Why the Waffen-SS

[Georg_S]

The problem is that some people can only view the Waffen SS through the limited prism of the holocaust (like the war itself in many cases) and this colours the perception badly. The vast majority of men who passed through the ranks of the Waffen SS had nothing whatsoever to do with the nazis, or the final solution. But, interest in the Waffen SS is viewed by some as some sort of an endorsement of sorts of national socialist policies, although that sort of bogus attitude isn't limited to interest in the Waffen SS. Interest in the German armed forces of WWII comes in for that flak too.

The SS-Totenkopf had approx 6000 soldiers in the division in 1939 who had served is n KL - Oberbayern, Brandenburg and Thüringen . The rest came from SS-VT, Police and SS-Ersatz .

But there is a big difference between those in the SS-TV 1 , 2 and 3 and to Them who served in the Kommandantur of the camp.

After Demjansk 1943 the majority of the division was totally replaced with new recruits , those who survived Demjansk was mostly spread out in the system, some stayed in SS-T others came to 16.SS some to 9.SS , I had a friend who ended Up in SS-UFS Laibach as SS-Ostut. Etc ....

The few examples I know WHO served in the Kommandantur of KL and served in SS-T div is Paul Werner Hoppe, Hassebroek, Hartjenstein , Grünewald , plus some more but those came to KL after their service in SS- T div. The only I know about without checking my sources, who did the opposit is Ludwig Ehrsam, Dr Knapp Egon Zill and Karl Babor . . Im not sure about Aribert Heim .
Of course there Are some ex. but I need to check My sources before i can ad more names

Best regards
Georg

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Georg_S,

That makes sense. The Totenkopf Division suffered over three times its establishment strength in casualties during the war. Hardly anyone who began the war in it would have ended up in it, even without transfers.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Simon H]

um festzustellen, wem diese Marke gehörte? Ich fand sie in der Nähe von Rokycany in der Tschechischen Republik auf einer Mission in einem ehemaligen Gefangenenlager.
Laut den gezupften Löchern in der Schnur muss es ein langjähriger Träger gewesen sein, der sogar das Ende des Krieges erlebt hatte.
Es geht darum, die Einheit und vielleicht sogar den Namen des damaligen Trägers zu bestimmen.

It is not possible to identify the name of the owner of this erkennungsmarke. As said he was a former member of Der Führer Waffen SS unit. As this was found in a former POW camp it is possible he may have died in the camp, however in such camps these erkennungsmarke were very often removed, broken or lost so it is not possible to say for sure if he survived. You can contact the Federal Archives in Germany and they may be able to tell you basic information such as he lived or died but nothing more as such personal data is private.

[Aida1]

I do not believe that any discussion about W-SS can be isolated from the political/ideological background that is, since so many years, the major propulsion force for the "rehabilitation" of its public image and the innumerable examples of deliberate cleansing of its historical records. Dozens of small editors coming directly from ultra-right areas all across Europe are publishing hundreds of volumes dealing with W-SS regalia, militaria, military history, modelling and whatever, creating asort of favourable ground in the more general public that started to consider the W-SS as a "European" army fighting against communism, against darkness, against slavedom and "oriental" brutal culture, only accidentally related to "some mistakes" performed by the nazi regime. Especially interesting is the way foreign volunteers have been treated in their home country in the past 30 years. Even in the Scandinavian countries, where W-SS volunteers were, as a rule, prosecuted after the war, they are now enjoying a new life as "freedom fighters", all connection with war crimes and genocyde duly removed. This sub-strata is actually working under the surface of "official" historical research, creating a favourable enviroment for negationism and crimes relativization.

I think this is seriously over the top. You would not be able to support this by a serious source.

The serious source can be found on earlier pages of this thread...

The very colorful phrase about what the general public allegedly thinks about the waffen SS is a serious exaggeration. I think the general public is not even interested in the subject or even completely ignorant about it.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Aida,

I just had a look at Amazon.co.uk.

I typed in "Waffen-SS" in the title space.

It produced 75 pages of Waffen-SS books in print.

A quick survey of the first 11 pages showed an average of 15 titles per page.

11 x 75 = 825 W-SS titles in print, just in English!

God knows how many are out of print, or how many are in other languages.

Thus, in so far as ML59's proposition can be tested empirically, it appears that he is right.

Cheers,

Sid

[Westphalia1812]

The very colorful phrase about what the general public allegedly thinks about the waffen SS is a serious exaggeration. I think the general public is not even interested in the subject or even completely ignorant about it.

I would argue that the general public is not interested in WWII at all.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi PK,

For the most part that is true, but AHF is made up of "members of the public".

The fact that most of the public may not much care isn't a good reason to let distortion of the historical record go unchallenged.

The Waffen-SS was a comparatively minor and unnecessary military factor in WWII, but one wouldn't know it from the amount of books published on it.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Westphalia1812]

The fact that most of the public may not much care isn't a good reason to let distortion of the historical record go unchallenged.

And I was't trying to let it go unchallenged. That was just my inpression.

[Aida1]

The very colorful phrase about what the general public allegedly thinks about the waffen SS is a serious exaggeration. I think the general public is not even interested in the subject or even completely ignorant about it.

I would argue that the general public is not interested in WWII at all.

Exactly. The knowledge of history in general is also limited.

[Aida1]

Hi PK,

For the most part that is true, but AHF is made up of "members of the public".

The fact that most of the public may not much care isn't a good reason to let distortion of the historical record go unchallenged.

The Waffen-SS was a comparatively minor and unnecessary military factor in WWII, but one wouldn't know it from the amount of books published on it.

Cheers,

Sid.

Members of the general public are those not with a specific interest in military history. You have an obsession with the waffen Ss and whatever anybody thinks about it. Gets you into strange arguments sometimes.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Aida,

Actually, I have no particular interest in the Waffen-SS, as the variety of my posts here on AHF will show. I wouldn't swear to it, but I don't think I have ever started a thread on the W-SS.

What I do have is an aversion to the distortion of (military) history, to which, unfortunately, the Waffen-SS seems to be particularly prone.

If you want to narrow down the definition of "general public" for your specific purposes, that is up to you. However, nobody else has to go along with it, especially as it was not you who first raised the "general public" issue. That was ML59.

Members of the general public are all of us. We have an infinite variety of interests and knowledge, including military history. Unlike in the old days, when the general public had to go in search of books on the W-SS and purchase them, nowadays virtually everyone has free, open access to assorted media, such as AHF, on any subject, including the W-SS. This both empowers the "general public" and makes us vulnerable to misinformation outside our areas of expertise.

You post, "The knowledge of history in general is also limited." This is true. But that is precisely why it is necessary to call out, with reasons, distorted history on these assorted media, including AHF. AHF aspires to be a reference source of some authority, and that is why members of the public may consult it. Unfortunately, much of the general public does not have the analytical tools to sift out the wheat from the chaff and, unless it is called out, general posters from the public may fall prey to misinformation.

You say, "Gets you into strange arguments sometimes." about the Waffen-SS.

O.K. Time to put up. Which are these "arguments", and what makes them "strange"?

Cheers,

Sid

[Aida1]

Hi Aida,

Actually, I have no particular interest in the Waffen-SS, as the variety of my posts here on AHF will show. I wouldn't swear to it, but I don't think I have ever started a thread on the W-SS.

What I do have is an aversion to the distortion of (military) history, to which, unfortunately, the Waffen-SS seems to be particularly prone.

If you want to narrow down the definition of "general public" for your specific purposes, that is up to you. However, nobody else has to go along with it, especially as it was not you who first raised the "general public" issue. That was ML59.

Members of the general public are all of us. We have an infinite variety of interests and knowledge, including military history. Unlike in the old days, when the general public had to go in search of books on the W-SS and purchase them, nowadays virtually everyone has free, open access to assorted media, such as AHF, on any subject, including the W-SS. This both empowers the "general public" and makes us vulnerable to misinformation outside our areas of expertise.

You post, "The knowledge of history in general is also limited." This is true. But that is precisely why it is necessary to call out, with reasons, distorted history on these assorted media, including AHF. AHF aspires to be a reference source of some authority, and that is why members of the public may consult it. Unfortunately, much of the general public does not have the analytical tools to sift out the wheat from the chaff and, unless it is called out, general posters from the public may fall prey to misinformation.

You say, "Gets you into strange arguments sometimes." about the Waffen-SS.

O.K. Time to put up. Which are these "arguments", and what makes them "strange"?

Cheers,

Sid

You need a reality check. These days the general public looks for information on Google and ends up reading a Wikipedia article on a particular subject. So, if you are worried about an alleged distortion of history on the subject of the waffen Ss, you would need to start reading Wikipedia articles on the waffen Ss and its units and try to edit them if you think something is wrong This forum is not where the general public is going to get its information. No way. This forum is for individuals with a much deeper interest in the history of the axis in a broad sense. The type of people that still read books.
You did get yourself in a completely superfluous a and strange discussion on why supposedly the senior waffen SS divisions did not take part in the German summer offensive on the eastern front in 1942.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Aida1,

You don't know whether I contribute to Wikipedia or not. Nor have you asked.

I rather think it is up to me where I choose to post.

The fact that Wikipedia may be flawed is in no way a good reason not to challenge possible misinformation here. Such challenges, whether they prove justified or not, make AHF better, not worse.

You post, "You did get yourself in a completely superfluous a and strange discussion on why supposedly the senior waffen SS divisions did not take part in the German summer offensive on the eastern front in 1942." There is no "supposedly" about it. They simply did not. The reasons for that may be justifiable or not, but they certainly missed the entire Stalingrad campaign, which was arguably the turning point of the war.

The other participant in this "strange discussion" was you. The strange thing I remember from our earlier discussion was your contention that France was not a backwater in 1942 and your belief that there was some reason why German Army Groups could not transfer divisions between themselves.

What, specifically, is your problem with that discussion?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Aida1]

Hi Aida1,

You don't know whether I contribute to Wikipedia or not. Nor have you asked.

I rather think it is up to me where I choose to post.

The fact that Wikipedia may be flawed is in no way a good reason not to challenge possible misinformation here. Such challenges, whether they prove justified or not, make AHF better, not worse.

You post, "You did get yourself in a completely superfluous a and strange discussion on why supposedly the senior waffen SS divisions did not take part in the German summer offensive on the eastern front in 1942." You are still being unnecessarily vague. What, specifically, is your problem with that discussion?

Cheers,

Sid.

Exactly one year ago that discussion took place. So not difficult to go a few pages back to look at it. It was a useless discussion as you would probably be the only one that is bothered by the senior waffen Ss divisions being not involved in the German summer offensive in 1942.
I avoid reading Wikipedia articles as trying to modify mistakes is a waste of time so i prefer not to know about them. Wikipedians can be extremely stubborn.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Aida1,

I was not the least bit, "bothered by the senior waffen Ss divisions being not involved in the German summer offensive in 1942." However, for some reason, when I simply pointed out that all three senior W-SS divisions were absent from any active battlefront in the backwater of France during the winter of 1942/43, at what was arguably the turning point of the war, you objected to this fact being publicized.

Cheers,

Sid.