Why the Waffen-SS

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Dennis,

Its a fair cop. I was trying to be accommodating by introducing the "almost".

Let's stick with "It appears to have contributed nothing original to the military art whatsoever" and "The Waffen-SS was militarily completely unoriginal. It contributed nothing new to the military art and in every branch was a clone of the Army."

If the best anyone can come up with is for W-SS military originality is a single patent for clothing, I guess we have to follow it up in the absence of alternatives.

What precisely was the patent for?

What exactly did the W-SS patent introduce in it that did not already exist? Camouflage? No! Multi-coloured camouflage? No! Perhaps it was in the design of the clothing. Maybe the W-SS invented sleeves? or collars? or hoods, or helmet covers? No, no, no and no.

Certainly the idea and development of the first multi-coloured camouflage clothing was not down to the W-SS, as already discussed. That appears to be down to the Italian and German armies.

Nor, it appears, was it the first to be issued. It seems the Italian paratrooper's smock may have been in multi-coloured cammo from 1937 - the year of the W-SS patent.

What exactly is the claimed innovation? The very fact of the filing of a patent for multi-coloured camouflage, perhaps, where others had not earlier done so? (Thinks: The British must be kicking themselves for not patenting khaki cammo and thereby obliging everyone else to remain in reds, whites and blues!). I repeat, "I am not sure that the bureaucratic ability to file a patent on something other people had already developed counts as military originality!"

And what, one wonders, was the purpose of the patent? To stop the German Army from benefittng from its presumed advantages, perhaps? How does that advance the military art?

Yes, if one individual or unit in a much larger organization does something, it reflects on that unit or individual, not the larger organization. One swallow doesn't make a summer. The discussion is about the W-SS as an institution, not one individual. If Peiper's tactics were (1) original, (2) effective and (3) sytematically adopted by the W-SS as an institution, then there may be some merit in the proposition, but there appear to be doubts about all three.

I note "Brandt and Schick's tree camouflage patterns were tested in 1937 during Waffen-SS maneuvers and were found to reduce casualties by some fifteen percent....". Perhaps the W-SS did invent live fire tactical exercises after all, if it was empirically able to establish on manoeuvres that multi-coloured cammo reduced casualties by 15%!

Finally, I am unaware of any list of problems with Goldsworthy's statistics listed by you earlier - only that you do not like them. This is not a substantive criticism. I again invite you to list your objections to his statistics.

Goldsworthy gives the following information on these stats, which are more detailed than I gave above. They were sourced from The Waffen-SS by Wegner (1990) who consulted the CVs of W-SS officers.

AHF is full of people who have either written books on W-SS officer personnel or have bought them. I have also repeatedly asked the authors to include statistical analyses of their information but they have consistently declined. Yet there appears to be no other statistcal analysis available but that of Goldsworthy/Wegner. Their accuracy could easily be resolved in-house. Anyone?

If you have some other stats, please put them up here, otherwise Goldsworthy/Wegner hold the field unchallenged!

I am willing to change my mind on anything, given the evidence.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Marcus]

Please continue the discussion about camo in the new thread at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&t=209306

/Marcus

[Marcus]

An interesting post on the social structure of the Waffen-SS officer corps was split off into a thread of its own at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&t=209377

/Marcus

[Lucien von Wilhelm]

For me, it sprang from the pages of the monthly publication of Purnell's History of The Second World War, which I pored over as a teen back in the 70's, and; the tv docu-series;A World At War, a Laurence Olivier-narrated, British made, History-Channel-like docu-series of the same era, which held you spell-bound with it's pro-British slant 'record' of the war.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi LvW,

How does that relate to the Waffen-SS?

I agree that Purnell's partwork had a British slant, but it was a British publication with better access to British sources at a time when there was less information generally available. In its favour, it had many foreign contributors from all sides. Foreign editions, such as the French and Mexican, had extra parts devoted to their own war efforts.

Purnell's partwork was nearly the last of a long tradition in British publishing of producing weekly partworks on wars. The Franco-Prussian, Boer and Russo-Japanese wars all received this treatment, as did both world wars.

The TV show holds up much better today.

Cheers,

Sid

[dshaday]

Hi Sid


For completeness I will respond to your points here, and address follow ups in the new threads created as a spin-off by the moderator.

All the best

Dennis

Yes, if one individual or unit in a much larger organization does something, it reflects on that unit or individual, not the larger organization. One swallow doesn't make a summer. The discussion is about the W-SS as an institution, not one individual. If Peiper's tactics were (1) original, (2) effective and (3) sytematically adopted by the W-SS as an institution, then there may be some merit in the proposition, but there appear to be doubts about all three.

Since I have never said that Peiper invented night fighting, we will have to replace point (1) with the word “Innovative”.
As for point (2). Will achieving the objective be enough to satisfy being effective? As for point (3) does “systematically adopted” mean used by all Waffen SS SPW battalions in night attacks? Or would their use in a second SS unit be enough?

I note "Brandt and Schick's tree camouflage patterns were tested in 1937 during Waffen-SS maneuvers and were found to reduce casualties by some fifteen percent....". Perhaps the W-SS did invent live fire tactical exercises after all, if it was empirically able to establish on manoeuvres that multi-coloured cammo reduced casualties by 15%!

I have quoted the figure given by the SS themselves. The detailed SS reports appear to be in the Bundes Archives. You may have to go there in order to satisfy your doubts. We all know that the W-SS did not invent live fire tactics so what is your point?

Finally, I am unaware of any list of problems with Goldsworthy's statistics listed by you earlier - only that you do not like them. This is not a substantive criticism. I again invite you to list your objections to his statistics.

Goldsworthy gives the following information on these stats, which are more detailed than I gave above. They were sourced from The Waffen-SS by Wegner (1990) who consulted the CVs of W-SS officers.

Sid, I have already listed my issues with the figures/data (see my post of 19 July and a quick mention of them in my post of 22 July). I have given detailed points about them, and you have not responded. I have posted my concerns again in the spin–off thread so that they can be addressed there.

If Goldsworthy copied from Wegner, then he should have given Wegner’s references. He did not.
I do not have access to Wegner’s book so I have no idea how Wegner justified/qualified them. Wegner should have fully describes how the data was generated. Saying that the data is “based on CVs” is too vague.



------

Parts of the post can now be found at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1890792

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for a most thoughtful and informativew reply.

Before I reply, could you give the thread message number, rather than date, of your objections to Goldsworthy/Wegner as I can't find them in your posts of 19 and 22 July at first glance.

Cheers,

Sid.

Edit. Scrub the above request. Your reply on the spin-off thread is much more comprehensive and I will address that.

[Lucien von Wilhelm]

Hi LvW,

How does that relate to the Waffen-SS?

Imagery, propaganda and myth, mixed with nationalism, arrogance and notoriety. When you get such fine introductions to WWII, as I believe I did, and while relatively youngish... you're bound to look for "the baddest of the baddest", so to speak, and wonder with a twinkle of admiration, what it was like to fight in that guy's boots.

[Sid Guttridge]

The question is, were the Waffen-SS really the "baddest of the bad"?

By "Baddest of the bad" I here presume you mean the "best of the best"?

That the W-SS had a demonstrable record of atrocity worse than the German Army's in every active theatre, except possibly Greece, and were therefore "bad" in the conventional sense, is both pretty well established and does not, I hope, provoke a "twinkle of admiration" and a desire to be in their boots!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Cult Icon]

In my humble opinion (so far),

The more capable formations of the German military were those of the regular army panzer and mot. infantry divisions in 41-42. They seem to be all mostly competent, with some standing out like 3rd, 11th and 24th Panzer. They were trained and capable in offensive operations with LW coordination (essential for deep success).

The Waffen SS, due to its late reorganization as Panzer Divisions is a different beast to me. They were used successfully in Manstein's counterstroke but this success was as much won due to Soviet overstretch and errors. The Soviet units were badly battered already and had lost most of their strength. The actual SS divisions, though victorious, took higher losses than I would expect a full strength division like 3rd Panzer would. Afterwards, the LW in the East began to become less of an asset as the VVS grew stronger and they were themselves diverted to the West.

The skillsets, resource management, and unit integration levels required to be a good pocket taker look to me as a significantly higher than just being tough at mobile defense. As the war turned sour for the Axis, the training of the Panzertruppen also changed- a shift from offensive pocket taking and air coordination to mobile defense.

The SS performance at Kursk is difficult to judge but overall they performed pretty well at one thing until the end of the war: "Mobile defense". Their record of performing devastating offensive ops is simply not there- although part of this is due to continuously improving soviet defensive practices, organization, and concentrations.

Their officers and leaders, who were generally less educated in military fields, were overall not pre war professionals but those of just wartime training & winner of the darwinian survival of the 'fittest/luckiest'. Natural leaders, rather than highly developed ones.

The regular line and file themselves, due to the WSS political favoritism of the SS Panzer divisions, tended to be well trained and well equipped. Their officers and senior non-coms however, were not the same caliber as those in the Army.

[j keenan]

Their officers and senior non-coms however, were not the same caliber as those in the Army.

In what way would that be ?
Before mobile defence or after you seem to contradict your self,I would have said the average junior nco/officer would have been the same in the Panzer Divisions.

[Cult Icon]

The officer and senior NCOs of the SS mostly not professional soldiers that were involved in elite infantry, armor or cavalry. They were trained as standard mot. regiments and were devoted to many ceremonial & bodyguard duties. So was GD lehr and GD regiment but GD was essentially an educational institution with a long tradition with groups devoted to training & military experimentation.

The SS were built out of nothing (outside of a few Army personnel), and inherited no long lived institutional military tradition outside of Nazism and slavish loyalty to Hitler. The officers of the SS were generally less educated men that were younger and more inexperienced in just about everything to do with combat.

Also, a negative on what you say about the panzer divisions- In my experience, unlike the SS they were equipped with many professional soldiers in their officer and senior NCO ranks at least until the end of 1942. These tended to be those with experience in mobile forces, infantry, and Calvary. Afterwards, they were bleed to remnants. But then again, after 1942 little mattered : Third Reich Kaput.

PS. I encourage those that disagree with me to give some substantive explanation of the other POV- instead of picking on snippets of texts.

[j keenan]

The officer and senior NCOs of the SS mostly not professional soldiers that were involved in elite infantry, armor or cavalry. They were trained as standard mot. regiments and were devoted to many ceremonial & bodyguard duties. So was GD lehr and GD regiment but GD was essentially an educational institution with a long tradition with groups devoted to training & military experimentation.

The SS were built out of nothing (outside of a few Army personnel), and inherited no long lived institutional military tradition outside of Nazism and slavish loyalty to Hitler. The officers of the SS were generally less educated men that were younger and more inexperienced in just about everything to do with combat.

Also, a negative on what you say about the panzer divisions- In my experience, unlike the SS they were equipped with many professional soldiers in their officer and senior NCO ranks at least until the end of 1942. These tended to be those with experience in mobile forces, infantry, and Calvary. Afterwards, they were bleed to remnants. But then again, after 1942 little mattered : Third Reich Kaput.

PS. I encourage those that disagree with me to give some substantive explanation of the other POV- instead of picking on snippets of texts.

Maybe I would if I saw something original in your Posts instead of trotting out the usual myth/fact

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Cult Icon,

By "snippets of texts" I presume you mean using published sources?

If so, why do you view the use of such published sources as a crime?

After all, you are only offering us "my experience" to back you opinions, by way of alternative.

Unless you were a member of the Waffen-SS, your "experience" of the Waffen-SS is non existent.

If you use no textual sources and have no personal experience, what are you basing your opinion upon?

Cheers,

A mystified Sid.

[Cult Icon]

You misread. Experience obviously means by study. And 'snippets' of text is obviously the behavior J keegan has done. If he disagrees, he should post something substantive, including directing his POV to sources rather than going automatically to contemptuous interrogation mode. He is not helping the situation with an insulting approach and neither are you.

I base the things I say on the secondary sources and unit histories I have. I don't see much in the way of sources being cited in this 'casual thread' so the attitudes pumped up by you and J keegan are unjustified.

Finally, opinions can be made via a mosaic of past study. So can we move on and actually discuss the topic?