Why the Waffen-SS

[ljadw]

It is a fact that not all army divisions are exact clones of each other. Hence, some will be better and some worse. You cannot simply explain it away.

Dennis

There is no such thing as better /worse : better/worse depends on the opponent : a so-called elite divisin can behave worse than a hastily formed division .

Every battle is different : If A wins against B, and C wins from D ,it is impossible to say that A was better than C,D or even B .

In the "tank " battle of Hannut in may 1940 one (or 2 ? ) French armoured divisions were defeated by one (or 2 ? ) German panzerdivisions,while during the same period, a French reserve ID was defeated at Sedan by a German PzD .

Who was better/elite ? The German PzD at Hannut, the German PzD at Sedan, the French armoured divisions at Sedan,or the French ID at sedan ? And better than who?

Was it : A,B, C, D ? Or B,C,D,A,? Etc,And why ?

Are you comparing German units to German units? Or German to French ? And why ?

And why should a "normal " German ID not behave as well in a defensive situation as a SS PzD in an offensive situation ?

How to compare a FJ unit at Crete with a "nominally " FJ division in Normandy or in NA ?

To compare is to judge,and judging is saying : X is better,which means Y is worse .

The same FJ unit can behave good at Crete and bad in NA/Normandy .

Why should the British airborne be bad at Arnhem and the US be good ar Nijmegen and Eindhoven, but all three be good at D Day ?

There are that many factors that are influencing the behaviour of a unit that it is impossible to compare two different units .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Silas,

The distinctive difference between W-SS officer training and Heer officer training appears to be that the same number of hours were devoted to political instruction in the W-SS as to tactical training, which was not so in the Army. Whether this was any advantage to the Waffen-SS on the battlefield I rather question. Otherwise, there appears to have been nothing original in W-SS officer training.

The German armed forces had a number of elite forces. The key one was the mechanized arm that executed "Blitzkrieg". As the senior W-SS formations were motorized from the start of the war, they necessarily had a part to play in this, although never an indispensable one. Later they were armoured.

As there seem to be no contenders for elite status amongst the non-armoured formations of the W-SS, none has to seriously consider the possibility that it was their mechanization and armour that gave them their prominence beside the Army's elite mechanized and armoured formations, not any quality of "Waffen-SS-edness".

Cheers,

Sid.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

I can't quite figure out what exactly is the problem in acknowledging that some Waffen SS formations were elite. Like some Heer formations were elite ..some FJ were elite et al.




Whereas the officially trumped up elite status of the British 1st Airborne earned it rave reviews even as it had its backside soundly and ignominiously kicked at Arnhem. They apparently looked "ferocious" in defeat too !


........................

So coming back to my original contention, elite status has to be deserved through actual combat performance. There always have been elite units and troops in military history and there always will be. The Waffen SS are no exception.

Ciao
Sandeep

1)There are no criteria to define elite :there are good and bad soldiers ;but as all soldiers had a different job,how to select the elite ?


2) Defeat is not a criterion to deny a unit the status of elite : the HJ was also defeated in Normandy and all German units were defeated................... .

Defeat is not the differentiator. It's the odds and the quality of the fight put up.
In Normandy the odds were impossible against the HJ. At Arnhem the odds were in favour of the 1st Airborne but they made a hash of it.

[dshaday]

Hi Sid

As there seem to be no contenders for elite status amongst the non-armoured formations of the W-SS, none has to seriously consider the possibility that it was their mechanization and armour that gave them their prominence ...

Or we can consider that the SS, being much smaller that the Army, logically made their elite units armoured.


Dennis

[dshaday]

Hi Ljadw

There is no such thing as better /worse : better/worse depends on the opponent : a so-called elite divisin can behave worse than a hastily formed division.

If there is no such thing as a better or worse division then factors such as variations in morale, officer training, leadership etc should have no effect on the performance of a unit. This is obviously not the case.

I understand and sympathise with the comments you have made about how difficult it would be to grade a unit's performance. I agree with you that the term "elite" is not a scientifically precise term. It is often mis-used. I personally prefer to avoid using it.

It is clear, however, that we will continue to disagree on it's meaning. But discussions are what forums are all about.

Dennis

[dshaday]

Hi Rob

I can't quite figure out what exactly is the problem in acknowledging that some Waffen SS formations were elite.

Because it is illogical, historically inaccurate, and in polite society unethical to profess admiration for racist organizations that participated in genocide?

I strongly suggest that you consult a good dictionary and look up "elite". You obviously do not know what the word means.

Elite is not about admiration or ethics.

Dennis

[ljadw]

I can't quite figure out what exactly is the problem in acknowledging that some Waffen SS formations were elite. Like some Heer formations were elite ..some FJ were elite et al.




Whereas the officially trumped up elite status of the British 1st Airborne earned it rave reviews even as it had its backside soundly and ignominiously kicked at Arnhem. They apparently looked "ferocious" in defeat too !


........................

So coming back to my original contention, elite status has to be deserved through actual combat performance. There always have been elite units and troops in military history and there always will be. The Waffen SS are no exception.

Ciao
Sandeep

1)There are no criteria to define elite :there are good and bad soldiers ;but as all soldiers had a different job,how to select the elite ?


2) Defeat is not a criterion to deny a unit the status of elite : the HJ was also defeated in Normandy and all German units were defeated................... .

Defeat is not the differentiator. It's the odds and the quality of the fight put up.
In Normandy the odds were impossible against the HJ. At Arnhem the odds were in favour of the 1st Airborne but they made a hash of it.

I disagree with your claim that at Arnhem the odds were in favour of the 1st Airborne but that they made a hash of it : you fail to understand that because of their weakness, odds are always against airborne units .

[sandeepmukherjee196]

I can't quite figure out what exactly is the problem in acknowledging that some Waffen SS formations were elite.

Because it is illogical, historically inaccurate, and in polite society unethical to profess admiration for racist organizations that participated in genocide?

Hi Rob...


[*] What is historically inaccurate please? If you could specify.

[*] Criminal organisations like some Allied commando units raiding Axis territories have been considered elite. So? Urinating while laughing, on dead bodies in Afghanistan, hasn't disqualified the Marines from their elite status .. has it?

Ciao
Sandeep

[sandeepmukherjee196]

I can't quite figure out what exactly is the problem in acknowledging that some Waffen SS formations were elite. Like some Heer formations were elite ..some FJ were elite et al.




Whereas the officially trumped up elite status of the British 1st Airborne earned it rave reviews even as it had its backside soundly and ignominiously kicked at Arnhem. They apparently looked "ferocious" in defeat too !


........................

So coming back to my original contention, elite status has to be deserved through actual combat performance. There always have been elite units and troops in military history and there always will be. The Waffen SS are no exception.

Ciao
Sandeep

1)There are no criteria to define elite :there are good and bad soldiers ;but as all soldiers had a different job,how to select the elite ?


2) Defeat is not a criterion to deny a unit the status of elite : the HJ was also defeated in Normandy and all German units were defeated................... .

Defeat is not the differentiator. It's the odds and the quality of the fight put up.
In Normandy the odds were impossible against the HJ. At Arnhem the odds were in favour of the 1st Airborne but they made a hash of it.

I disagree with your claim that at Arnhem the odds were in favour of the 1st Airborne but that they made a hash of it : you fail to understand that because of their weakness, odds are always against airborne units .

Are you making a general comment about odds against all airborne units or are you specifically saying that the 1st Airborne didn't have favourable odds at Arnhem? Pl specify. Depending on your intent my factual response and analysis has to be different obviously.

[ljadw]

Both : airborne units are weak and must be rescued by ground forces,without the arrival of the ground forces,they are doomed : this was so at Crete, in Normandy and Arnhem :the US AB succeeded at Eindhoven and Arnhem because their mission was much easier and because the ground forces saved them/succeeded to save them . If the 82/101 AB had been committed at Arnhem, they also would have failed .

Other point : the success of MG was on very shaky ice: it depended on the assumption that after a little shooting the Germans would raise their hands and shout :Kamerad.

[ljadw]

[*] Criminal organisations like some Allied commando units raiding Axis territories have been considered elite.

Ciao
Sandeep

Commando units were not criminal organisations

[BillHermann]

Dennis ,

From a contemporary standpoint there is little evidence that the Waffen-SS as a whole can be called elite and there is more than enough factual evidence that over 70 percent of the 38 divisions of the Waffen-SS were subpar. Also the ongoing energy to separate them from the SS is a waste of time. As there is more than enough information to counter that suggestion.

[dshaday]

Hi Bill

From a contemporary standpoint there is little evidence that the Waffen-SS as a whole can be called elite and there is more than enough factual evidence that over 70 percent of the 38 divisions of the Waffen-SS were subpar. Also the ongoing energy to separate them from the SS is a waste of time. As there is more than enough information to counter that suggestion.

Well, you still haven't supplied me your source(s) on the "more than enough factual evidence" that 70+ % of the Waffen SS were sub-par (as per my previous post to you). Or is this figure just your personal opinion/evaluation?

As I said before, I don't see the Waffen SS being separated from it's parent organisation by posters. I see posters focusing on it's military role. A role for which it dedicate itself to, but a role that was not it's sole purpose.

Dennis

[dshaday]

Hi Sid

The distinctive difference between W-SS officer training and Heer officer training appears to be that the same number of hours were devoted to political instruction in the W-SS as to tactical training, which was not so in the Army.

You appear to have already made a comparison of Army and SS officer training schedules.

What is your source for the Army officer cadet training schedule ? I wold love to see what it looks like. Curious to see what the Army did with the equivalent time the SS used for political instruction.

The pre-war or shortened wartime course would be great.

Dennis

[Christoph Awender]

Hello,

Yes...we (and me in special) who are saying that the training was not different.... compared the training methods and schedules. Otherwise we would not participate with this argument. The sources on my side are original training schedules from the Heer and the W-SS and comparison of veteran memories.

/Christoph