Why the Waffen-SS

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Waffen Grenadier,

Precisely. It is the perception that leads to the interest.

The problem is that the perception of exceptional elitness, determination and fanaticism who fought to the last days of the Reich doesn't seem to match the reality.

The only eliteness was political. There is no empirical reason to believe that W-SS units were any more determined than their Army equivalents. The whole German armed forces fought to near the end. I see no evidence that the "fanatical" W-SS fought on after the rest of the German Armed Forces surrendered.

The over emphasis on the Waffen-SS ignores that fact that it played no indispensable role in Germany's conquests up to 1942 and failed to turn back the tide of war when expanded over 1943-45.

As a military experiment, the Waffen-SS seems to have been a failure. It represented no "value added" for the German Armed Forces because almost every man and weapon it possessed had to be deducted from those available to the German Army and it introduced no new military specializations not already possessed to a high order by the Army.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ChristopherPerrien]

The first invented tales of the "Fanatical" SS and many afterward. Seem to spring from the accounting of the British army situation around Caen after the Normandy invasion. "Facing fanatical SS units with massive amounts of tanks" seems to be accomon term and the common excuse for why the British could not breakout of the beachhead, and the US units which did, had it easy because the British were always facing all fanatical ss units :roll: with every panzer ever made :roll: and the Americans were just facing regular German soldiers with no tanks. St. Lo and Mortain are forgotten , and bad tactics and bad performance and tea breaks around Caen were re- labeled as fanatical resistance by fanatical ss units.Nowadays, I hate to think about how many books I have or have read repeating the term "fanatical ss units" connected with Caen, It might be a challenge to go back and find one that doesn't.

[Sarge3525]

Hi DoP,

Victors' justice? Yup. The key word is "justice".

The Waffen-SS was quite rightly declared part of a criminal organization. Out of 38 divisions, only one is not known to have contained at least one officer who served in the camps (and even this exception may be due to inadequate information). The camps were also a continuous (though minor) source of manpower for the W-SS. Furthermore, one third of the 1941 Einsatzgruppen operating behind the Eastern Front in 1941 were constitutionally composed of Waffen-SS men.

Furthermore, the Allies did not declare that mere service in the Waffen-SS was criminal. Like anyone else, they had to have committed a war crime.

(...)

Where it differed was in being the Nazi Party in arms, as opposed to the German Army, which was the German people in arms.(...)
Cheers,

Sid.

The main problem being that the Waffen SS vets were denied the post-war benefits (like pensions) the Army vets got from the German government. They were left to rot in the street, and the ones unable to work (maimed, etc) were miserable. Of course some of the higher ups got help from donations (HIAG) but most did not.
This was the problem with the Allies declaring the Waffen SS a criminal organization.

Sure some members commited war crimes. But the majority did not.

Also the qualification of "Nazi party in arms" I think is not exactly true to me.
Division 1-3 were considered the elite of the German Army before the war started, and there are numerous sources which say the German boys joined up because they wanted to be part of an elite, not because of some Nazi attraction. To be sure, to be part of division 1-3, the requirements were tougher than in the Army.

As to division 4-38, they are really a mixed bunch.
From police units to foreign anti-communist volunteer brigades (German foreign legion), to Nazi loyalists and even penal bataillion (Direlwanger). I would call them the mixed bag of the Wehrmacht.

Finally again I dont think your argument stands up to categorize the entire W-SS as criminal just because one member was a war criminal in one division.
Good example is Mengele in the SS-Wiking (a division which was particularely outstanding on the E-Front and always appreciated by its Army counterparts).

So to sum up...As I said in my previous comment: I fully agree Waffen SS performance shouldnt be glorified as its sub-par mostly to regular Heer divisions. But at the same time I believe it was mistake to declare them criminals post war.

I think that the main criminals were in non combat branches of the SS, which is something Himmler probably intended doing (grouping them under one umbrella) to "make them share the burden of crimes" in a sick way if anything happened.
Unfortunately for the W-SS, it did. And many boys who fought courageously were branded criminals due to the crimes of other branches (totenkopfverbande, Allgemeine SS, Etc).

[j keenan]

Hi DoP,

Victors' justice? Yup. The key word is "justice".

The Waffen-SS was quite rightly declared part of a criminal organization. Out of 38 divisions, only one is not known to have contained at least one officer who served in the camps (and even this exception may be due to inadequate information). The camps were also a continuous (though minor) source of manpower for the W-SS. Furthermore, one third of the 1941 Einsatzgruppen operating behind the Eastern Front in 1941 were constitutionally composed of Waffen-SS men.

Furthermore, the Allies did not declare that mere service in the Waffen-SS was criminal. Like anyone else, they had to have committed a war crime.

(...)

Where it differed was in being the Nazi Party in arms, as opposed to the German Army, which was the German people in arms.(...)
Cheers,

Sid.

The main problem being that the Waffen SS vets were denied the post-war benefits (like pensions) the Army vets got from the German government. They were left to rot in the street, and the ones unable to work (maimed, etc) were miserable. Of course some of the higher ups got help from donations (HIAG) but most did not.
This was the problem with the Allies declaring the Waffen SS a criminal organization.

Sure some members commited war crimes. But the majority did not.

Also the qualification of "Nazi party in arms" I think is not exactly true to me.
Division 1-3 were considered the elite of the German Army before the war started, and there are numerous sources which say the German boys joined up because they wanted to be part of an elite, not because of some Nazi attraction. To be sure, to be part of division 1-3, the requirements were tougher than in the Army.

As to division 4-38, they are really a mixed bunch.
From police units to foreign anti-communist volunteer brigades (German foreign legion), to Nazi loyalists and even penal bataillion (Direlwanger). I would call them the mixed bag of the Wehrmacht.

Finally again I dont think your argument stands up to categorize the entire W-SS as criminal just because one member was a war criminal in one division.
Good example is Mengele in the SS-Wiking (a division which was particularely outstanding on the E-Front and always appreciated by its Army counterparts).

So to sum up...As I said in my previous comment: I fully agree Waffen SS performance shouldnt be glorified as its sub-par mostly to regular Heer divisions. But at the same time I believe it was mistake to declare them criminals post war.

I think that the main criminals were in non combat branches of the SS, which is something Himmler probably intended doing (grouping them under one umbrella) to "make them share the burden of crimes" in a sick way if anything happened.
Unfortunately for the W-SS, it did. And many boys who fought courageously were branded criminals due to the crimes of other branches (totenkopfverbande, Allgemeine SS, Etc).

You need to read more !!
Why would the the German Army consider the 1-3 SS-Divisions there elite ? When neither had proven them selves in battle,there officers had to do army training courses before commanding Batl, Rgts, Staff positions and so on.I've yet to read anywhere of the Heer doing Waffen-SS courses or bringing any thing new to the battle field.So where is this ELITENESS ??

[Pena V]

Why would the the German Army consider the 1-3 SS-Divisions there elite ?

If we limit the question to these 3 divisions only and the timeline is

When neither had proven them selves in battle,

I think I might have an answer. As said

there officers had to do army training courses before commanding Batl, Rgts, Staff positions and so on.

the theoretical officer training was roughly the same. Maybe the biggest difference was that the SS officers were true believers of the course and thus "tried harder". However, this is a minor difference. The real difference was the fighting man. The SS required a signed agreement for years of service concerning their volunteers. The Army used conscripts. Now the question is: If you were a commander and could freely choose would you like to command volunteers who wanted to be professionals or conscripts? Which one is elite?

[Michael Kenny]

bad tactics and bad performance and tea breaks around Caen were re- labeled as fanatical resistance by fanatical ss units..

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of ... tters.html


To the Editor:
I would refer to Mr. Lawrence Briskin's letter in the JMH of July 2002. I note that Colonel d'Este has declined to reply, probably because a proper answer would either take a whole book or be a total waste of time. However, as a British military historian, perhaps I could take Mr. Briskin up on just a couple of points, General Montgomery and the matter of tea.
The British drink tea. So too do the Americans; today iced or hot, historically like the British—has Mr. Briskin never heard of the Boston Tea Party?
To really enjoy a cup of British Army tea, Mr. Briskin might like to try the following. Load up with sixty to eighty pounds of kit, plus a personal weapon, a couple of grenades, some mortar bombs and two hundred rounds of rifle ammunition. Then march twenty miles over rough country, preferably at night. It should be raining, but snow or a tropical downpour will do. Someone ought to be shooting at him—I could do that—but at least there should be sporadic shelling. Then, when all this has been going on for far too long, some hero hands Mr. Briskin a pint of tea, piping hot, sweet and full of condensed milk. I venture to suggest that Mr. Briskin would find that mixture, at that time, close to nectar and ambrosia.
I have before me an account from a Guards officer who found a young American lady dispensing hot coffee to U.S. troops close to the Volterno river in Italy in 1944. In a previous book I heard of U.S. troops getting coffee and doughnuts, served by "a real American girl," close to the front in North West Europe in 1945.
When I tell that to British veterans their reaction is "Good luck to them" or "We wouldn't have minded a bit of that ourselves." Unlike Mr. Briskin, they do not see their American comrades enjoying a hot drink as an excuse for cheap sneers.
And so to General Montgomery. Could someone please explain the reasons for this on-going hostility among U.S. historians to Monty? Montgomery only commanded U.S. troops for ninety days in a six-year war—well, three and a half for the U.S.A.—during the Battle of Normandy and then at one remove, General Bradley being the First Army commander. And yet we have had nearly sixty years of continuous denigration of this senior Allied Commander, almost exclusively from the U.S.A. What exactly is the problem here?
During the Second World War Montgomery commanded Australian, British, Canadian, French, Greek, Indian, New Zealand, Polish—even Italian soldiers. For my current work, a history of Eighth Army, I have contacted soldiers from all these nations. They are united in their praise of this commander but from the U.S.A. we get nothing but this on-going whine, all too often based on a careful selection of the facts.
For example, why is it that when Bradley's First Army took a month to cover the last five miles to St. Lô this is attributed (correctly) to the bocage and the enemy but when the British Second Army took as long to cover the six miles into Caen that is attributed to Monty's "timidity," "caution," and "slowness"? The presence of seven German panzer divisions in front of Caen is usually left out of this equation.
It is said that Monty was vain; so he was, but that accusation might be balanced in the U.S.A. by thinking of those three blushing, retiring, American violets, Generals Patton, Clark, and MacArthur, men not noted for modesty though all three had much to be modest about. The implication that only Monty had a super-ego is at variance with the facts.
It is alleged that Monty tried to hog the credit for the defeat of the Germans in the Bulge, an allegation based on his speech to the press on 7 January 1945. The evidence here is scanty and partial. The full text of that speech gives ample praise to the "fighting qualities of the American soldier," and to "the captain of our team, General Eisenhower" but this speech was picked up by the Germans, edited, and rebroadcast to the Allies. This edited, propaganda version has been used ever since to smear Monty; when it comes to denigrating Monty—and the British—even Dr. Goebbels comes in useful.
It would be possible to go on but surely the point is made? No one is obliged to like the British—there are times when I am not too keen on them myself—and no army is above criticism but the rampaging Anglophobia that permeates Mr. Briskin's letter should be seen for what it is. Nor is he alone in this, as anyone reading U.S. accounts of Allied affairs in the Second World War soon becomes aware; Anglophobia is rife. I can confidently assert that Mr. Briskin and his ilk will loathe my current book on the Battle of Normandy which disputes many popular allegations and examines closely the actions of all the Allied Armies in Normandy, not just the British. Incidentally, there already is a complete history of the British Army in the Second World War, David Fraser's And We Shall Shock Them, published by Hodder & Stoughton 1983 and Cassell Paperbacks in 1999.
There is a serious, current point here. Our countries may be about to enter another war. If Mr. Briskin removes his head from the dark place it currently occupies and looks around, he may notice that the U.S.A. is not all that popular in the world at large and the British are the only reliable ally the Americans have.
Mr. Briskin's rant, childish and ill-informed though it is, does no service either to scholarship or the mutual respect that Allies should have for one another when their fathers and brothers have shared the burden of one hard war and the current generation might be about to fight another. If all we can expect afterwards is cheap sneers from the likes of Mr. Briskin, perhaps the British should stay out of it this time? People on this side of the Pond are running out of cheeks to turn over this constant carping.
Finally, I have had the pleasure of corresponding with many hundreds of American veterans over the last thirty years. Not one of them has ever had a hard word to say about their British comrades; front-line soldiers are too wise and too decent to indulge in smear tactics and some American historians have much to learn from their example. And now, having got that off my chest, I think I will go and have a cup of tea.

Robin Neillands
Marlborough, Wiltshire, England



And another example of the lazy British stopping for tea:

Corporal Bill Bailey’s section of 25 platoon was allowed to go back to the bridge; They took up position near the gun emplacement on the eastern side of the canal. He had had nothing to drink for fourteen hours:
At this stage we got the first inkling of Commandos coming through, some with bicycles, and I thought this was a good time to make some tea. So I took my 'Tommy cooker' down into the position between the gun. Little primus stove with a little block and meths and tin water and a little mix of sugar and you’re away. Takes six or seven minutes.
I think it was wally and Gus I saw sitting on the bunk watching and the bubbles had just started to came up. I'd just dropped the tea in and there was a God Almighty crash over my head. Charlie Gardner was up on the gun, and they fired this bloody thing whiIe I was down there and of course all the sand from China came crashing down on our heads!

Bailey came up from the area beneath the gun.
Wally Parr:


He just looked at me and said Parr; don’t fire that bleedin’ gun again will you till I've had my cup of tea, theres all shit fallng on top of me. ’I said 'Yeah, alright alright. ’ So the war stopped for about fifteen minutes as far as the gun was concerned but they [the Germans] were creeping up and creeping up. It was over on the right hand bank, there was space between some bushes and another clump, and one shot across, [another] one shot across. Now there was already two there we knew, so that made four. And then two more came scurrying across because the gun was quiet and they were doing alright. There were six of them and I swung the gun round I’d got six of them behind this clump {bushes. I suppose it was a ten-yard clump give or take a thou; and I just aimed the gun and I fired The next thing you knew there was a terrible scream fom somewhere outside and I thought 'some poor bastards got it. ’ Then, believe it or not I saw two hands, big hands........ pulling himsef up the two steps inside the gun pit. It was Bailey. His face was livid his cup of char had just come to the boil He'd put his powdered milk and his sugar in it and I fired the bleedin’ gun and the whole of the roof fell in on top of it and turned it into mud! Bailey came into there, and I left my post and I run round the front end of the gun. He chased me round there. He eventually gave up the chase and he went off swearing and cursing; without his cup of tea.

The Pegasus And Orne Bridges, Neil Barber 2014 page 234 235

[j keenan]

the theoretical officer training was roughly the same. Maybe the biggest difference was that the SS officers were true believers of the course and thus "tried harder". However, this is a minor difference. The real difference was the fighting man. The SS required a signed agreement for years of service concerning their volunteers. The Army used conscripts. Now the question is: If you were a commander and could freely choose would you like to command volunteers who wanted to be professionals or conscripts? Which one is elite?

Really !! There's me thinking you had a brain Pena V
So thats all it takes to be ELITE a signed contract ! Which one would that be the 3 year or the 12 Year or was the 12 year one extra extra special ElITE ??
The Waffen-SS was never only volunteers as they couldn't get enough so other units were attached or transferred in.Even in the early years, so get over this Waffen-SS myth of we were a Volunteer army of elite professionals its Garbage !

[Pena V]

Jamie,

If your purpose was to insult me this was a success:

Really !! There's me thinking you had a brain Pena V

But let's move back to the subject. You say:

So thats all it takes to be ELITE a signed contract !

Signing the contract is the easy part. Even I could do it in spite of my age. The point here is that those who signed the contract signed it because they wanted to sign it. Not because they had to sign it. Conskripts on the other hand went to the army because they had to go. Some were happy to go some were not so happy. Motivated people are generally good in what they do.

Which one would that be the 3 year or the 12 Year or was the 12 year one extra extra special ElITE ??

No one becomes elite without training. If the training takes 3 years - whatever the profession - you cann't be called an amateur any more. If the training takes 12 years you are even better - maybe even extra extra special ElITE.

The Waffen-SS was never only volunteers as they couldn't get enough so other units were attached or transferred in.Even in the early years, so get over this Waffen-SS myth of we were a Volunteer army of elite professionals its Garbage !

You are absolutely right when we speak about the later years but according to your definition we are talking about the time

When neither had proven them selves in battle,

During that time the Waffen-SS consisted mainly volunteers.

Regards,

Pena V

[Waffen Grenadier]

Hi Waffen Grenadier,

Precisely. It is the perception that leads to the interest.

The problem is that the perception of exceptional elitness, determination and fanaticism who fought to the last days of the Reich doesn't seem to match the reality.

The only eliteness was political. There is no empirical reason to believe that W-SS units were any more determined than their Army equivalents. The whole German armed forces fought to near the end. I see no evidence that the "fanatical" W-SS fought on after the rest of the German Armed Forces surrendered.

The over emphasis on the Waffen-SS ignores that fact that it played no indispensable role in Germany's conquests up to 1942 and failed to turn back the tide of war when expanded over 1943-45.

As a military experiment, the Waffen-SS seems to have been a failure. It represented no "value added" for the German Armed Forces because almost every man and weapon it possessed had to be deducted from those available to the German Army and it introduced no new military specializations not already possessed to a high order by the Army.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Sid,
I agree with the failure of the military experientation. Maybe the foreign divisions or legions were more fanatical than the German divisions. But I heard somewhere that to join the LSSAH you had to be registered in the Nazi Party.
Also, I would like to apologize for my bad english and for my misinformation, because I'm really interested by WWII and stuff but I don't have the knowledge that you, other members, have.
Cheers
Waffen Grenadier

[Sarge3525]

You need to read more !!
Why would the the German Army consider the 1-3 SS-Divisions there elite ? When neither had proven them selves in battle,there officers had to do army training courses before commanding Batl, Rgts, Staff positions and so on.I've yet to read anywhere of the Heer doing Waffen-SS courses or bringing any thing new to the battle field.So where is this ELITENESS ??

I knew my comment would be misinterpreted.
Though if you read my previous comment, you would know what you are writing is NOT my view.

PRE-WAR, to join the SS divisions 1-3 was considered prestigious and elite.
The reason was that the REQUIREMENTS set (aryan ancestry, height, physical fitness, etc) were "superior" which gave an air of mysticism to these units. Kind of like joining a pretorian guard of some sort in Ancient Rome.

Never did I say that these divisions THEN performed better than the Army during the war.
I merely state the attraction of these divisions BEFORE the war.

(in fact even DURING the war, joining SS division 1-3 was considered incredible, kind of like joining division GrossDeutschland in the Heer, or the Goring division).

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Waffen Grenadier,

Your English is fine.

The foreign divisions varied greatly.

The first thing to say is that in almost all cases these nationalities were first recruited by the German Army, not the Waffen-SS. This was because Nazi ideology only recognized "Nordics", such as the Scandinavians, as meeting the racial criteria for W-SS entry. It was only in 1942-1943 that the political decision was taken to recruit non-Nordic volunteers into the Waffen-SS and members of these nationalities were then transferred from the Army. Far from helping foreign recruitment, in most cases SS racial attitudes delayed it.

Some foreign divisions, such as the Estonians and Latvians, fought well in defence of their own countries. However, others, such as the Ukrainians, were fielded so late that little or none of their country was still in Axis hands to defend and were brushed aside by the Red Army. Others, such as the French, seem to have found it impossible to retain cohesion in the field and fell apart fast. By contrast, others, such as the Scandinavians and Dutch, seem to have integrated quite well into the German armed forces and performed well enough by German standards.

It wasn't compulsory to belong to the Nazi Party but the vast majority of German W-SS officers certainly did, and even the majority who didn't are unlikely to have differed from its ideology significantly.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Sarge3525,

The Waffen-SS and its first three divisions didn't even exist before the war. Until early 1939 all SS men were legally expected to do their military service in the Army, like everyone else.

The Waffen-SS only existed for five years - hardly enough to acquire significant pension rights.

I have never heard of W-SS veterans "rotting on the street" any more than anyone else. Indeed, because W-SS prisoners tended to be held longer than others in captivity, I imagine they often missed the worst years for civilians in Germany immediately after WWII.

I can understand the resentment of those Germans conscripted into the W-SS late in the war, if they did not get the same benefits as other conscripts, but they can only have had 9 months service, at most. However, the volunteers and regulars have little to complain about as they chose between Army and W-SS service.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sarge3525]

Hi Sarge3525,

The Waffen-SS and its first three divisions didn't even exist before the war. Until early 1939 all SS men were legally expected to do their military service in the Army, like everyone else.

Hi Sid.
I got mixed up.
What I refered to was the SS-VT (formed 1934), which was the basis for the future divisions 1-3 created at war's start.

The Waffen-SS only existed for five years - hardly enough to acquire significant pension rights.

I will leave some other person to answer this.
To be honest I thought that enlistment during wartime guaranteed a pension. But I could be mistaken.
Why someone who joins the Heer in 1939 gets a pension and not someone from the Waffen SS?

I have never heard of W-SS veterans "rotting on the street" any more than anyone else. Indeed, because W-SS prisoners tended to be held longer than others in captivity, I imagine they often missed the worst years for civilians in Germany immediately after WWII.

The period I refer to is post-war, after the establishment of Western Germany and Eastern Germany.
Wehrmacht vets received a pension from the Western German government, whilst W-SS did not. I mean in the 60s and 70s up to the 80s for those that survived.

I can understand the resentment of those Germans conscripted into the W-SS late in the war, if they did not get the same benefits as other conscripts, but they can only have had 9 months service, at most. However, the volunteers and regulars have little to complain about as they chose between Army and W-SS service.

Yes that's a little special case but it would still be an error to not award them pensions, morally speaking.
As to the last sentence, am I to understand that your view is then that enlisting in W-SS by choice should guarantee you not to have a pension in any case?

Of course most W-SS vets are extremely old or mostly dead (as are all poor souls who fought in the horror of the 20th century), so it doesnt matter much if they receive a pension NOW or not. But still for argument's sake I was curious.

[j keenan]

Sid we all know how much you hate the SS/WAFFEN but stop making things up
Service in the SS-VT counted as military service since 8.38 but not in the SS-Totenkopfverbände but once they were amalgamated into the Waffen-SS it counted.
In 1943 they had very little choice, they went where they were told.
There was also a Germanic Volunteer Office set up after the conquest of Europe in 1940 for all the volunteers who queued the length and breath of there respective countries to join the ELITE of the ELITE !!

[j keenan]

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/10/world ... erans.html
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=1343