Handschar couldn't be compared to divisions like the Nederland or the Nordland for sure... Keep in mind Nordland,Nederland, Latvia had already a core of experienced soldiers & ncos (the former ss-legions) already serving since operation Barbarossa. This wasn't the case of the Handschar who had to rely on german officers and ncos... So, yes, the Handschar in its begining was not, in spite of its training and equipment, the same combat value like these divisions i mentioned.Pena V wrote:OfIvan_S wrote:George Lepre is right in his statement when comparing the Handschar with their german counterpartsdo you considerPena V wrote:the other Waffen-SS divisions of early and mid war years (1."LSSAH" - 23.D "Nederland")
7. D "Prinz Eugen"
11. D "Nordland"
14. D "Galizien"
15. D Latvia
18. D "Horst Wessel"
19. D Latvia 2
20. D "Estland"
21. D "Skanderbeg"
22. D Maria Theresia
23. D "Nederland"
to be German counterparts?Local context is always different but how was time different?Ivan_S wrote:Moreover, local context and time was different.
Concerning the timing it was raised, you should know people in the balkan were aware of the probable outcome of the war in the east after the Stalingrad disaster... For the axis, things were clearly turning bad. The fact that Himmler's service wouldn't have been able to get the division its full-manpower is an evidence of that. Thousands were volunteers but a sizeable numbers were just conscripts. At that time, with the increasing development of tito's partisans in bosnia (with more and more muslims serving with them), it wasn't evident to join the Handschar for a young muslim...
Had the german raised the Handschar earlier, things would have turned differently i think. Much more volunteers, more combat hardened ncos and soldiers and yes, we could have favorably compared the Handschar to its sister division, the Prinz Eugen.
ps : sorry when using the term "time", i meant the moment it was raised which, in bosnia wasn't the best one!