hi sid..my response to the issues raised by you are as follows: 1) although the 4th panzer army had other heer formations involved near kharkov, it was hausser's ss panzer korps ( + totenkopf) that actually took kharkov with heavy losses..it is particularly commendable since the original manstein - hoth plan was to use the ss korps for encircling kharkov rather than a frontal assault.. this would have delayed the entire operation to the detriment of the overall situation in that sector...however hausser disregarded the directive at great personal peril and responsibility.. he went for the jugular.. and in 4 and 1/2 days of bitter combat took kharkov (11-15 march'43)...this was a tremendous morale booster in the post stalingrad gloomy scenario.. 2) at arnhem the force equation you menton was a canard put out by monty's PR men and the allied press to explain away their disaster.. the facts are : the british 1st airborne was a full strength, elite and properly equipped para formation.. if some of their jeeps failed to arrive that was part of the normal hazards of any airborne operation..the so called " two ss armoured divisions" they were supposed to have landed on were in fact paper formations.. the 9th ss pz div hohenstaufen, commanded by a lt col ( oberstumbnfhr), was on the point of being cannibalised.. ordered to give their remaining beaten up equipment to the 10 th ss pz div, frundsberg and take their remaining men (1500- 2000) back to germany for refitting.. so they had in fact taken the tracks off their remaining few panzers to show them as unserviceable ! so when the british landed.. the 9th was caught with their pants down..to make matters worse.. the 10th ss pz had to defend nijmegen too.. so a kampfgruppe had to leave for the waal bridge and nijmegen.. not to mention the kampfgruppe with around 25 panzers which had already been despatched to the frontline at the dutch border to shore up student's forces.. the total forces available to bittrich at arnhem at that point totalled a full regiment strength of men and just over a company strength of serviceable panzers... to this may be added sturmbnfhrer sepp kraft's training battalion near arnhem of around 435 men,NCOs and officers..later von tettau put together a rag tag force of kriegsmarine shore personnel, luftwaffe ground personnel and sundry depot troops to attack the landing zones.. knaust's kampfgruppe with a strong panzer element joined the battle late.. and that too on the wrong side of the rhine ( south) essentially as a blocking force to stop the british xxx corps from reaching arnhem..bittrich's men ( and their rag tag associate units north of the rhine wiped out the 1st british airborne... punctured monty's hot air balloon of military greatness and demolished the myth around him..they helped hitler and his 3rd reich to breathe for 7 and 1/2 months longer.. led to events that delayed the anglo-american advance significantly and thus helped the russkies reach berlin before the western allies and all that this ensued in the years to come..a strategic victory indeed !
sandeepmukherjee196
Member
India
Posts: 8
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 11:04
The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
-
sandeepmukherjee196
- Member
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34
-
Sid Guttridge
- Member
- Posts: 10162
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
Hi Dennis,
Again I have lost a post and so much catch up.
As somebody else pointed out earlier, Hungary was occupied by Germany in March 1944 during Operation Margarethe. While there was the usual minority W-SS involvement, it was largely an Army operation. Furthermore, it was conducted when two of the three Hungarian armies were in their depots at home, unlike Operation Panzerfaust, when almost the entire active Hungarian Army had been committed to the front.
Operation Panzerfaust was not only months after the main event and well behind Axis lines but a much smaller and less risky operation. I have no problem recognizing it as a success, but let's not exagerate it. It was the footnote to Margarethe.
After Operation Margarethe Horthy was poweless. He returned from a meeting with Hitler to find his capital already occupied. Thereafter, Hungarian interests were over ridden in favour of German interests. For example, Hungary had previously managed not to contribute directly to the so-called Holocaust, but between Margarethe and Panzerfaust most Jews from Transilvania were rounded up and sent to the extermination camps in Poland.
You seem to be under the impression that the Waffen-SS was outside the Wehrmacht. It was certainly outside the Army, but it was the fourth independent arm of the Wehrmacht. There was no good military reason for this, as it simply duplicated Army specializations.
Certainly Skorzeny would have been silly not to use Brandenburger talent. However, it should be recognized that he was not only following in Brandenburger shoes, but heavily dependent on their inherited expertise and assets.
Skorzeny had been an internal enforcer for the Nazis since he joined the Austrian party in the early 1930s, and his basic role never changed. He has been described as "the most dangerous man in Europe". It would be more correct to say that he was "the most dangerous man in Occupied Europe".
Cheers,
Sid.
Again I have lost a post and so much catch up.
As somebody else pointed out earlier, Hungary was occupied by Germany in March 1944 during Operation Margarethe. While there was the usual minority W-SS involvement, it was largely an Army operation. Furthermore, it was conducted when two of the three Hungarian armies were in their depots at home, unlike Operation Panzerfaust, when almost the entire active Hungarian Army had been committed to the front.
Operation Panzerfaust was not only months after the main event and well behind Axis lines but a much smaller and less risky operation. I have no problem recognizing it as a success, but let's not exagerate it. It was the footnote to Margarethe.
After Operation Margarethe Horthy was poweless. He returned from a meeting with Hitler to find his capital already occupied. Thereafter, Hungarian interests were over ridden in favour of German interests. For example, Hungary had previously managed not to contribute directly to the so-called Holocaust, but between Margarethe and Panzerfaust most Jews from Transilvania were rounded up and sent to the extermination camps in Poland.
You seem to be under the impression that the Waffen-SS was outside the Wehrmacht. It was certainly outside the Army, but it was the fourth independent arm of the Wehrmacht. There was no good military reason for this, as it simply duplicated Army specializations.
Certainly Skorzeny would have been silly not to use Brandenburger talent. However, it should be recognized that he was not only following in Brandenburger shoes, but heavily dependent on their inherited expertise and assets.
Skorzeny had been an internal enforcer for the Nazis since he joined the Austrian party in the early 1930s, and his basic role never changed. He has been described as "the most dangerous man in Europe". It would be more correct to say that he was "the most dangerous man in Occupied Europe".
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Sid Guttridge
- Member
- Posts: 10162
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
Hi Dennis,
Tell us more about the epic storming of your fortress Belgrade by the W-SS. How many Waffen-SS men had to be committed to achieve the goal and how many were killed and wounded during it?
In writing "Please note: I did not actually write that “Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status” occurred. It is wrong to try and quote me on that with quotation marks. Those are your words and interpretation - this is below your normal standard." you are quite wrong. I will post the offending section again as I actually wrote it:
"After that (Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status), I cannot see how anyone can assume that the Jugoslavs would continue to guarantee an open, undefended city."
You will note that the bit you object to was not only in brackets, but in a different font from your quote. These are generally accepted methods for distinguishing inclusions that are not part of the quote.
But let's cut to the quick, are you claiming that the "that" to which you were referring was not "Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status"? If not, to what were you referring?
Yes, I do "mean the reference to an English language book" but no, it was not "of implied wartime origin". (I actually wrote "it even has an English language book dedicated to it!" No past tense.) (See SS-Heimwehr Danzig in Poland 1939 by Rolf Michaelis, which is still in print.) The fact that you "have never heard of a post-war hype on SS Danzig" does not exist.
You write, "Just as there are post war publications artificially praising the Waffen SS, there are agenda ridden posters condemning the Waffen SS as much as possible." They may well exist, but tell us more. Who, when, where? (Fortunately it can't be me, as I have also posted positive things about Operation Panzerfaust and the Leibstandarte in Greece, etc.)
It wouldn't matter if only person were to point out a problem. Remember the story of the Emperor's New Clothes?
Nope, it is not true that my "posts want to focus on the Waffen SS failures/limitations." My posts want the full picture to be presented. This may necessitate contradicting over boosting of Waffen-SS successes (and virtual non-events such as the occupation of Belgrade).
You post, ".....I would say that a distorted image and culture exists on this forum right now. But not in the way you think." Please be more explicit. To what do you refer? It clearly cannot be that discussion of the Waffen-SS is under represented on AHF, as a count of thread titles will show.
OK, so you hold the "classic" (!) SS divisions...... to be more than just competent ". However, this doesn't answer my earlier question: "To clarify, are you contending that it is not true that ".....any competent Army mechanized formation, of which there were many, could have performed exactly the same military role."? That remains my impression from your earlier post.
In this context, I would remind you of what you wrote earlier:
"Well, if the equivalent Army unit was:
* Motorised/Armoured like the Waffen SS
* Aggressive and daring like the Waffen SS
* In the right place, like the Waffen SS
* Well led and dedicated, like the Waffen SS
Then surely they could have done all the things on my list."
My impression is that none of these qualities are exclusive to the Waffen-SS and were widespread in the panzerwaffe and motorized formations as a whole. What do you reckon?
In haste,
Sid
Tell us more about the epic storming of your fortress Belgrade by the W-SS. How many Waffen-SS men had to be committed to achieve the goal and how many were killed and wounded during it?
In writing "Please note: I did not actually write that “Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status” occurred. It is wrong to try and quote me on that with quotation marks. Those are your words and interpretation - this is below your normal standard." you are quite wrong. I will post the offending section again as I actually wrote it:
"After that (Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status), I cannot see how anyone can assume that the Jugoslavs would continue to guarantee an open, undefended city."
You will note that the bit you object to was not only in brackets, but in a different font from your quote. These are generally accepted methods for distinguishing inclusions that are not part of the quote.
But let's cut to the quick, are you claiming that the "that" to which you were referring was not "Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status"? If not, to what were you referring?
Yes, I do "mean the reference to an English language book" but no, it was not "of implied wartime origin". (I actually wrote "it even has an English language book dedicated to it!" No past tense.) (See SS-Heimwehr Danzig in Poland 1939 by Rolf Michaelis, which is still in print.) The fact that you "have never heard of a post-war hype on SS Danzig" does not exist.
You write, "Just as there are post war publications artificially praising the Waffen SS, there are agenda ridden posters condemning the Waffen SS as much as possible." They may well exist, but tell us more. Who, when, where? (Fortunately it can't be me, as I have also posted positive things about Operation Panzerfaust and the Leibstandarte in Greece, etc.)
It wouldn't matter if only person were to point out a problem. Remember the story of the Emperor's New Clothes?
Nope, it is not true that my "posts want to focus on the Waffen SS failures/limitations." My posts want the full picture to be presented. This may necessitate contradicting over boosting of Waffen-SS successes (and virtual non-events such as the occupation of Belgrade).
You post, ".....I would say that a distorted image and culture exists on this forum right now. But not in the way you think." Please be more explicit. To what do you refer? It clearly cannot be that discussion of the Waffen-SS is under represented on AHF, as a count of thread titles will show.
OK, so you hold the "classic" (!) SS divisions...... to be more than just competent ". However, this doesn't answer my earlier question: "To clarify, are you contending that it is not true that ".....any competent Army mechanized formation, of which there were many, could have performed exactly the same military role."? That remains my impression from your earlier post.
In this context, I would remind you of what you wrote earlier:
"Well, if the equivalent Army unit was:
* Motorised/Armoured like the Waffen SS
* Aggressive and daring like the Waffen SS
* In the right place, like the Waffen SS
* Well led and dedicated, like the Waffen SS
Then surely they could have done all the things on my list."
My impression is that none of these qualities are exclusive to the Waffen-SS and were widespread in the panzerwaffe and motorized formations as a whole. What do you reckon?
In haste,
Sid
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
Hi Sid
Do you acknowledge Panzerfaust as a success only, or as a military success? You were unclear.
The Waffen SS was not part of the Wehrmacht. It was subordinated to the Army in time of war. There was the OKW, Higher command Armed Forces (Wehrmacht), under which were sub commands for the Army High Command, Airforce High Command and Navy High Command. The waffen SS was under Hitler’s ultimate control (in peace and war). While subordinated to the Army it was indirectly controlled by the OKW.
Clearly you do not like Skorzeny. Nevertheless, that does not detract from any successes he had in the military field, and Operation Panzerfaust in particular.
Regards
Dennis
I have adequately addressed those comments in my previous post. I pointed out the scale of Margarethe and the necessity for Panzerfaust. I have not exaggerated Panzerfaust’s purpose or importance. Panzerfaust was a military operation and a military success.Sid Guttridge wrote: Hungary was occupied by Germany in March 1944 during Operation Margarethe. While there was the usual minority W-SS involvement, it was largely an Army operation. Furthermore, it was conducted when two of the three Hungarian armies were in their depots at home, unlike Operation Panzerfaust, when almost the entire active Hungarian Army had been committed to the front.
Operation Panzerfaust was not only months after the main event and well behind Axis lines but a much smaller and less risky operation. I have no problem recognizing it as a success, but let's not exagerate it. It was the footnote to Margarethe.
Do you acknowledge Panzerfaust as a success only, or as a military success? You were unclear.
I hope you are not saying that Horty and Hungary were so tied up that Panzerfaust is a footnote operation because it was unnecessary. The Russians were interested in making a peace deal with Horty, and saw value. Hitler saw danger and acted.Sid Guttridge wrote: After Operation Margarethe Horthy was poweless. He returned from a meeting with Hitler to find his capital already occupied. Thereafter, Hungarian interests were over ridden in favour of German interests.
Sid Guttridge wrote: You seem to be under the impression that the Waffen-SS was outside the Wehrmacht. It was certainly outside the Army, but it was the fourth independent arm of the Wehrmacht.
The Waffen SS was not part of the Wehrmacht. It was subordinated to the Army in time of war. There was the OKW, Higher command Armed Forces (Wehrmacht), under which were sub commands for the Army High Command, Airforce High Command and Navy High Command. The waffen SS was under Hitler’s ultimate control (in peace and war). While subordinated to the Army it was indirectly controlled by the OKW.
Clearly you do not like Skorzeny. Nevertheless, that does not detract from any successes he had in the military field, and Operation Panzerfaust in particular.
Regards
Dennis
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
[quote="dshaday"]
. There was the OKW, Higher command Armed Forces (Wehrmacht), under which were sub commands for the Army High Command, Airforce High Command and Navy High Command.
The waffen SS was under Hitler’s ultimate control (in peace and war).
While subordinated to the Army it was indirectly controlled by the OKW.
1)The first sentence is not correct : OKH,OKL and OKM were not subordinate to the OKW,which essentially was the former war ministry under an other namz.
2)The Wehrmacht was also under Hitler's control in peace and war
3) Not correct : the WSS was controlled by the SS Führungshauptamt,while at the front,the WSS units were subordinated to the higher army commands.
ex: in june 1941,the WSS divisions were subordinated to army commands.Wiking and the LSS were part of AGS and the war in the east was a matter of the OKH.
. There was the OKW, Higher command Armed Forces (Wehrmacht), under which were sub commands for the Army High Command, Airforce High Command and Navy High Command.
The waffen SS was under Hitler’s ultimate control (in peace and war).
While subordinated to the Army it was indirectly controlled by the OKW.
1)The first sentence is not correct : OKH,OKL and OKM were not subordinate to the OKW,which essentially was the former war ministry under an other namz.
2)The Wehrmacht was also under Hitler's control in peace and war
3) Not correct : the WSS was controlled by the SS Führungshauptamt,while at the front,the WSS units were subordinated to the higher army commands.
ex: in june 1941,the WSS divisions were subordinated to army commands.Wiking and the LSS were part of AGS and the war in the east was a matter of the OKH.
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
Hi ljadw
That is why I said the OKW had sub-commands for the Army (OKH) , Navy (OKM) and Airforce (OKL) reporting to it. Is this wrong? If not, who do the OKH, OKL and OKM report to then? Or is it my choice of words, rather than the concept?
The Waffen SS was subordinate to the Army (OKH) which reported to the OKW. That is why I said the Waffen SS was subordinate to the Army and indirectly controlled by the OKW.
Are you saying that only Waffen SS units in the field (but not at home etc) are subordinate to OKH, and that OKW does not care about the Waffen SS directly - it views the Waffen SS as an operations issue of the Army?
Maybe I am missing some subtle part of the process. Or maybe the US manual is wrong about OKW and it controlling OKH, OKL and OKM?
Lastly, am I correct in my assertion that the Waffen SS in not part of the Wehrmacht?
All the best
Dennis
Prior to posting I checked with the 1943 US Intelligence manual (TM-E-30-451) and it showed the OKW (Keitel) reporting to Hitler as supreme commander. Each of OKH (Hitler), OKL (Goering) and OKM (Donitz) reporting to OKW. The SS is not mentioned in the organisation chart (as I would expect).ljadw wrote:dshaday wrote:
. There was the OKW, Higher command Armed Forces (Wehrmacht), under which were sub commands for the Army High Command, Airforce High Command and Navy High Command.
The waffen SS was under Hitler’s ultimate control (in peace and war).
While subordinated to the Army it was indirectly controlled by the OKW.
1)The first sentence is not correct : OKH,OKL and OKM were not subordinate to the OKW,which essentially was the former war ministry under an other namz.
2)The Wehrmacht was also under Hitler's control in peace and war
3) Not correct : the WSS was controlled by the SS Führungshauptamt,while at the front,the WSS units were subordinated to the higher army commands.
ex: in june 1941,the WSS divisions were subordinated to army commands.Wiking and the LSS were part of AGS and the war in the east was a matter of the OKH.
That is why I said the OKW had sub-commands for the Army (OKH) , Navy (OKM) and Airforce (OKL) reporting to it. Is this wrong? If not, who do the OKH, OKL and OKM report to then? Or is it my choice of words, rather than the concept?
The Waffen SS was subordinate to the Army (OKH) which reported to the OKW. That is why I said the Waffen SS was subordinate to the Army and indirectly controlled by the OKW.
Are you saying that only Waffen SS units in the field (but not at home etc) are subordinate to OKH, and that OKW does not care about the Waffen SS directly - it views the Waffen SS as an operations issue of the Army?
Maybe I am missing some subtle part of the process. Or maybe the US manual is wrong about OKW and it controlling OKH, OKL and OKM?
Lastly, am I correct in my assertion that the Waffen SS in not part of the Wehrmacht?
All the best
Dennis
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
Hi Sid
Klinkenberg had a very small force (10 men in total I believe) which makes the achievement quite remarkable . If he had a Division he would not have received the Knights Cross !
From what I have read, they had at least one man injured. The bluff with the Major was the main reason for the success.
As I said before, bluff and initiative gave him his results. Why try to belittle his achievement by talking of “Fortress Belgrade” and “faux military epic” just like SS Heimwehr Danzig and “lowering the bar” (when no bar level has been set by this thread’s creator, by the way)? Harping about Fifth Columnists and no resistance.
I certainly did not build the Belgrade action up to the achievement of an epic. In post #126, I fully stated that this action was not typical, but arguably a military success.
So why not admit it was a military success but a lucky one and leave it at that? Which is what I have described it as.
Merely relying on italics is not a method used in professional books that I have read, since it is misleading. Authors I have read make deliberate and obvious reference to their inserted remarks. Your use implies that I have stated these words earlier in my response, and that they are being repeated/summarised for clarity. I never used that phrase or interpretation in my post.
Also your last sentence appears to be incomplete. More Grammar issues.
All right, let’s see if you can give us two Waffen SS military successes that are not trivial (and which have not been mentioned)? Can your ideology support that? You obviously know a few SS limitations.
Regards
Dennis
As I have already pointed out, Belgrade was not undefended, nor was it defended well. You are ignoring the 1300 prisoners and a firefight.Sid Guttridge wrote:
Tell us more about the epic storming of your fortress Belgrade by the W-SS. How many Waffen-SS men had to be committed to achieve the goal and how many were killed and wounded during it?
Klinkenberg had a very small force (10 men in total I believe) which makes the achievement quite remarkable . If he had a Division he would not have received the Knights Cross !
From what I have read, they had at least one man injured. The bluff with the Major was the main reason for the success.
As I said before, bluff and initiative gave him his results. Why try to belittle his achievement by talking of “Fortress Belgrade” and “faux military epic” just like SS Heimwehr Danzig and “lowering the bar” (when no bar level has been set by this thread’s creator, by the way)? Harping about Fifth Columnists and no resistance.
I certainly did not build the Belgrade action up to the achievement of an epic. In post #126, I fully stated that this action was not typical, but arguably a military success.
So why not admit it was a military success but a lucky one and leave it at that? Which is what I have described it as.
The phrase in question is indeed ” (Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status)”.Sid Guttridge wrote: In writing "Please note: I did not actually write that “Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status” occurred. It is wrong to try and quote me on that with quotation marks. Those are your words and interpretation - this is below your normal standard." you are quite wrong. I will post the offending section again as I actually wrote it:
"After that (Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status), I cannot see how anyone can assume that the Jugoslavs would continue to guarantee an open, undefended city."
You will note that the bit you object to was not only in brackets, but in a different font from your quote. These are generally accepted methods for distinguishing inclusions that are not part of the quote.
But let's cut to the quick, are you claiming that the "that" to which you were referring was not "Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status"? If not, to what were you referring?
Merely relying on italics is not a method used in professional books that I have read, since it is misleading. Authors I have read make deliberate and obvious reference to their inserted remarks. Your use implies that I have stated these words earlier in my response, and that they are being repeated/summarised for clarity. I never used that phrase or interpretation in my post.
Sid, saying that an incident HAS an English language book means that there still exists an English language book about that event. In the context of a whole paragraph that only talked about a war-time event and wartime propaganda, the English language book is therefore implied to be a wartime printed book that still exists today.Sid Guttridge wrote: Yes, I do "mean the reference to an English language book" but no, it was not "of implied wartime origin". (I actually wrote "it even has an English language book dedicated to it!" No past tense.) (See SS-Heimwehr Danzig in Poland 1939 by Rolf Michaelis, which is still in print.) The fact that you "have never heard of a post-war hype on SS Danzig" does not exist.
Also your last sentence appears to be incomplete. More Grammar issues.
To find out more, see my posts on the “Why the Waffen SS “ thread. But I suspect that you would already know that, since you have posted on that thread multiple times.Sid Guttridge wrote: You write, "Just as there are post war publications artificially praising the Waffen SS, there are agenda ridden posters condemning the Waffen SS as much as possible." They may well exist, but tell us more. Who, when, where?
Yes your Majesty, I know the story about the Emperor's clothes.Sid Guttridge wrote:It wouldn't matter if only person were to point out a problem. Remember the story of the Emperor's New Clothes?
Yet your posts do focus on Waffen SS failures /limitations.Sid Guttridge wrote: Nope, it is not true that my "posts want to focus on the Waffen SS failures/limitations." My posts want the full picture to be presented. This may necessitate contradicting over boosting of Waffen-SS successes (and virtual non-events such as the occupation of Belgrade).
All right, let’s see if you can give us two Waffen SS military successes that are not trivial (and which have not been mentioned)? Can your ideology support that? You obviously know a few SS limitations.
As an example, do I need to draw attention to the number of times in just one thread (the “Why the Waffen SS”) you kept repeating the Waffen SS clone, Waffen-SSedness and no value-add message? Let alone the many times on this current thread.Sid Guttridge wrote: You post, ".....I would say that a distorted image and culture exists on this forum right now. But not in the way you think." Please be more explicit. To what do you refer? It clearly cannot be that discussion of the Waffen-SS is under represented on AHF, as a count of thread titles will show.
Your question has already been answered by me. There are no inconsistencies in my replies so I don't need any reminding of what I have previously said. I hope we don’t have to do some more grammar stuff again.Sid Guttridge wrote: OK, so you hold the "classic" (!) SS divisions...... to be more than just competent ". However, this doesn't answer my earlier question: "To clarify, are you contending that it is not true that ".....any competent Army mechanized formation, of which there were many, could have performed exactly the same military role."? That remains my impression from your earlier post.
In this context, I would remind you of what you wrote earlier:
"Well, if the equivalent Army unit was:
* Motorised/Armoured like the Waffen SS
* Aggressive and daring like the Waffen SS
* In the right place, like the Waffen SS
* Well led and dedicated, like the Waffen SS
Then surely they could have done all the things on my list."
Regards
Dennis
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
1)The US war manual is wrong (it is always questionable to use a foreign source about German army structure): OKW had no authority on army,WSS,LW,KMdshaday wrote:
Maybe I am missing some subtle part of the process. Or maybe the US manual is wrong about OKW and it controlling OKH, OKL and OKM?
Lastly, am I correct in my assertion that the Waffen SS in not part of the Wehrmacht?
All the best
Dennis
2)Yes and no : the field units of the WSS were de facto a part of the WM and acted as thus ( something Himmler disliked,but was powerless againt it)
-
sandeepmukherjee196
- Member
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
Dear Sid and Dennis......going beyond the semantics and nuances..the waffen ss was no doubt formed and ultimately controlled by the SS organisation ( under reichsfuhrer SS).. but our context here is the "military successes ( or otherwise) and operations of the waffen ss" .. so my approach has been dictated by that constraint.. hence i said that the waffen ss was a part of the wehrmacht..a la .. all military resources of the 3rd reich were per force under the functional ( as against administrative) control of the OKW..albeit loosely and unevenly..one can perhaps refer to : Stackelberg, Roderick (2007). The Routledge Companion to Nazi Germany....this command structure evolved and also ironically, became blurred and inconsistent as the war progressed...maybe now we can drop this and focus on the military aspect of the waffen ss ops ?
i have one issue to take up with you two (as i have been following from yr threads)...does a particular operation count as a success if the resistance is nominal or weak? i think military successes are not per se directly proportional to the volume of blood and gore spilled! or to the quantity of ordnance consumed..i think the real beauty of a successful ( strategically) ops is the smoothness and ease with which it comes.. if that is at all possible ! if belgrade was ' easy' so what of it? if peiper's group had it easy (initially) at the ardennes what of it? if operation panzerfaust didnt involve a mayhem so does it get discounted as a success? the very basis of the panzer doctrine.. was that the schwerpunkt ( spear head) will be at a point where there is least resistance and where penetration is easy..the bludgeoning and battering of powerful attacking formations against powerfully defended areas, as a thesis, was anathema to the guderian-manstein ( and others) panzer doctrine...
fall sichelschnitt..the german masterpiece of may '40 against the anglo- french ( and belgium, holland).. wasnt a bloody and gory affair was it? but isnt it one of the greatest strategic victories of all times ? speed and daring infiltrations can upset the enemy's defenses big time..to the casual observer it may appear that the victory is easy..i would like to quote general patton here in the phase after normandy when monty and patton were both piling on to eicke for supply priorities.. patton told reporters " .. there are maybe 5, 10 thousand nazis out there .. if only eicke will stop holding monty's hands and give me the supplies.. i will go through them like shit through goose " ! suppose that had happened... would that victory ( defeating germany before christmas) been discounted in strategic terms because it was easy?
ciao
i have one issue to take up with you two (as i have been following from yr threads)...does a particular operation count as a success if the resistance is nominal or weak? i think military successes are not per se directly proportional to the volume of blood and gore spilled! or to the quantity of ordnance consumed..i think the real beauty of a successful ( strategically) ops is the smoothness and ease with which it comes.. if that is at all possible ! if belgrade was ' easy' so what of it? if peiper's group had it easy (initially) at the ardennes what of it? if operation panzerfaust didnt involve a mayhem so does it get discounted as a success? the very basis of the panzer doctrine.. was that the schwerpunkt ( spear head) will be at a point where there is least resistance and where penetration is easy..the bludgeoning and battering of powerful attacking formations against powerfully defended areas, as a thesis, was anathema to the guderian-manstein ( and others) panzer doctrine...
fall sichelschnitt..the german masterpiece of may '40 against the anglo- french ( and belgium, holland).. wasnt a bloody and gory affair was it? but isnt it one of the greatest strategic victories of all times ? speed and daring infiltrations can upset the enemy's defenses big time..to the casual observer it may appear that the victory is easy..i would like to quote general patton here in the phase after normandy when monty and patton were both piling on to eicke for supply priorities.. patton told reporters " .. there are maybe 5, 10 thousand nazis out there .. if only eicke will stop holding monty's hands and give me the supplies.. i will go through them like shit through goose " ! suppose that had happened... would that victory ( defeating germany before christmas) been discounted in strategic terms because it was easy?
ciao
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
I don't see a reason to 'separate' the two (SS vs Army). I am reading the 'history of the 23rd PzD' recently and the division gets elements of 7th SS division subordinated to it, as is typical.
A lot of the examples being toted here as being spectacular and singular to the SS are actually regular, ordinary occurrences. I have never seen evidence of superior SS performance. They had better PR, that is all.
A lot of the examples being toted here as being spectacular and singular to the SS are actually regular, ordinary occurrences. I have never seen evidence of superior SS performance. They had better PR, that is all.
-
Sid Guttridge
- Member
- Posts: 10162
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
Hi Dennis,
We can agree that "Panzerfaust was a military operation and a military success.!" However, we must equally recognize that it was an internal security operation and that the more serious risk attended any Hungarians who chose to resist as they were far behind Axis lines. Personally, I think Operation Panzerfaust was Skorzeny's best "sneaky-beaky" success.
In writing "Fortess Belgrade" and "faux military epic" I am addressing your imprabable boosting of what was a well conducted operation, but one of occupation of a non-resisting city. 10 men to seize a capital city of whom one may have been injured? The Wehrmacht over ran the whole of a resisting Yugoslavia with only 192 dead. The unresisted W-SS entry into Belgrade was unexceptional and was as a direct consequence of wider events. The Yugoslavs had evacuated the Banat in front of Belgrade as untenable and declared Belgrade an Open City. All the W-SS had to do was move into the vacuum. Of course, they could not know for a fact it would be that easy and had to move tactically, but that easy it was. The W-SS lost more casualties through traffic accidents during the unopposed occupation of Austria in March 1938!
By defending the indefensible (which the Yugoslavs conspicuously didn't on this occasion) I would suggest that you are illustrating perfectly my point about the sometimes ludicrous over hyping of the Waffen-SS. Nobody wants to belittle the participants, but no one should want to exagerate their achievements either. Certainly occupying Belgrade was a military success. As Tun Tsu wrote, "To win without fighting is the acme of the military art." However, it was a minor footnote to a brilliant largely Army campaign that had ensured the Yugoslav's weren't going to try to hold Belgrade anyway. The Yugoslavs (or at least the Serbs) had history in this area. They had already evacuated Belgrade as indefensible twice in 1914 and did so again in 1915.
You write,"Your use implies that I have stated these words earlier in my response," No it doesn't. It implies the reverse, that it was not part of your quote. Hence the use of brackets and a different font.
But yes, it does imply that I was summarising for clarity.
And yes, you certainly never used those exact words and I never implied you did. But I very much got the impression that that was an accurate interpretation. So, I would again ask for an explanation of what that "that" actually referred to, if not "Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status"? The context seemed to me to imply that.
Your misunderstanding about the origins of the book on SS-Heimwehr Danzig is implausible. Is it really likely that there was an English language book on a very, very obscure and undistinguished SS unit that only existed for a few weeks in August-September 1939 published in English during the war? There are now hundreds, possibly thousands, of books on the Waffen-SS in English. How many others do you know of that were published in English during the war? I don't know of any, but then I am no expert.
Yes, my last sentence was incomplete. My apologies. It is due to the haste with which I must reply as I normally only have about an hour on line a day and sometimes have little time to proof read. However, as this seems to concern you, I will correct it:
Yes, I do "mean the reference to an English language book" but no, it was not "of implied wartime origin". (I actually wrote "it even has an English language book dedicated to it!" No past tense.) (See SS-Heimwehr Danzig in Poland 1939 by Rolf Michaelis, which is still in print.) The fact that you "have never heard of a post-war hype on SS Danzig" does not mean that it does not exist.
Your post, "Yes your Majesty, I know the story about the Emperor's clothes." was one of the wittiest things I have seen on AHF. Respect. On a point of information, the correct form of address would be "Imperial Majesty".
Yes my posts on the Waffen SS do tend to focus on itsfailures /limitations. Why? Because, as I wrote, I "want the full picture to be presented. This may necessitate contradicting over boosting of Waffen-SS successes." Is this wrong? Should Waffen-SS advocates get a free ride regardless of how ludicrous their claims on its behalf?
The Waffen-SS had a good number of military successes that were not trivial. My point is that they were rarely, if ever, so exceptional that they could not have been performed by an equivalent Army formation. If this is the case (and my impression is that you tend to agree) then what was the military advantage of an independent Waffen-SS?
You write, "I would say that a distorted image and culture exists on this forum right now." and illustrate it by accurately referring to me "repeating the Waffen SS clone, Waffen-SSedness and no value-added message..." What is distorted in this?
I wrote and asked, "OK, so you hold the "classic" (!) SS divisions...... to be more than just competent ". However, this doesn't answer my earlier question: "To clarify, are you contending that it is not true that ".....any competent Army mechanized formation, of which there were many, could have performed exactly the same military role."? That remains my impression from your earlier post.
You replied, "Your question has already been answered by me. There are no inconsistencies in my replies so I don't need any reminding of what I have previously said."
I am sorry, but I cannot find your answer. Could you please direct me to it, or copy it in your reply.
You write "I hope we don’t have to do some more grammar stuff again." So do I. It is an unnecessary diversion. Let us agree not to get into petty points of spelling, grammar, etc., where it is obvious what is meant. Or ask questions when we are unsure.
Cheers,
Sid
We can agree that "Panzerfaust was a military operation and a military success.!" However, we must equally recognize that it was an internal security operation and that the more serious risk attended any Hungarians who chose to resist as they were far behind Axis lines. Personally, I think Operation Panzerfaust was Skorzeny's best "sneaky-beaky" success.
In writing "Fortess Belgrade" and "faux military epic" I am addressing your imprabable boosting of what was a well conducted operation, but one of occupation of a non-resisting city. 10 men to seize a capital city of whom one may have been injured? The Wehrmacht over ran the whole of a resisting Yugoslavia with only 192 dead. The unresisted W-SS entry into Belgrade was unexceptional and was as a direct consequence of wider events. The Yugoslavs had evacuated the Banat in front of Belgrade as untenable and declared Belgrade an Open City. All the W-SS had to do was move into the vacuum. Of course, they could not know for a fact it would be that easy and had to move tactically, but that easy it was. The W-SS lost more casualties through traffic accidents during the unopposed occupation of Austria in March 1938!
By defending the indefensible (which the Yugoslavs conspicuously didn't on this occasion) I would suggest that you are illustrating perfectly my point about the sometimes ludicrous over hyping of the Waffen-SS. Nobody wants to belittle the participants, but no one should want to exagerate their achievements either. Certainly occupying Belgrade was a military success. As Tun Tsu wrote, "To win without fighting is the acme of the military art." However, it was a minor footnote to a brilliant largely Army campaign that had ensured the Yugoslav's weren't going to try to hold Belgrade anyway. The Yugoslavs (or at least the Serbs) had history in this area. They had already evacuated Belgrade as indefensible twice in 1914 and did so again in 1915.
You write,"Your use implies that I have stated these words earlier in my response," No it doesn't. It implies the reverse, that it was not part of your quote. Hence the use of brackets and a different font.
But yes, it does imply that I was summarising for clarity.
And yes, you certainly never used those exact words and I never implied you did. But I very much got the impression that that was an accurate interpretation. So, I would again ask for an explanation of what that "that" actually referred to, if not "Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status"? The context seemed to me to imply that.
Your misunderstanding about the origins of the book on SS-Heimwehr Danzig is implausible. Is it really likely that there was an English language book on a very, very obscure and undistinguished SS unit that only existed for a few weeks in August-September 1939 published in English during the war? There are now hundreds, possibly thousands, of books on the Waffen-SS in English. How many others do you know of that were published in English during the war? I don't know of any, but then I am no expert.
Yes, my last sentence was incomplete. My apologies. It is due to the haste with which I must reply as I normally only have about an hour on line a day and sometimes have little time to proof read. However, as this seems to concern you, I will correct it:
Yes, I do "mean the reference to an English language book" but no, it was not "of implied wartime origin". (I actually wrote "it even has an English language book dedicated to it!" No past tense.) (See SS-Heimwehr Danzig in Poland 1939 by Rolf Michaelis, which is still in print.) The fact that you "have never heard of a post-war hype on SS Danzig" does not mean that it does not exist.
Your post, "Yes your Majesty, I know the story about the Emperor's clothes." was one of the wittiest things I have seen on AHF. Respect. On a point of information, the correct form of address would be "Imperial Majesty".
Yes my posts on the Waffen SS do tend to focus on itsfailures /limitations. Why? Because, as I wrote, I "want the full picture to be presented. This may necessitate contradicting over boosting of Waffen-SS successes." Is this wrong? Should Waffen-SS advocates get a free ride regardless of how ludicrous their claims on its behalf?
The Waffen-SS had a good number of military successes that were not trivial. My point is that they were rarely, if ever, so exceptional that they could not have been performed by an equivalent Army formation. If this is the case (and my impression is that you tend to agree) then what was the military advantage of an independent Waffen-SS?
You write, "I would say that a distorted image and culture exists on this forum right now." and illustrate it by accurately referring to me "repeating the Waffen SS clone, Waffen-SSedness and no value-added message..." What is distorted in this?
I wrote and asked, "OK, so you hold the "classic" (!) SS divisions...... to be more than just competent ". However, this doesn't answer my earlier question: "To clarify, are you contending that it is not true that ".....any competent Army mechanized formation, of which there were many, could have performed exactly the same military role."? That remains my impression from your earlier post.
You replied, "Your question has already been answered by me. There are no inconsistencies in my replies so I don't need any reminding of what I have previously said."
I am sorry, but I cannot find your answer. Could you please direct me to it, or copy it in your reply.
You write "I hope we don’t have to do some more grammar stuff again." So do I. It is an unnecessary diversion. Let us agree not to get into petty points of spelling, grammar, etc., where it is obvious what is meant. Or ask questions when we are unsure.
Cheers,
Sid
-
Sid Guttridge
- Member
- Posts: 10162
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
Hi sandeepmukherjee,
Sorry for the delay in replying.
There is no real argument about whether there was a "Waffen-SS ethos". The disagreement seems to exist over what this distinctive Waffen-SS ethos consisted. I would argue that this distinctive ethos was entirely political and that militarily there was little or nothing distinctive about the Waffen-SS in the military sense.
You write, about "the difference in attitude under mortal combat situations between the ordinary heer soldier and the waffen ss men in the last days". As I have posted before, this is not to compare like with like. In 1944-45 the ordinary heer man was a conscript or older reservist who operated on foot as part of a horsedrawn infantry division. The typical (Alt Reich German) Waffen-SS man was a young volunteer who operated in a mechanized armoured formation. The Army division most directly equatable with the senior Alt Reich Waffen-SS divisions was the Grossdeutschland.
Cheers,
Sid.
Sorry for the delay in replying.
There is no real argument about whether there was a "Waffen-SS ethos". The disagreement seems to exist over what this distinctive Waffen-SS ethos consisted. I would argue that this distinctive ethos was entirely political and that militarily there was little or nothing distinctive about the Waffen-SS in the military sense.
You write, about "the difference in attitude under mortal combat situations between the ordinary heer soldier and the waffen ss men in the last days". As I have posted before, this is not to compare like with like. In 1944-45 the ordinary heer man was a conscript or older reservist who operated on foot as part of a horsedrawn infantry division. The typical (Alt Reich German) Waffen-SS man was a young volunteer who operated in a mechanized armoured formation. The Army division most directly equatable with the senior Alt Reich Waffen-SS divisions was the Grossdeutschland.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Sid Guttridge
- Member
- Posts: 10162
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
Hi sandeepmukherjee,
As your Post #136 is a repeat of an earlier one, I feel impelled to repeat my then reply:
My problem with the concept of so-called "Waffen-SS victories" are severalfold.
All Waffen-SS operations were part of wider German Army operations. Usually the Waffen-SS was a minority presence, though on occasion its formations were certainly disproportionally influential. However, I would suggest that the primary reason for this was not any unique quality of "Waffen-SS-edness" but more due to the fact that all the Reich-raised W-SS divisions were always motorized and latterly armoured.
You mention Kharkov. The Waffen-SS armoured corps actually lost Kharkov in the first place (though there was no particular discredit in this), so the successful counter-attack of which its divisions formed the core was to restore the status quo. The reason why the Waffen-SS was available in strength for this operation was that while the Ostheer had been struggling against the Soviets over the winter of 1942-43 and was exhausted, all the senior W-SS divisions had been rebuilding in France on manpower and weaponry largely diverted from the German Army.
At Arnhem a single lightly equipped airborne division landed on the remains of two W-SS armoured divisions. The outcome, while not entirely inevitable, was certainly unsurprising. Again, no particular quality of "Waffen-SS-edness" was either required or evident in achieving this outcome.
The rescue of Mussolini was a Luftwaffe paratroop operation hijacked by Skorzeny, who put its success in jeopardy by insisting on accompanying Mussolini out and thereby overloaded the Fiesler Storch carrying them and nearly caused it to crash. All Skorzeny's successes were as an internal enforcer inside Axis-occupied Europe. The rescue of Mussolini took place from far behind German lines.
One would think that the W-SS were the only Germans conducting valiant rearguards over 1943-45. The whole German armed forces were engaged in such operations. If they are particularly known for it, I would suggest that is largely down to the massive post-war publishing industry devoted to the Waffen-SS, which distorts the historical record by boosting it at the expense of the far larger and more innovative German Army, of which, militarily, the Waffen-SS was little more than a clone.
Cheers,
Sid
As your Post #136 is a repeat of an earlier one, I feel impelled to repeat my then reply:
My problem with the concept of so-called "Waffen-SS victories" are severalfold.
All Waffen-SS operations were part of wider German Army operations. Usually the Waffen-SS was a minority presence, though on occasion its formations were certainly disproportionally influential. However, I would suggest that the primary reason for this was not any unique quality of "Waffen-SS-edness" but more due to the fact that all the Reich-raised W-SS divisions were always motorized and latterly armoured.
You mention Kharkov. The Waffen-SS armoured corps actually lost Kharkov in the first place (though there was no particular discredit in this), so the successful counter-attack of which its divisions formed the core was to restore the status quo. The reason why the Waffen-SS was available in strength for this operation was that while the Ostheer had been struggling against the Soviets over the winter of 1942-43 and was exhausted, all the senior W-SS divisions had been rebuilding in France on manpower and weaponry largely diverted from the German Army.
At Arnhem a single lightly equipped airborne division landed on the remains of two W-SS armoured divisions. The outcome, while not entirely inevitable, was certainly unsurprising. Again, no particular quality of "Waffen-SS-edness" was either required or evident in achieving this outcome.
The rescue of Mussolini was a Luftwaffe paratroop operation hijacked by Skorzeny, who put its success in jeopardy by insisting on accompanying Mussolini out and thereby overloaded the Fiesler Storch carrying them and nearly caused it to crash. All Skorzeny's successes were as an internal enforcer inside Axis-occupied Europe. The rescue of Mussolini took place from far behind German lines.
One would think that the W-SS were the only Germans conducting valiant rearguards over 1943-45. The whole German armed forces were engaged in such operations. If they are particularly known for it, I would suggest that is largely down to the massive post-war publishing industry devoted to the Waffen-SS, which distorts the historical record by boosting it at the expense of the far larger and more innovative German Army, of which, militarily, the Waffen-SS was little more than a clone.
Cheers,
Sid
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
Hi Sid
This is where I truly suspect the issue lies in our recent posts, since I am not boosting anything.
I presented facts of what happened and ultimately, it is up to the reader to decide.
I do however keep correcting the same mistakes you post about the incident. If you check through my posts you will see that I keep saying that Belgrade was not truly un-defended, and that it cannot be assumed to still be an open city etc. You keep saying the opposite and appear to interpret this as boosting the Waffen SS, and respond by escalating the language and downplaying the SS.
Once again (my emphasis added by using bold text):
It has already been posted that: The SS had 11 men in total. They took the surrender of the city, they did not seize it street by street. Entry was opposed (but poorly). At least one man was injured. It was exceptional because of the daring and bluff used. It was not easy because of the danger, and resistance – as shown by the 1300 prisoners taken and the main firefight. This was not "easy" (as also shown by the RK given to Klingenberg).
Note how I am I not boosting anything. I have presented the facts as reported and without flowery language. Ironically, it is you who illustrates a hype against the Waffen SS when faced with inconvenient facts. Trying to ignore or deny them, and use sarcastic language to push them aside.
I see that you have, for the first time, called the Belgrade operation a military success.
The phrase in question is indeed ” (Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status)”.
Also undesirable, is subtle bias by omission or keeping silent about the positive successes of the Waffen SS and not presenting that side of the picture. So, again, how about two examples of SS military successes from you? Since you say there are many examples.
Only because you asked.
How about the deliberate, provocative language used and the repeated posting of that message at the slightest opportunity (which looks and feels awfully like baiting). This is how it comes across to me, even if this is not your intention.
My answer is in the text that you have quoted back to me, and (in more detail) within the “Why the Waffen SS” thread from post # 651 onwards. If you still have a genuine question then please PM me. I am trying not to side-track this thread.
Regards
Dennis
Sid Guttridge wrote: In writing "Fortess Belgrade" and "faux military epic" I am addressing your imprabable boosting of what was a well conducted operation, but one of occupation of a non-resisting city.
This is where I truly suspect the issue lies in our recent posts, since I am not boosting anything.
I presented facts of what happened and ultimately, it is up to the reader to decide.
I do however keep correcting the same mistakes you post about the incident. If you check through my posts you will see that I keep saying that Belgrade was not truly un-defended, and that it cannot be assumed to still be an open city etc. You keep saying the opposite and appear to interpret this as boosting the Waffen SS, and respond by escalating the language and downplaying the SS.
Sid Guttridge wrote: 10 men to seize a capital city of whom one may have been injured? The Wehrmacht over ran the whole of a resisting Yugoslavia with only 192 dead. The unresisted W-SS entry into Belgrade was unexceptional and was as a direct consequence of wider events. The Yugoslavs had evacuated the Banat in front of Belgrade as untenable and declared Belgrade an Open City. All the W-SS had to do was move into the vacuum. Of course, they could not know for a fact it would be that easy and had to move tactically, but that easy it was. The W-SS lost more casualties through traffic accidents during the unopposed occupation of Austria in March 1938!
By defending the indefensible (which the Yugoslavs conspicuously didn't on this occasion) I would suggest that you are illustrating perfectly my point about the sometimes ludicrous over hyping of the Waffen-SS. Nobody wants to belittle the participants, but no one should want to exagerate their achievements either. Certainly occupying Belgrade was a military success.
Once again (my emphasis added by using bold text):
It has already been posted that: The SS had 11 men in total. They took the surrender of the city, they did not seize it street by street. Entry was opposed (but poorly). At least one man was injured. It was exceptional because of the daring and bluff used. It was not easy because of the danger, and resistance – as shown by the 1300 prisoners taken and the main firefight. This was not "easy" (as also shown by the RK given to Klingenberg).
Note how I am I not boosting anything. I have presented the facts as reported and without flowery language. Ironically, it is you who illustrates a hype against the Waffen SS when faced with inconvenient facts. Trying to ignore or deny them, and use sarcastic language to push them aside.
I see that you have, for the first time, called the Belgrade operation a military success.
You are wrong.Sid Guttridge wrote:You write,"Your use implies that I have stated these words earlier in my response," No it doesn't. It implies the reverse, that it was not part of your quote. Hence the use of brackets and a different font.
I will once again repeat my answer:Sid Guttridge wrote: So, I would again ask for an explanation of what that "that" actually referred to, if not "Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status"? The context seemed to me to imply that.
The phrase in question is indeed ” (Luftwaffe abuse through bombing of Belgrade's Open City status)”.
I am most qualified to say how I read and understood your original SS Danzig text – not you. There was no “misunderstanding” but a demonstrated failure on your part to write what you wanted to say. I cannot read your mind.Sid Guttridge wrote: Your misunderstanding about the origins of the book on SS-Heimwehr Danzig is implausible.
Illustrating the full, relevant picture is of course commendable and necessary.Sid Guttridge wrote:Yes my posts on the Waffen SS do tend to focus on itsfailures /limitations. Why? Because, as I wrote, I "want the full picture to be presented. This may necessitate contradicting over boosting of Waffen-SS successes." Is this wrong? Should Waffen-SS advocates get a free ride regardless of how ludicrous their claims on its behalf?
Also undesirable, is subtle bias by omission or keeping silent about the positive successes of the Waffen SS and not presenting that side of the picture. So, again, how about two examples of SS military successes from you? Since you say there are many examples.
Sid Guttridge wrote: You write, "I would say that a distorted image and culture exists on this forum right now." and illustrate it by accurately referring to me "repeating the Waffen SS clone, Waffen-SSedness and no value-added message..." What is distorted in this?
Only because you asked.
How about the deliberate, provocative language used and the repeated posting of that message at the slightest opportunity (which looks and feels awfully like baiting). This is how it comes across to me, even if this is not your intention.
Sid Guttridge wrote: I wrote and asked, "OK, so you hold the "classic" (!) SS divisions...... to be more than just competent ". However, this doesn't answer my earlier question: "To clarify, are you contending that it is not true that ".....any competent Army mechanized formation, of which there were many, could have performed exactly the same military role."? That remains my impression from your earlier post.
You replied, "Your question has already been answered by me. There are no inconsistencies in my replies so I don't need any reminding of what I have previously said."
I am sorry, but I cannot find your answer. Could you please direct me to it, or copy it in your reply.
My answer is in the text that you have quoted back to me, and (in more detail) within the “Why the Waffen SS” thread from post # 651 onwards. If you still have a genuine question then please PM me. I am trying not to side-track this thread.
Agree in principle, but remember that one cannot assume that the points in a written message are always “obvious”, or have been understood as expected because the reader has not asked questions. Case in point is your SS Heimwehr Danzig text, and the incorrect use of quotations (that you assume to be common knowledge). I never comment on spelling since that is my own big problem.Sid Guttridge wrote: You write "I hope we don’t have to do some more grammar stuff again." So do I. It is an unnecessary diversion. Let us agree not to get into petty points of spelling, grammar, etc., where it is obvious what is meant. Or ask questions when we are unsure.
Regards
Dennis
-
Michael Kenny
- Member
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS
sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:hi sid..apropos of your logic that in the last days the heer guy was most likely a elderly reservist in a horse drawn or foot slogging unit whereas the waffen ss lad was young, zealous and better equipped ..
The surviving film from 1945 (some in colour) shows that not to be true. Plenty of young men in vehicles and acres of lined up surrendered afvs.
Fact is over 100 intact divisions (including SS) surrendered in 1945.
This touching belief in the superiority of the SS and the attempts to portray European volunteers flocking to defend the Fuhrer in Berlin is getting a bit tiresome.