SS and the Wehrmacht

[nagantino]

On a school trip a number of years ago, I stayed with a German family. My host, a lecturer at Bonn university, was telling me about a lunch he had been to in the last week. He told me that when men of his age, 70 or so, gather, the talk always goes to the role of the SS in comparison to the Wehrmacht. I was immediately interested. He said that the argument always developed that the SS did little and that the Wehrmacht did the real fighting and that the SS turned up later when the fighting was done. I was open mouthed at this assertion. I told him that in the UK the understanding was that the SS were seen as Beserkers, almost, reckless even in their bravery. I was reluctant to challenge him. He was German and just after leaving the argument with his friends.....in Germany.
Has anyone else come across this arguement?

[Sid Guttridge]

That seems like an overstatement, but there are elements of truth within it. For example:

1) Germany made no conquests over 1938-42 in which W-SS support was indispensable. Thus when Germany was winning, the small W-SS was pretty much irrelevant to outcomes.

2) All three senior W-SS divisions were rebuilding in France at the time of Stalingrad. Thus they missed what was arguably the turning point of the war.

3) When the W-SS was expanded massively in the second half of the war, it failed to turn the tide. Given the wider circumstances, this was hardly its fault.

4) Later in the war, when W-SS divisions made an increasingly large proportion of the armoured corps, they were inevitably used as "fire brigades" against breakthroughs, just like Army panzer divisions. If this counts as "turning up late", then the same applies to the Army panzer divisions. Panzer divisions were not designed to hold the line like the infantry divisions that made up the bulk of the Army. Mechanized divisions also had the means to escape defeats, unlike the foot- and horse-bound infantry, and this probably caused resentment.

5) The 1st W-SS Division seems to have had a political function that sometimes kept it out of the line. As a result, its casualties seem to have been lower than its W-SS peers. For example, it was pulled out of Kursk and sent to Italy to try to prop up Mussolini.

Etc., etc.

Cheers,

Sid.

[DougW60]

Off the top of my head, coming up with rough numbers (okay very rough numbers) of divisions, the Waffen-SS had 8 divisions in action prior to 1 January 1943. During 1943 an additional 9 divisions begun forming / training / entering operations. By 1 January 1944, a total of 17 Waffen-SS divisions were available.

The Heer had approximately 225 divisions of all types in service during this period. (very very rough estimate)

This brings us a ratio of 13 Heer divisions for every 1 Waffen-SS division.

The numbers I gave are rough estimates but it provides a general view of why there can be a view that the Waffen-SS did little.

I think part of our perception of the role of the Waffen-SS in combat is the overwhelming number of publications about the Waffen-SS compared to the too few publications of the Heer divisions. I would love to see more books come out covering the histories of the Heer divisions.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Doug,

I think that is a little optimistic as regards W-SS divisions.

For example, 7th and 8th Divisions, although they existed by January 1943, were not on front line operations, but engaged against partisans.

Again, by January 1944 these two divisions were still on anti-partisan operations, while others that existed on paper, such as the 12th, 13th and 14th (and perhaps others) were not yet ready to field.

Finally, YES, YES, YES, I think you are absolutely right when you post, "I think part of our perception of the role of the Waffen-SS in combat is the overwhelming number of publications about the Waffen-SS compared to the too few publications of the Heer divisions. I would love to see more books come out covering the histories of the Heer divisions."

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sheldrake]

One of the German academics attached to the War Studies department at Sandhurst was researching this. This is what I recall from his presentation a few years ago.

• It is not true that the SS had more and better equipment - certainly from the panzer divisions in the West in 1944.
  
  The SS suffered from a shortage of trained officers and NCOs.
  
  It was true that the SS were more likely to commit atrocities. Only one of the SS divisions in Normandy (10 SS) did NOT have some atrocity associated with it.
  
  It was also true that far more SS men than Herr PW were killed by the allies after capture - or not allowed to surrender.

[DougW60]

Hey Sid

When I did the numbers, not being with my resources, I was thinking of all operations including anti-partisan and garrison. Yes, I agree that the 1 January number of Waffen-SS divisions did include those who have yet to complete training and deployed, but were established.

Just the numbers show how the German Vets have a point regarding the SS.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Sheldrake,

Peculiarly, an Austrian POW was more likely to die in Soviet captivity than an SS man. This was because three Austrian-raised divisions were lost early on at Stalingrad. from which disaster less than 10% of all prisoners survived. Most W-SS men were taken later in the war and had a higher captivity survival rate than the unfortunate Austrians.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Harro]

One of the German academics attached to the War Studies department at Sandhurst was researching this. This is what I recall from his presentation a few years ago.

• It is not true that the SS had more and better equipment - certainly from the panzer divisions in the West in 1944.
  
  The SS suffered from a shortage of trained officers and NCOs.
  
  It was true that the SS were more likely to commit atrocities. Only one of the SS divisions in Normandy (10 SS) did NOT have some atrocity associated with it.
  
  It was also true that far more SS men than Herr PW were killed by the allies after capture - or not allowed to surrender.

Which attrocity/attrocities were associated with the LSSAH in Normandy?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Harro,

On narrow, technical grounds, you may be right that Leibstandarte wasn't accused of war crimes in Normandy. However, it appears that the Leibstandarte stands accused of war crimes in almost every other national campaign in which it participated, both before and after Normandy. Indeed, it apparently killed civilians during the retreat from France immediately after the Normandy debacle. There is also the point that the HitlerJugend Division, which is accused of war crimes in Normandy, was to some degree a spin off of the Leibstandarte as regards officers. Thus any attempt to isolate the Leibstandarte from its past, future or relatives is essentially artificial, even if technically correct in this instance.

Cheers,

Sid.

[j keenan]

The above statement yet again from Sid makes no sense

[Harro]

Only one of the SS divisions in Normandy (10 SS) did NOT have some atrocity associated with it.

Which attrocity/attrocities were associated with the LSSAH in Normandy?

I thought my question was actually quite straight forward without any "attempt to isolate the Leibstandarte from its past". But let me rephrase it following Sid's reply...

Indeed, it apparently killed civilians during the retreat from France immediately after the Normandy debacle.

...Where and when did the Leibstandarte kill civilians during the retreat from France?

[Sheldrake]

Hi Sheldrake,

Peculiarly, an Austrian POW was more likely to die in Soviet captivity than an SS man. This was because three Austrian-raised divisions were lost early on at Stalingrad. from which disaster less than 10% of all prisoners survived. Most W-SS men were taken later in the war and had a higher captivity survival rate than the unfortunate Austrians.

Cheers,

Sid.

The presentation I attended was based on Normandy only.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Harro,

Apparently at Tavaux and Plomion on 30th and 31st of August, 1944.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Harro]

Very interesting! Never heard about this before. Internet sources mention I./SS-PGR 25 but are very vague about the involvement of the LAH. Seems I'll need to get my hands on "Histoire d'une tragédie" by Alain Nice

[j keenan]

It's not apparently it's a fact
On the 30th August 1944 about 50 soldiers of the LSSAH arrived Tavaux -et-Pontsericourt (10km south of Vervins in the Department of Aisne) where they shot in the streets and the houses of the village a total of 22 persons only two of whom survived.Many of the bodies were burnt as the Germans fired the town..The youngest victim was a two year old boy,seven victims were over seventy.The wife of a FFI leader,Mme.Maujeon,after having been tortured and wounded,was drenched in petrol and burnt alive in the presence of her children.When the children the oldest been 9,refused to divulge the whereabouts of the father,they were locked in the cellar and the house set alight.Fortunately the neighbours rescued the children as the SS troops left.83 houses were burnt in the village.
U.S.National Archives RG-153,151 Records of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (Army)
French War Crimes Cases,File Number 000-11127