Why the Waffen-SS

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Freikorps, Reichswehr, Austrian Bundesheer, Heer, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Fallschirmjäger and the other Luftwaffe ground forces. Hosted by Christoph Awender.
Post Reply
sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2296

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 20 Jun 2016, 19:59

ljadw wrote:And you know what Harper said ? It was not the work of regular units .
Who Harper?

sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2297

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 20 Jun 2016, 20:01

ljadw wrote:
sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:

Actually some basic knowledge and understanding of the subject under discussion would have helped you.
That is superb,coming from someone whose knowledge of MG is limited to the fact that some WSS units were engaged, which he uses as a proof that it was a WSS victory . :P

Well the facts speak for themselves for those who are browsing the thread.. :)


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2298

Post by ljadw » 20 Jun 2016, 20:03

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:
ljadw wrote:And you know what Harper said ? It was not the work of regular units .
Who Harper?
Spelling mistake : Harzer .

sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2299

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 20 Jun 2016, 20:06

ljadw wrote:Operation market can not be seen separately from operation garden : both formed a whole and the role of the SS in Market Garden was insignificant .
Market had different dynamics and so did Garden. Simply because they were up against totally different conditions stretched across all of 64 miles across several minor and major rivers.

The role of the II SS Pz Krps was "insignificant" except for the small bit where they defeated the operation at its climax and destroyed the "elite" 1 Airborne Div.

sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2300

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 20 Jun 2016, 20:06

ljadw wrote:
sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:
ljadw wrote:And you know what Harper said ? It was not the work of regular units .
Who Harper?
Spelling mistake : Harzer .
Ahhhhh...so what did he say and where?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2301

Post by Michael Kenny » 20 Jun 2016, 20:19

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:

The role of the II SS Pz Krps was "insignificant" except for the small bit where they defeated the operation at its climax and destroyed the "elite" 1 Airborne Div.
This may shock those wedded to words/phrases like 'superhuman sacrifice', 'fought to the death', never surrendered', 'against overwhelming odds' etc but people here (not dazzled by murdering thugs in cool uniforms) have no difficulty admitting Allied units lose and get beaten. It bothers me not in the least to admit some UK formations held back, did not fight well or dare I say it turned and ran. It happens all the time and only a fool (or again someone dazzled by cool black uniforms) would get in a lather and run around like a headless chicken because someone said his favourite bunch of murdering thugs did not always display 'overwhelming courage' by 'fighting to the last man'.
Again I urge you to look up how Meyer turned craven and meekly surrendered to a Policeman when his turn came to 'fight to the death'.

You could also try Googling the great SS counter-attacks by 1 & II SS Korps in Normandy (July 1st) designed to throw the Allies back into the sea. Can you remind me how much ground they recaptured?

User avatar
Harro
Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: 19 May 2005, 19:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2302

Post by Harro » 20 Jun 2016, 21:21

An armoured formation flattened a lightly armed airborne unit. What's the big deal? Sounds like a bigger version of Wittmann's "impressive achievement" against British light tanks and tracks personell carriers.

sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2303

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 20 Jun 2016, 21:36

Harro wrote:An armoured formation flattened a lightly armed airborne unit. What's the big deal? Sounds like a bigger version of Wittmann's "impressive achievement" against British light tanks and tracks personell carriers.

Armoured "formation" !! My My My ..a rather grand name for how many ? IIRC 10 tanks showing up after 2 days ..according to the 1 Airborne Div war diary posted above ! Other than the few "unserviceable" machines in the vicinity. A puny uni pz company would have been put to shame with this "formation" ! No?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2304

Post by Michael Kenny » 20 Jun 2016, 22:03

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:IIRC 10 tanks showing up after 2 days ..according to the 1 Airborne Div war diary posted above !
Why not use the German listing of its units/vehicles or is that not available on Google?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2305

Post by ljadw » 20 Jun 2016, 22:24

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:
ljadw wrote:The presence /absence of the remainings of the 2 SS divisions was irrelevant for the success of MG ;every one with a grain of brains knows this .
Coming to brains..Great minds no doubt think alike ! You are in August company. Your great wisdom and sharp brain power was shared by Monty and Lt Gen Browning. They too felt that the SS and their few "unserviceable" tanks were of no consequence really. And that gave them their "90% success" :D

Field Marshall Montgomery at least had a proper combat soldier's brains and experience. But Lt Gen Browning actually reminds us of some people from AHF threads, in terms of perspicacity and application ! :

[*] Very little actual combat experience on the field.

[*] No direct higher command experience at all of operational formations which saw combat.

[*] Back door entry into Sandhurst through the " Eton Quota" after failing the entrance test.

[*] No Staff College academic exposure (he had started suffering from his "mental problems" since the 20s..just due to the "strain" of that one combat engagement in Passchendaele where he got his DSO).

[*] Like his Eton benefactors, he befriended the other Great brain Winston Churchill too personally in France during WW I and helped keep him warm with his own greatcoat in the dank cold of the trenches ! This was after this Great brain had been told a thing or two about his brains and demoted from his position of First Lord of The Admiralty.... As a reward for his contributions to the Dardanelles and Gallipoli disasters !

[*] In WW II he was carefully kept out of harm's way in combat by being granted charming assignments back in England... and for some strange reason, rapid fire promotions !

[*] And, of course, he came croppers when he tried to learn to be a paratrooper himself ! He tried to get trained in para jumping and failed again and again, injuring himself twice in the process :)

[*] The first time he had a chance to mess things up in actual combat planning prior to D day, with his phenomenal brain, he gave it an "honest shot" :D He planned for the SAS Brigade to land deep behind the beaches 36 hours prior to H Hour !! The SAS would apparently interdict the German Panzer divisions on their way to the front ! Gives me goose bumps to anticipate the results of this 36 hr prior warning to the fate of D day !
However the SAS commander resigned in outrage and this insane idea was shelved.

[*] But you cant keep Great brains idle for long. Monty found Browning's boss Brereton (American) too sedate for his taste and maintained direct channels with Browning in all Airborne plannings and came up with the masterpiece Market Garden. And of course both these Great brains shared the opinion of our Ljadw here that the SS in the area, were inconsequential to the success of Market Garden.
Amen.
The usual Montgomery slanting .

User avatar
Harro
Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: 19 May 2005, 19:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2306

Post by Harro » 20 Jun 2016, 23:52

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:
Harro wrote:An armoured formation flattened a lightly armed airborne unit. What's the big deal? Sounds like a bigger version of Wittmann's "impressive achievement" against British light tanks and tracks personell carriers.
Armoured "formation" !! My My My ..a rather grand name for how many ? IIRC 10 tanks showing up after 2 days ..according to the 1 Airborne Div war diary posted above ! Other than the few "unserviceable" machines in the vicinity. A puny uni pz company would have been put to shame with this "formation" ! No?
Whereas the British paratroopers were well stocked with all sorts of armoured vehicles and heavy weapons, right? :roll:

Image
Image
Image

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2307

Post by Michael Kenny » 21 Jun 2016, 00:11

Sturmgeschutz Brigade 280. 10 vehicles.
That other brilliant ground-breaking SS invention the Flak Panzer was present with the 3 Mobelwagen of SS Pz Flak Abt 9.

Do we count Pz K. 244?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2308

Post by David Thompson » 21 Jun 2016, 02:47

A number of insulting and taunting posts by dshaday, sandeepmukherjee196 and ljadw were removed by this moderator, as well as some uninformative commentary.

ljadw and sandeepmukherjee196 -- Avoid making insulting personal remarks about other posters. Our rules prohibit it

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2309

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 21 Jun 2016, 05:15

To reestablish some form of structure to this debate, and in light of our esteemed forum moderator acting as a referee, I would suggest that we refocus the topic of this thread to Bill’s original question:
…My question is, why are so many infatuated with the WaffeN-SS and not just a simple interest, or a study from a historical perspective but a real drive to assume and create a false mystique over something that is simple in fact and in recorded history, something that is really obvious. Why do some of us have to manipulate history to serve our own personal agenda and create fictional dreams to protect and honor something like the Waffen-SS?
(See the full post is at the start of this thread, 154 long pages ago)

Dashday has complained that several posters on this thread, myself included, have been too disparaging of the Waffen-SS, prone to “kick them when they are down by making up stuff, exaggerating, overgeneralising etc.” and that “Kicking the SS by misrepresenting facts or history is just plain wrong.”

He has posted a list of 17 points of Waffen-SS disparagement. I thought we could take those 17 points and direct the conversations on those existing topics or create new ones if necessary.

Note this points are not in Dennis’ original order – I’ve put the ones I could find threads for first.

[1] Claim Waffen SS did not contribute anything to the strategic role in WW2. I brought up Operation Panzerfaust as a possible example.
This thread is “‪Waffen-SS Military Success? - Operation Panzerfaust 1944‬”

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&t=211027

[2] Miss-scribing of a Canadian vet's verbal interview about killing of German POWs
Canadian Orders “Take No Prisoners” thead at
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=139551

Dennis’s salient point is on page 7 hinges is that a difference in the transcription of a phrase in a sentence from "there was" vs. "they said that" from a veteran’s interview published on the History Channel. The one side proposes that the Canadians had a no-quarter order on D-Day, thus explaining (and for some justifying) the murder of Canadian POWs during the first weeks of the Normandy Campaign. The other side counter-proposes that there is a paucity of evidence for a Canadian “no-prisoners” order, plenty of counter-evidence (i.e. German POWs taken by Canadians) plus reams of published material on the war crimes of W-SS troops against Canadian POWs.
[3]minimising achievement of Waffen SS entering Belgrade by saying the Yugoslavs had announced the city was not to be defended. This was retracted by the poster as an honest mistake.
This thread is “Waffen-SS Military Success – Belgrade 1941” at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&t=211026

[4]Wild speculation of the severity of a Waffen SS unit's indiscipline. Based on a vague diary entry (of a Slovak General).
The thread is the “Warcrimes of the Wiking Division” at
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1995756

The jist of this argument is the statements of a Slovakian general named Turanec who mentioned that the Wiking division had discipline issues in 1941-42, possibly being related (either a cause or a result of, or perhaps related to) the division’s pogroms against Jews during the opening phases of Barbarossa. This forms the last third of the thread. The first two-thirds cover allegations of the division committing genocide during July 1941 from both veteran accounts and Holocaust scholars.

Pena V
Member
Posts: 792
Joined: 21 Feb 2006, 20:51
Location: Finland

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2310

Post by Pena V » 21 Jun 2016, 11:51

After some consideration I have decided that it's useless to continue discussing with someone who is trying to prove things like this:
"None of the others = 1-20 performed very good / good during the war. Point proved; case closed."
I'm happy to continue this discussion with others if there is a need.

Regards,

Pena V

Post Reply

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”