the color and
> hunting-topic, manners and procedures remain the same.
I see: today's critic of the SS is equivalent to the Jew hunter or camp
guard of 60 years ago. That's very revealing.
Actually, it's quite common for those who hold views that fly in the
face of overwhelming evidence to claim persecution at the hands of
"witch-hunters" or similar. Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is
not enough that one be persecuted -- one must also be right.
Dave Robertson
>
> Tommi Syrjanen heeft geschreven:
>
> >Yup. Like SS-Division Nord that fought so skillfully and bravely in
> >its first attack that (according to Finnish sources, I haven't read an
> >official German account of the event) one of its batallion was
> >decimated for cowardice. That is, one man out of ten was executed.
> >Though, since this happened in July 1941 it was probably one of those
> >late-war war subhuman formations that you hold in contempt.
>
> and you seem to rub it in over the whole Waffen-SS organisation.
Actually, he is not "rub[bing] it in over the whole Waffen-SS
organization" -- he merely noted the poor combat performance of one W-SS
unit. This was in response to *your* contention that "The Waffen-SS
Divisions were the best to see service during the second World War."
You are the one making absurd generalizations about the whole
organization; he is simply pointing out one of many possible
counterexamples that refute your statement. [I mean, really -- at best
maybe 3-4 of the 35 or so W-SS formations might merit discussion for a
"Best of War" award. But there are probably an equal number that would
be in serious contention for "Worst of War", so why not say "The W-SS
Divisions were the *worst* to see service during WW2"??]
> Secondly,
> is the 6th SS Nord one of those glorius Panzer Divisions that arrived on the
> batteflied wielding 19,000 men and 5,00 tanks? No, it isn't.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the good W-SS
divisions performed better than others because they were big and had
lots of tanks? If so, then I agree -- this was certainly an important
factor.
> <snip blackening Waffen-SS Kameraden>
> Before you blacken our image -you seem pretty keen to do so and excuse your
> fellow countrymen- give me details, locations and names first. Just summing
> up some data without any details is not how history is dealt with.
"*Our* image"??
By the way, most of Tommi's post concerned the opinions of a Finnish
officer on W-SS performance. He gave a detailed quote, including the
officer's name and a source for the quotation. You chose not to respond
to this, snipped the quote, and then accused him of "just summing up
some data without any details." If I needed any additional reasons for
not taking you seriously, this sort of thing would be very useful.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Thomas Hessler wrote in message <8rg58j$c60i$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>
>Tommi Syrjanen heeft geschreven:
>
>>Yup. Like SS-Division Nord that fought so skillfully and bravely in
>>its first attack that (according to Finnish sources, I haven't read an
>>official German account of the event) one of its batallion was
>>decimated for cowardice. That is, one man out of ten was executed.
>>Though, since this happened in July 1941 it was probably one of those
>>late-war war subhuman formations that you hold in contempt.
>
>Let's see here. You give me an unknown fact (?) from a Finnish (?) source,
>and you seem to rub it in over the whole Waffen-SS organisation.
So we can take it as read that you have little information on the
6th SS division. The fact that it initially fought badly in Finland
is reported in the book Hitlers Legions for a start.
It is not surprising Finish sources have a lot on the World War
II in Finland, if the source is wrong correct it, instead of claiming
it is an unknown fact. If it is unknown to you then your depth of
knowledge on the Waffen SS is clearly more shallow than many
of the people replying to your posts.
>Secondly, is the 6th SS Nord one of those glorius Panzer
>Divisions that arrived on the batteflied wielding 19,000 men
>and 5,00 tanks? No, it isn't.
Alright so we now know all you want to discuss are the war
records of the 4 SS Panzer Divisons you have named in
other posts. That is 1st SS, Leibstandarte, 2nd SS Das
Reich and 3rd SS Totenkopf and 5th SS Wiking. It
also seems you only want to discuss their preformance
from the time they became Panzer Divisions. Which is
in late 1942 to late 1943 depending on the division.
You should have made this clear earlier, rather than
keep talking about the Waffen SS as a whole. Stop
talking about all the SS, make it clear you are talking
about just 3 divisions which were a minority of even the
Germanic part of the Waffen SS, plus a fourth that had
a mixture of Germans and other nationalities.
Then explain what discount you apply to assessing
combat performance for the fact the average Waffen
SS Panzer division went into battle in greater strength
than the average Heer Panzer Divisions. No Heer
Panzer division ever had a strength of 500 tanks
and 19,000 men for example when the SS Panzer
divisions were formed. It would also be good to
state what Waffen SS Panzer divisions had such
a tank strength and when this happened.
><snip blackening Waffen-SS Kameraden>
It is only blackening if it is wrong, and I note you simply
duck the issue and it was text from a quoted source.
So far you have ignored text because the source is not
explicitly named and ignored text when the source is
explicitly named because it casts doubt on the fighting
ability of one SS division, but you then reply using
text from an unnamed source and generalise it.
Your idea of objective is significantly different to that in the dictionary.
>Allow me to give you a better illustrated example of the behaviour of
>Waffen-SS troops on the Eastern front.
(snip of quote)
Note how the reply is, an unknown? fact from an unknown? source.
Nice one, interesting how you can complain about unsourced
information and then instantly reply using the same method, let
alone about how things are implied for the whole Waffen SS by
others from one quote, when you state clearly your one quote is
meant to be an example for the whole Waffen SS.
By the way at this stage 5th SS Panzergrenadier regiment
Thule was a member of the 3rd SS Panzergrenadier division,
not Panzer division, it is outside your proclaimed limits.
Otherwise things like the way the 3rd showed signs of panic
when hit by the British counter attack in Arras as well as how
the division was not initially well lead, though this improved,
should be included.
See Hitlers Legions, which gives the histories of the Divisions
and above of Hitler's armies.
>Before you blacken our image -you seem pretty keen to do so and excuse your
>fellow countrymen- give me details, locations and names first. Just summing
>up some data without any details is not how history is dealt with.
Good joke, you post text without attribution and complain of the
practise, you ignore the information posted by others but claim
they are doinging it for ulterior motives. People in this group
have an above average knowledge of WWII and access to
many sources about the war, you are failing this standard.
Thomas Hessler
David Thornley heeft geschreven in bericht:
>That's going to be a difficult statement to back up. There were some
>very good formations in most armies. I could mention SS vs. British
>paratroops at Arnhem Bridge.
Indeed. Two small Kampfgruppen of expierenced Waffen-SS Veterans against
Tommy's crack Para troops. Now, there seems to be some kind of myth that the
British men at Arnhem were overwhelmed by some mass attack of SS Panzern.
Nothing could be less true. 9th and 10th SS were decimated at Falaise.
Frundsberg lost all of it's Panzern and artillerie and Hohenstauffen had 460
men and 25 tanks. Both sides fought with bravery, but Tommy became
surrounded and it's airdrops were a disaster. They had little chance of
winning.
>They frequently had more experience, and some of the Panzer divisions
>were very adept. Weigley ("Eisenhower's Lieutenants") seems consistently
>impressed by Eleventh Panzer Division. Some of the Luftwaffe formations
>were also very, very good (and some were useless).
You mean the Fallschirmjäger men I presume? Exellent men. The Luftwaffe
Field Divisions on the other hand were of dubious quality. Our heavy losses
during the winter of 41' and further losses during the summer campaign
needed to be made up, and quick too. Göring should have used his transferred
Luftwaffe personnel to fill up the huge gaps in the already existing
Divisions, instead of making totally new formations with them. But he had
too many pride in 'his' Luftwaffe to let them go to the Heer. A total of 22
new divisions were to made up by men untrained LW ground personnel, all to
be supervised under Gen. Meindl. But even the Reichsmarschall knew that 'his
good national socialists' would be having some problems on the Eastren Front
so he issued an order that 1) 'they shall be only deployed in defensive
missions on quiet sectors of the front' and 2) 'they shall be commited as a
single body and not be seperated without permission of the OKH. But I'm
wavering from the issue.
>2. The Waffen-SS in the latter part of the war absorbed more resources,
>including weapons and high-quality men.
No, that seems to be one of those myths. The truth is that the Waffen-SS
Divisions recieved priority in the allocation of new equiment. This led to
the popular but totally untrue myth that the reason for the Waffen-SS's
succes was because it was better equipped then the Wehrmacht. It was not,
altough it did de-centralise its weapons allocation, which could have
fostered that impression, because each squad of eight men had at least one
Machinegewehre, so a Zug of three squads had a minimum of three plus at
least one Mortar. Similary, one of the 3 or 4 platoons (I think this is the
correct term) in a Kompanie, one would be a support plattoon totally
equipped with machine-guns and mortars, in line with the Waffen-SS's
emphasis on maximum firepower to achieve results. In the Wehrmacht, altough
the basic organisation was the same, machine-guns were only allocated at
platoon rather then at squad level.
About the 'more high-quality men', this is certainly untrue. We got the same
lowly-trained men in 44' as the WH did, but those who joined the Waffen-SS's
ranks knew it's reputation and performed better. Besides, there was too many
Regimental Pride. A Wehrmacht soldier would, unless part of one of the elite
units, fight in any unit. A Waffen-SS soldier couldn't be removed with
bricks and stones from his parent regiment.
>The question is whether the enhanced performance was worth the
>resources. Given the superb performance of some of the Panzer and
>"Fallschimjaeger" divisions, it seems likely that giving them the
>same crack at high-quality recruits and weapons would also have helped
>the Reich a good deal. This is still a matter for debate.
The Waffen-SS had it's own personnel training places. Names like Bad Tolz
and Brunswick still ring firmly in my ear. Maybe you don't know how the
Waffen-SS got it's men, since you seemed to think that the SS Divisions
sucked up all the good men. No, it wasn't like that. The Waffen-SS had it's
own recruitment places, so a Waffen-SS recruit would go straight to the SS
Training Barracks and later be absorbed into the SS Division of his choice.
The Army had it's own training facilities, so there was never a mix-up.
Altough, I recall that to form Hohenstauffen and Frundsberg Hitler simply
drained the needed men from the WH reserve and send them through Waffen-SS
training.
>The Waffen-SS was present in very small numbers in Poland, however
>well it fought.
Ahh, finally somone who knows a thing or two. The Leibstandarte was part of
4th Panzerdivision Reinhardt, as one of the motorised Regiments. The
Leibstandarte did sterling work at Lodz and Pabience, preventing entire
Polish divisions from breaking out of their pocket and joining in the
defence of Warsau.
>There are limits on how much vengeance one can use before it turns into
>a war crime. The Waffen-SS was far to quick to avenge, and didn't
>pay all that much attention to whether they were getting the right
>people. (This is being conservative on my side.)
I think that you more or less have it right. But for the men wearing the
Wolfsangel the Waffen-SS was it's home and his comrades were his new family
in most cases. You could leave your locker open in the Waffen-SS, you better
closed it in the Wehrmacht. What happend at Oradour was some sort of a
lynching party by mad SS Panzergrenadiere and an even more furiated
Dickmann.
>Read that one, too.
Panzer Battles is very accurate and informing, a good book in all. Have you
read Von Luck's 'Panzer Commander'? He makes no effort to hide his disgust
for the Allgemeine SS, who -after the failed bomb attempt- had all high Army
commander closely watched.
>Actually, I was referring to the book you claimed you had gotten the
>quotes from. It appears to have taken a von Manstein quote out of
>context to make it seem much more favorable to the Waffen-SS than
>it was. That makes the rest of the quotes suspect.
You should read 'Wenn Alle Bruder Schweigen' (Munin Verlag, 1973). This a
book published by the veterans of the Waffen-SS, I think that you will find
many answers in it.
>It was a Nazi organization.
The party formed the Waffen-SS but the party never controlled it. Felix
Steiner, Paul Hausser and Sepp Dietrich were the Waffen-SS's commanders, not
Himmler or Hitler.
>In other words, this is a complete irrelevancy dragged in to avoid the
>fact that the Waffen-SS *was* a Nazi organization, that it *was*
>administered (although rarely operationally commanded) by Himmler,
>that it *was* indoctrinated with Nazi thinking, and there was no
>clear separation between the members of the Waffen-SS and the even
>less savory other branches.
This is sad, very sad. If you were there you would cleary understand the
situation. Now the borders between different organisations have faded, much
thanks to the media and many third rate books. You would clearly know which
one was a camp guard when you'd see a picture of one of the comrades in his
drill jacket or one of those guards.
>He could think that, for all he liked. However, he was in an organization
>that was essentially designed by Himmler.
I'm afraid that you are losing your touch. The Waffen-SS was totally
designed by professionals from the old school, such as Paul Hausser, Felix
Steiner, Herbert Grille and Georg Keppler. Himmler had nothing to do with
it, apart from some speeches every now and then and some special meals on
his behalf. He could never motivate the men of the SS either, like Hitler
did with the Wehrmacht.
>>"As for the political leadership, all I can say is that we believed what
>>Hitler said,
>
>Right. They believed what Hitler said.
Like 70 million other people.
>Are you aware of what Hitler said?
Don't challenge me.
>Are you aware that the Nazi Party strongly espoused (but did not
>practice) the "Leader Principle", and that creating this attitude
>towards Hitler and his beliefs was precisely what Himmler was
>supposed to be doing?
If you are trying to say that Himmler had any impact on the Waffen-SS
soldiers, forget it.
Tired and saluting regards,
/Thomas
Andrew Clark
David Thornley <thor...@visi.com> wrote
> That's going to be a difficult statement to back up. There were some
> very good formations in most armies. I could mention SS vs. British
> paratroops at Arnhem Bridge.
I could also mention that all of the elite SS divisions so far mentioned by
Mr "Hessler" were fought to a standstill and then utterly defeated by
ordinary British and Canadian troops around Caen. Some of the SS units were
tough and determined fighters, but the more I look the more I see that
their
reputation for military skill, and still more their reputation for
invincibility, is quite fake.
jann...@hotmail.com
"Thomas Hessler" <panze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The honorable Finnish gentleman was making a reference to 6 SS
> Gebirgsdivision Nord,
No, he was not: the reference was to the SS Division Nord:-)
> but with a total lack of facts including details, date's and names.
He did give you the correct name of the division and the time (July
1941) - that愀 as clear as anyone can want to check his sources. (No
need to name names since the description applied to the unit as a
whole.)
> In addition to that he was just another one of those bashers burned
> on re-writing history.
This is a statement that would have to be backed up.
> Nord was indeed part of the 20th Mountain Army on the Finnish
> front.
No, it was not, it was part of AOK Norwegen:-)
I think it愀 proper to use the designations that were used at the time
of the events discussed. AOK Norwegen was later reorganized and renamed,
so SS Division Nord was a part of AOK Lappland for a while; and still
later AOK Lappland was renamed into the "20th Mountain Army" - and the
division got the name you seem to prefer.
> Nord was never one of our classic fighting units. It was never
> given adequate personnel either,
That is that, then.
> it's last commander -Friedrich Kruger-
Hardly the last, when the division left Finland it was commanded by
Brenner.
> had terrorised the civilian population of Krakau while commander there
> from 39'-44'. Nord is a border case.
You may want to elaborate how it differed from other SS Divisions in
1941 in terms of training, equipment etc - that would be more to the
point than who commanded it for a few months in 1944.
> But if you call it's performance 'poor' (Keep in mind Nord fought the
> whole war on the Eastern Front)
The way we see it, it fought in Finland:-) In strange and difficult
conditions, but hardly against the best the enemy could throw at it.
> then the performance of the US Divisions in the West is below average.
Quite possibly...
> I knew a posting like yours was following: "but you have misdesignated
> the unit! it was not a panzergrenadier regiment until after Karkhov!"
> I find that pathetic.
Then you惻l find this pathetic as well:-)
Thomas Hessler
jann...@hotmail.com heeft geschreven in bericht:
>The battle history of SS Division Nord is hardly unknown. Its first
>attack ended on Day One with a flight, complete with its artillery, in
>total panic, and the unit was deemed unfit for combat for several days.
>It did with well - or with bravery - later, though.
Very likely indeed. I have little information on this unit, other then some
rumours we so frequently heard. I do know that Himmler made a speech
targeted directed to Nord's reinforcements during the opening days. Nord
had
two SS-Gebrigsjäger Regiments (11 'Reinhard Heydrich' and 12 'Michael
Gaissmair'), SS-Gebrigs Artillerie Regiment 6 and SS-Sturmgeschutz Batterie
6.
>If it´s stated that the Waffen-SS was the greatest military force that
>ever existed - or whatever - then the performance of any single genuine
>SS Division cannot be overlooked.
Other Military formations did stunning work as well throughout history,
think of the Spartan Army under King Leonidas and The Roman Legions under
the famous Triumviraat. But the Waffen-SS was just different in so many
ways.
Yes, probabely the behaviour of Nord has got to be included too in the
overall Waffen-SS judgement, but there were many better SS divisions. You
are right in that sense that Nord has got to be included too, but you can't
compare it to a Legendary Formation such as the Leibstandarte.
>> This pocket would be eliminated by elite Siberian ski troops,
>I don´t think there were any "elite Siberian ski troops".
They were tough as Krupp steel that winter. I remeber that Russian Navy
reinforcements -dressed in their official Army unform- simply threw off
their uniform and fought in their thin navy fatigues in the middle of the
winter.
Teruzo Saigo
<dg...@SPAMosc.edu> wrote:
[..]
> I can't make much of this, but I gather you feel the SS is the unjust
> victim in a witch hunt. Perhaps you are worried that in its judgment of
> the SS history has not properly balanced the systematic, industrialized
> killing of millions against, e.g., the sponsorship of a milk program for
Can't speak for the original poster... but judging from German history and
its Pan-Germanic mentality for the past 200 years. The Waffen-SS has
been used as an alibi for nation's disgrace for the past 50 yrs.
Granted... the WSS may have been the most explicit personification of
the excesses of National Socialism. But the rest of German society shared
equally in this disgrace ! I just feel that for the sake of geopolitical
alignment to get Germany into the sphere of American influence.... liberal
media conveniently ignored the nation's behavior and cast all guilt onto
the WSS in order to shift the blame and state "Germans are good people
in WW2... but the WSS was very very baaaaad !".
T.
Stephen Graham
Thomas Hessler <panze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>That's going to be a difficult statement to back up. There were some
>>very good formations in most armies. I could mention SS vs. British
>>paratroops at Arnhem Bridge.
>
>Indeed. Two small Kampfgruppen of expierenced Waffen-SS Veterans against
>Tommy's crack Para troops. Now, there seems to be some kind of myth that the
>British men at Arnhem were overwhelmed by some mass attack of SS Panzern.
>Nothing could be less true. 9th and 10th SS were decimated at Falaise.
>Frundsberg lost all of it's Panzern and artillerie and Hohenstauffen had 460
>men and 25 tanks. Both sides fought with bravery, but Tommy became
>surrounded and it's airdrops were a disaster. They had little chance of
>winning.
"Small Kampfgruppen" is an incorrect description of the size of both
9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions at Arnhem. I would refer you to
Robert Kershaw's It Never Snows in December: The German View of Market
Garden and the Battle of Arnhem (Sarpedon, 1997). For instance, your
figure for the 10th SS Pz Div is actually lower than the strength of
its Aufklarungs Abt during the fighting. If you don't wish to read
It Never Snows, I believe I have a nearly-complete OB for the German
forces involved at Arnhem available at home. In any case, 9th and 10th
SS Div together had around 8,000 combat veterans available, as well as
a number of additional units, including an SS NCO academy.
>>2. The Waffen-SS in the latter part of the war absorbed more resources,
>>including weapons and high-quality men.
>
>No, that seems to be one of those myths. The truth is that the Waffen-SS
>Divisions recieved priority in the allocation of new equiment. This led to
>the popular but totally untrue myth that the reason for the Waffen-SS's
>succes was because it was better equipped then the Wehrmacht.
The point being made is that the average SS Panzer or Panzergrenadier
division had more men and more and better equipment than an equivalent
Heer division. Two three-battalion PzGrenadier regiments and a three
battalion Panzer regiment is significantly better than two two-battalion
PzGrendier and a two battalion Panzer regiments. In addition, when
most SS formations had a predominance of Pz V & VI models, the Heer
formations usually still had at least one battalion of Pz IVs.
>About the 'more high-quality men', this is certainly untrue. We got the same
>lowly-trained men in 44' as the WH did
Again, this is incorrect. The SS were given priority on all new draftees
as well as volunteers, and were able to retain higher physical standards
throughout the war than the Wehrmacht. A discussion of this is readily
found in almost any history of the SS and Waffen SS, which I've already
referred you to.
Not to mention the effects of the formation of 12th SS Division, which
allowed the SS to strip the cream of three year-cohorts before they
were eligible for the draft.
>A Wehrmacht soldier would, unless part of one of the elite
>units, fight in any unit.
Again, a mis-representation of Wehrmacht policy. At the moment, I can't
recall the title of the best work on the Ersatzheer. However, both
Koehl's The Black Corps and Grunberger's Hitler's SS touch upon
the subject. Until late 1944, recovered wounded were reassigned to their
original division by passing through their corps area replacement units
and then redirected to the specific division's reinforcement depots
behind the front lines.
>>The Waffen-SS was present in very small numbers in Poland, however
>>well it fought.
>
>Ahh, finally somone who knows a thing or two. The Leibstandarte was part of
>4th Panzerdivision Reinhardt, as one of the motorised Regiments. The
>Leibstandarte did sterling work at Lodz and Pabience, preventing entire
>Polish divisions from breaking out of their pocket and joining in the
>defence of Warsau.
Well, you've gotten the divisional title wrong for starters. The 4th
Panzer Division and Division Reinhardt (eventually to become 10th Panzer
Division) were separate formations. They were also assigned to different
armies - Division Reinhardt operating out of East Prussia.
I've already discussed the performance of LSSAH in Poland, which you
seem to have ignored. Given that the Verfugungstruppe thought that
LSSAH was a military joke, we needn't go much further - something to
do with Sepp Dietrich refusing actual military training for his boys
until almost too late.
>>Actually, I was referring to the book you claimed you had gotten the
>>quotes from. It appears to have taken a von Manstein quote out of
>>context to make it seem much more favorable to the Waffen-SS than
>>it was. That makes the rest of the quotes suspect.
>
>You should read 'Wenn Alle Bruder Schweigen' (Munin Verlag, 1973). This a
>book published by the veterans of the Waffen-SS, I think that you will find
>many answers in it.
Not bloody likely. I suggest you try reading a few other titles instead.
>>It was a Nazi organization.
>
>The party formed the Waffen-SS but the party never controlled it. Felix
>Steiner, Paul Hausser and Sepp Dietrich were the Waffen-SS's commanders, not
>Himmler or Hitler.
Heinrich Himmler would have been most amused by this comment. Actually,
he wouldn't have been - not his type of joke at all. For one thing,
Dietrich wasn't even the senior-most Waffen SS officer.
>This is sad, very sad. If you were there you would cleary understand the
>situation. Now the borders between different organisations have faded, much
>thanks to the media and many third rate books.
And you were there at the time? I don't believe so. So why should you
know? Try reviewing Bernd Wegner's Hitlers Politische Soldaten,
die Waffen SS 1933-1945: Studien zu Lietbild, Struktur und Funktion
einer nationalsozialistischen Elite. That should dispell the
mistaken beliefs you have.
>I'm afraid that you are losing your touch. The Waffen-SS was totally
>designed by professionals from the old school, such as Paul Hausser, Felix
>Steiner, Herbert Grille and Georg Keppler.
Hey, wait - you forgot Theodor Eicke, founder and developer of the
Totenkopfverbande and first commander of SS Division Totenkopf, and
Sepp Dietrich, commander of LSSAH. I thought they had something to
do with the formation of the Wafffen SS. Oh, wait, they weren't
military professionals. Never mind.
>Himmler had nothing to do with
>it, apart from some speeches every now and then and some special meals on
>his behalf. He could never motivate the men of the SS either, like Hitler
>did with the Wehrmacht.
So, Himmler's appointment as Reichsfuhrer SS in 1929 had absolutely no
influence on the development of the SS, including the Waffen SS?
Never mind that, for instance, Hausser's commission was signed by
Himmler and that he reported to Himmler during the formal organization
and training of the Verfugungstruppe.
Given that you can't even get unit designations correct most of the
time, why should we believe anything else you say?
V-Man
FJs *and* Luftwaffe Field Divisions.
Nicholas Geovanis
> Granted... the WSS may have been the most explicit personification of
> the excesses of National Socialism. But the rest of German society shared
> equally in this disgrace !
Certainly.
> I just feel that for the sake of geopolitical
> alignment to get Germany into the sphere of American influence.... liberal
> media conveniently ignored the nation's behavior and cast all guilt onto
> the WSS in order to shift the blame and state "Germans are good people
> in WW2... but the WSS was very very baaaaad !".
You're on the right track but you've got the wrong target.
The "liberal media" in America generally does what the US government would
like it to do, and this was especially true in the immediate post-War
years (the only exception was the period about 1970-1980). The US
government had the following problem: The formerly allied Soviet Union
must now be depicted as the "Evil One", and the former enemy ("Evil One")
Germany must be put on our side so that we can make use of its resources
and people against the new "Evil One".
If you visit, say, the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL.
(on the grounds of Redstone Arsenal, former HQ of Army Missile Command),
you will find that Wernher von Braun and former (Wehrmacht) Gen. Walter
Dornberger and their several dozen German colleagues are heroes of
gigantic stature. They were also employers of human slaves and killers of
some of the roughly 10000 British civilians who died in WW2 (also Dutch
and French civilians). The US military brought roughly 100 completed V2
(German A4) missiles here from Europe: In other words, the American
military missile program and civilian space program were built on the
basis of concentration camp labor. Given that about 350000 Americans had
died to defeat von Braun and Dornberger, and given that by 1948 von Braun
and Dornberger were trusted with some of America's most important military
secrets, it's clear that we have a potential "public relations problem".
The public relations experts did their part to solve this little "problem".
Nor were the rocket scientists the only Nazis directly employed by the US
government. Others worked in chemical and biological weapons programs and
as intelligence advisors. And of course the US intelligence agencies
assisted many German "advisors" in emigrating to the US and to Latin
America, thereby escaping prosecution for war crimes. See for example:
Author, etc.: Hunt, Linda.
Title: Secret agenda : the United States government, Nazi
scientists, and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990 /
Edition: 1st ed.
Publisher: New York : St. Martin's Press,
Date: 1991.
Author, etc.: Lasby, Clarence G., 1933-
Title: Project Paperclip; German scientists and the Cold War
Edition: [1st ed.]
Publisher: New York, Atheneum,
Date: 1971.
> T.
* Nick Geovanis I can't go to work today. The little
| IT Computing Svcs voice inside my head said,
| Northwestern Univ "Stay home and clean the guns".
| n-geo...@nwu.edu
+------------------->