The heroic resistance of the Hitler Youth at Pichelsdorf bridge, Berlin

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Germanicus,

No apology necessary. Without your efforts none of this would be available to us.

Many thanks.

Sid.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi Everybody...

Have you heard that the old Pichelsdorf ( Frey) bridge ( repaired after WW II ) is being demolished since 18 march this year? It is apparently not fit for heavy traffic any more.. so..

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Freybruecke_Spandau_Abriss_17-03-15_Panorama.jpg

Freybruecke_Spandau_Abriss_17-03-15_Panorama.jpg (57.32 KiB) Viewed 1394 times

Dunno if folks responsible for these things have gone through our thread in the run up to this demolition ! The timing is coincidental.. huh !?

Ciao
Sandeep

[sandeepmukherjee196]

HI everbody...

The following is an excerpt from Der Spiegel 22 /1965 : DIE RUSSEN IN BERLIN 1945, SPIEGEL-Serie von Erich Kuby:



"....29. April 1945

Der unermüdliche Weidling macht im Bunker neue Vorschläge für einen Ausbruch der "Garnison Berlin" nach Westen - zusammen mit dem Führer. Reichsjugendführer Axmann unterstützt Weidling durch eine Art Garantieversprechen für Leben und Sicherheit Hitlers, für die er die Hitler-Jugend verpfändet.

Je nach der Lage in der Stadt wechseln die Vorstellungen Weidlings und seiner beiden Stabschefs Refior und Dufving darüber, wie der Ausbruch noch praktisch geführt werden könne.

Es scheint nur noch einen Weg zu geben, sich herauszukämpfen: über die Heerstraße und die Havelbrücken bei Pichelsdorf und Spandau-West, wo die HJ fanatisch unter dem Obergebietsführer Schlünder und dem Major und ehemaligen HJ-Führer Theilhacker noch immer Panzerjagd in Ruinen betreibt, was die Sowjets dort auf der Stelle treten läßt - getreu ihrer Berliner Devise: Nur keine unnötigen Opfer mehr!...."



In this thread it has been said several times that the HJ saga at the Pichelsdorf bridge is about just passing references and casual mentions from primary sources. Based on these references I am supposed to have spun out hyperboles.

Isnt it curious that all primary sources somehow ( in their so called "passing references" ) always manage to use "hyperboles" when talking of the HJ action at the Pichelsdorf bridges? In this case the writer when quoting Weidling and Axmann, uses the term: " HJ fanatisch" (HJ fanatics) defending the bridges over which Weidling and Axmann plan to "guarantee" ( Garantieversprechen) an escape from Berlin for Hitler and the German troops. The basis of Axmann's promise was his certainty about the efficacy of the HJ at the Pichelsdorf ( für die er die Hitler-Jugend verpfändet).

We know that people didnt give guarantees to Hitler lightly on matters as grave as his personal security... more so when they were physically in a position to be held to account for a failure to deliver.

The HJ effectiveness as a whole, in the last days was uneven as we all know. What in this particular instance generated the confidence ?

Ciao
Sandeep

[Michael Kenny]

.

Isnt it curious that all primary sources somehow ( in their so called "passing references" ) always manage to use "hyperboles" when talking of the HJ action at the Pichelsdorf bridges

The curious thing is your use hyperbole as the default way of describing any resistance in Berlin. I recognise self-serving puffery whichever nation it is describing but you have this blind spot where you do not recognise it when it describes those who you worship. Your gave your gameplan away with the thread title.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

.

Isnt it curious that all primary sources somehow ( in their so called "passing references" ) always manage to use "hyperboles" when talking of the HJ action at the Pichelsdorf bridges

The curious thing is your use hyperbole as the default way of describing any resistance in Berlin. I recognise self-serving puffery whichever nation it is describing but you have this blind spot where you do not recognise it when it describes those who you worship. Your gave your gameplan away with the thread title.

Any other examples of my use of hyperbole about "any" resistance in Berlin?

[Christoph Awender]

Hello,

In agreeement with Michaels post I just want to say that the last sentence of your Quote says it all: "getreu ihrer Berliner Devise: Nur keine unnötigen Opfer mehr!...."

This does not mean that the resistance was so heavy or strong but that they tried to evade unnecessary casualties at this stage of war. What also means that a single shot from a Young Boy out of a window means that they stayed back, tried another way or took them out with other means than attack men against men.
All accounts of veterans from all sides especially HJ members I know say that they were just Boys not taken for full by the enemy because they were Boys and also fought like Boys. When they stopped an allied attack it was not their effectiveness BUT solely the fact that the attackers didn´t necessarily kill Boys and did not want to get killed by a lucky shot by one of These Kids.

/Christoph

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hello,

In agreeement with Michaels post I just want to say that the last sentence of your Quote says it all: "getreu ihrer Berliner Devise: Nur keine unnötigen Opfer mehr!...."

This does not mean that the resistance was so heavy or strong but that they tried to evade unnecessary casualties at this stage of war.

Hi..

The litany of accusations against the HJ seniors /3rd Reich leadership is strange indeed...on one hand we are told that young boys were needlessly and irresponsibly sent to their deaths..on the other hand there is your interpretation. No effective battle commander of any formation will invite unnecessary casualties. The HJ were there to do a job.. they were not meant to be a suicide squad. The Kamikaze spirit was alien to the Germans. They were brave and committed..but not suicidal.

What also means that a single shot from a Young Boy out of a window means that they stayed back, tried another way or took them out with other means than attack men against men.

The Russians were not likely to take the matter of Hitler's escape casually. They were not likely to treat the possible escape routes lightly. The Heerstrasse - Pichelsdorf route had been kept open with brave combat action..not a casual once-in-a-while shot from a window. One must remember that one is talking here of an inconsequential beer cellar where a few boys are holding out. We are dealing here with a direct escape route from the centre of Berlin to Spandau and beyond.

[Off topic content removed /Marcus]

Ciao
Sandeep

[Marcus]

sandeepmukherjee196, don't post off topic content in the discussion.

/Marcus

[Harro]

I seriously doubt the execution of two HJ members who were tried for spying reflects on the treatment of captured HJ members in general.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi ..

I haven't visited the thread for a long time. Recently was going through the pages with interest. I found a lot of dissonance over the term "Heroic". Does the battle conduct of the HJ boys at the Pichelsdorfer bridges and their approaches to the east and west, deserve the epithet "heroic"?

Given below are a sample of citations for US army Medal of Honour recipients - WW II:

[*]Lucian Adams, Army Staff Sergeant, near St. Die, France, October 28, 1944: For single-handedly destroying enemy machine gun emplacements to re-establish supply lines to U.S. Army companies

[*]Beauford T. Anderson, Army Technical Sergeant, Okinawa,April 13, 1945: Risked his life to save several of his fellow soldiers and repel an enemy attack single-handedly.

[*]Thomas E. Atkins, Army Private First Class, Villa Verde Trail, Luzon, Philippines, March 10, 1945: Remained in his fox hole for 4 hours bearing the brunt of each enemy assault and maintaining fire until each charge was repulsed.

This one is from the British Army, WW II :

[*]23 September 1943[13] Military Cross: Captain (temporary Major) Alastair Stevenson Pearson D.S.O. (62792), Army Air Corps: During the night 23/24 November 1942, when his Commanding Officer was severely wounded, Major Pearson assumed command of his Battalion and successfully completed the Operation. He continued to command his unit throughout the subsequent fighting and by his leadership and coolness under fire set an example of the highest degree. On Dec 11th, when the enemy attacked his sector, he, under heavy machine gun fire, organised and personally led a most successful counter attack destroying the enemy and capturing a number of prisoners. The conspicuous gallantry shown on this and other occasions has been an inspiration to all.

Do the actions of the HJ boys compare with the samples provided above? Would welcome your views please.

Ciao
Sandeep

[Germanicus]

Dear Sandeep, some will say... if it is to do with the allies everything was heroic. Just like in the movies. For example the Brad Pitt Movie Fury.. one disabled Ronson Sherman tank is able to create havoc on a scale unheard of in war yet is believed to be true. If it is to do with the Germans then nothing is heroic, they are incompetent in all they do and are amateurs at war. If it is to do with the SS or the Nazi Party it is anathema to even acknowledge anything worthwhile because it is akin to denouncing their participation in war crimes. Had the original post just focused on the historical aspect at what occurred at the Pichelsdorf Bridge and not included the word heroic then the post would have achieved greater results and not been a see saw match. Just saying. Germanicus

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi Mark.....long time !

The post did produce 26 action packed pages ! A lot of the action came from you, Greg Singh and eligius. Forum staff Art steadfastly backed the proposition that the bridges were important.

With the benefit of hind sight and the passage of 8 months, I was reviewing the thread. I thought it might be a good idea to check what construes heroism in battle from officially recognised heroic actions of various armies in WW II .
I thought that such a comparison might be a fair yardstick to once and for all put to rest this controversy about the title of this thread. Would you agree ?

Ciao
Sandeep

[Germanicus]

Dear Sandeep l believe any one who faces any form of attack to defend there homeland let alone to enter into battle to fight opponent's with overwhelming superior strength to be heroic especially when the odds are against you and victory is not assured. Some would call it insane yet life and honour is worth fighting for. Yet Berlin 1945 was something all together different. It truly was backs against the wall. No where to run. No where to hide. Stand up and fight. The casualty listing was enormous for such a short Battle. Most Respectfully Germanicus

[Rob - wssob2]

I haven't visited the thread for a long time. Recently was going through the pages with interest. I found a lot of dissonance over the term "Heroic". Does the battle conduct of the HJ boys at the Pichelsdorfer bridges and their approaches to the east and west, deserve the epithet "heroic"?

No it is not. Sending barely trained boys to fight is a callous and cynical act of desperation. One could argue that Nazi Germany's use of child soldiers was one of the reasons the 1949 Geneva Conventions stipulated that children not be recruited into military formations (Protocol I, Article 77.2).

After 26 pages on this thread, I still can't see any evidence that the "defense" of the Pichelsdorf Bridge influenced the outcome of the campaign.

Considering that in the 21st Century the use of child soldiers is considered tactically dubious and morally reprehensible, it seems strange that you are defending Nazi's Germany's use of such forces as "heroic." Do you consider them heroic because they were children or because they were fighting for the Nazis?

Given below are a sample of citations for US army Medal of Honour recipients - WW II:

But they are not child soldiers.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

I haven't visited the thread for a long time. Recently was going through the pages with interest. I found a lot of dissonance over the term "Heroic". Does the battle conduct of the HJ boys at the Pichelsdorfer bridges and their approaches to the east and west, deserve the epithet "heroic"?

No it is not. Sending barely trained boys to fight is a callous and cynical act of desperation. One could argue that Nazi Germany's use of child soldiers was one of the reasons the 1949 Geneva Conventions stipulated that children not be recruited into military formations (Protocol I, Article 77.2).

After 26 pages on this thread, I still can't see any evidence that the "defense" of the Pichelsdorf Bridge influenced the outcome of the campaign.

Considering that in the 21st Century the use of child soldiers is considered tactically dubious and morally reprehensible, it seems strange that you are defending Nazi's Germany's use of such forces as "heroic." Do you consider them heroic because they were children or because they were fighting for the Nazis?

Given below are a sample of citations for US army Medal of Honour recipients - WW II:

But they are not child soldiers.

The straw man arguments never end.

[*] No one ever claimed that the defence of the Pichelsdorfer bridges ever influenced the outcome of the campaign. So there is no question of anyone providing evidence to that effect.

[*] The youngsters defending the Heerstrasse - Pichelsdorfer area were not "barely" trained. They were moderately trained, as has been mentioned in a number if posts here. For some strange reason you choose to overlook that.

[*] 16 / 17 year old youngsters (average age of the HJ unit at that location) have been recruited as trainees in many mainstream armies of the world.

[*] No one ever said that it was heroic on the part of the State to deploy these youngsters. One is trying to figure out if the battle conduct of the HJ personnel in a cataclysmic situation, was heroic.

[*] I am trying to compare the battle conduct of soldiers under similar, no holds barred .... no quarters given .. combat situations.

Ciao
Sandeep