Patton .................

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Patton .................

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Feb 2019 03:29

Hmm, looking at it, it looks like the 1st ID alone did report SS prisoners from some of the SS School establishment at Paderborn, Sennelager, Staumulen, Kaunitz, and Guttersloh.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

paulrward
Member
Posts: 375
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Patton .................

Post by paulrward » 04 Feb 2019 04:45

Hello All :

Mr. Mori wrote :
For the Ruhr pocket, I couldn't find any mention of SS PoWs in the S2/G2 that I read (and I read quite a few).

This is going to be a very controversial and divisive posting, but just because the U.S. troops didn't take any SS prisoners does
NOT mean that the SS WEREN'T THERE !

Remember, the fighting in the Ruhr Pocket was AFTER the Ardennes CounterOffensive. And that means, it was AFTER Malmedy.

I have spoken to U.S. Army veterans of the Third Army who very openly stated that, when they took prisoners, they separated anyone
who had SS insignia on their uniforms from the rest of the prisoners, marched them to an out-of-the-way area, and summarily executed
them. When the SS troops got wise to this, and began removing all of their insignia prior to surrendering, the U.S. troops responded
by making ALL German prisoners ' Strip their Sleeves ' , looking for SS tatoos. Any German prisoners with suspicious tatoos were often
given the same summary treatment. This behavior by the U.S. troops was contrary to published orders, but little or no efforts were
made by commanding officers to enforce discipline in this area.


So, the absence of SS POWs taken by U.S. forces can be quite understandable.


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices banned, are voices who cannot share information....

Mori
Member
Posts: 1003
Joined: 25 Oct 2014 11:04
Location: Europe

Re: Patton .................

Post by Mori » 04 Feb 2019 17:01

Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Feb 2019 03:12
Mori wrote:
03 Feb 2019 23:52
For the Ruhr pocket, I couldn't find any mention of SS PoWs in the S2/G2 that I read (and I read quite a few). These are the same sources the official historians used. Moreover, there is no mention of SS actors in the German documents, either in the contemporay records (or what's left of them) or in the numerous post war memoirs.
I'm surprised there were no Allgemeine SS captured, given they made up about 10% of the strength of the Wehrmacht by this time. Which units did you look at?
I checked FUSA, NUSA and all the US corps G2s. I also looked into many S2. And I read the bulk of the FMS on the period.

Allgemeine SS, if this included standard police, were in the Ruhr as elsewhere. Assimilating their mere presence to combat power would be quite an error. They did not have any combat power per se, contrary to SS brigades or divisions. Moreover, in the Ruhr pocket there is no example of high level commanders from civilian organizations (Allgemeine SS / Landschutsschtzen etc) taking control (and 'imposing their will on') of Wehrmacht units.

At some point one of the US teams made a list of all the entities the PoWs were from, as probably no more than 10% of the 300,000 PoW officially taken in the Ruhr pocket were serving in army formations. The Allies captured police, Flak units (including people just serving searchlights), security troops, replacement units, inspectors, liaison units, camps and dumps guards, firemen, training center personnel etc. But could not spot any sizeabl group of SS.

***

Besides, just wondering why it seems so difficult to accept that a 600+ pages book includes one error ?

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Patton .................

Post by Hanny » 04 Feb 2019 17:19

Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Feb 2019 03:29
Hmm, looking at it, it looks like the 1st ID alone did report SS prisoners from some of the SS School establishment at Paderborn, Sennelager, Staumulen, Kaunitz, and Guttersloh.
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/view ... sertations
SS Brigade Westfalen, comprising training formations from the schools you mention, was present and fought in the Ruhr.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Patton .................

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Feb 2019 17:39

Mori wrote:
04 Feb 2019 17:01
I checked FUSA, NUSA and all the US corps G2s. I also looked into many S2. And I read the bulk of the FMS on the period.
Gee, according to Mr. Ward, you should have checked TUSA as well...no, wait, they killed all the SS they captured, so didn't record any. :lol: :roll: :lol:

So none of them record SS prisoners when they gave the counts? 1st ID did, I suspect others would have as well?
Allgemeine SS, if this included standard police, were in the Ruhr as elsewhere. Assimilating their mere presence to combat power would be quite an error. They did not have any combat power per se, contrary to SS brigades or divisions. Moreover, in the Ruhr pocket there is no example of high level commanders from civilian organizations (Allgemeine SS / Landschutsschtzen etc) taking control (and 'imposing their will on') of Wehrmacht units.

At some point one of the US teams made a list of all the entities the PoWs were from, as probably no more than 10% of the 300,000 PoW officially taken in the Ruhr pocket were serving in army formations. The Allies captured police, Flak units (including people just serving searchlights), security troops, replacement units, inspectors, liaison units, camps and dumps guards, firemen, training center personnel etc. But could not spot any sizeabl group of SS.
Exactly. It did not require a Waffen-SS unit for their to be SS present and sometimes "taking control (and "imposing their will on") of Wehrmacht units", which is what I was speculating on and which I suspect is what Mac was referring to. As Hanny notes, SS-Brigade Westfalen was present commanding SS training units.
Besides, just wondering why it seems so difficult to accept that a 600+ pages book includes one error ?
Because I don't see where there is an "error" if SS were sometimes present and "taking control (and "imposing their will on") of Wehrmacht units"?
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Patton .................

Post by Hanny » 04 Feb 2019 17:57

Mori wrote:
02 Feb 2019 23:43
Richard Anderson wrote:
26 Jun 2018 19:48
Um, I'm afraid I don't see where Mac was erroneous in his work?
I came across the small error mentioned in this discussion: it's in "The Last Offensive", page 364. MacDonald describes the fights during the collapse of the Ruhr pocket in April 1945:
"At many small towns the burgomaster came out with a white flag; at others, the Germans fought until overwhelmed. The presence of SS troops more often than not made the difference."

However, there weren't any SS troops in the Ruhr pocket.

Let me again underline how I was surprised to find even such a small approximation in MacDonald's work, given its extremely high reliability. It's not at all typical of the 500 pages of the book.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/US ... st-16.html

He uses SS references on page 349, 358, before the reference you refer to, last refernce to SS pows is on page 369.

349" During the course of their peregrinations, the SS troops captured an American field hospital, where they obtained critically needed gasoline and transportation. Although they treated the hospital personnel correctly, a rumor that they had murdered the staff and raped the nurses accounted, General Patton reported later, for the fervor with which American troops hunted them down. Some 500 were killed before a last 800 surrendered"

I believe thats the 6th SS Mountain Div being refereed to.


369 "The flow of prisoners continued on the 17th--young men, old men, arrogant SS troops, dejected infantrymen, paunchy reservists, female nurses and technicians, teen-age members of the Hitler Youth, stiffly correct, monocled Prussians, enough to gladden the heart of a Hollywood casting director."
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1003
Joined: 25 Oct 2014 11:04
Location: Europe

Re: Patton .................

Post by Mori » 04 Feb 2019 18:18

Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Feb 2019 17:39
Mori wrote:
04 Feb 2019 17:01
I checked FUSA, NUSA and all the US corps G2s. I also looked into many S2. And I read the bulk of the FMS on the period.
Gee, according to Mr. Ward, you should have checked TUSA as well...
I did. And SUSA too. As well as Canadian, British and French. But did not think it was worth mentioning since they were not involved in the Ruhr fight.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1003
Joined: 25 Oct 2014 11:04
Location: Europe

Re: Patton .................

Post by Mori » 04 Feb 2019 18:19

Hanny wrote:
04 Feb 2019 17:57
He uses SS references on page 349, 358, before the reference you refer to, last refernce to SS pows is on page 369.

349" During the course of their peregrinations, the SS troops captured an American field hospital, where they obtained critically needed gasoline and transportation. Although they treated the hospital personnel correctly, a rumor that they had murdered the staff and raped the nurses accounted, General Patton reported later, for the fervor with which American troops hunted them down. Some 500 were killed before a last 800 surrendered"

I believe thats the 6th SS Mountain Div being refereed to.
Yes. But that's not the Ruhr pocket.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1003
Joined: 25 Oct 2014 11:04
Location: Europe

Re: Patton .................

Post by Mori » 04 Feb 2019 18:23

Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Feb 2019 17:39
Exactly. It did not require a Waffen-SS unit for their to be SS present and sometimes "taking control (and "imposing their will on") of Wehrmacht units", which is what I was speculating on and which I suspect is what Mac was referring to.
I suppose it's time to reverse the search for proofs. I made explicit all the sources I checked, sources which include a large bulk of the raw material used by official historians. I also checked the little that was available in German.

I now invite you to find something equivalent supporting the assumption of SS troops in the Ruhr pocket, and these being a key factor in slowing down the US units conquering the area. These SS troops must have left some kind of evidence other than a few words on a page of Charles MacDonald's book.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Patton .................

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Feb 2019 18:56

Mori wrote:
04 Feb 2019 18:18
Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Feb 2019 17:39
Mori wrote:
04 Feb 2019 17:01
I checked FUSA, NUSA and all the US corps G2s. I also looked into many S2. And I read the bulk of the FMS on the period.
Gee, according to Mr. Ward, you should have checked TUSA as well...
I did. And SUSA too. As well as Canadian, British and French. But did not think it was worth mentioning since they were not involved in the Ruhr fight.
Exactly. Perhaps you should let Mr. Ward know that. :lol:
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Patton .................

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Feb 2019 19:09

Mori wrote:
04 Feb 2019 18:23
I now invite you to find something equivalent supporting the assumption of SS troops in the Ruhr pocket, and these being a key factor in slowing down the US units conquering the area. These SS troops must have left some kind of evidence other than a few words on a page of Charles MacDonald's book.
I guess I'm getting confused now? I just did so. The 1st ID under VII Corps on 8 April 1945, while in the vicinity of Peckelsheim, reported the capture of 13 SS from the "1st SS Pz Ren Tng Bn", "2d SS Ren Repl Tng Bn", and "SS NCO Pz Ren Repl Tng Bn" out of the 143 captured that day. And so did you. You just stated a little while ago that:

"Allgemeine SS, if this included standard police, were in the Ruhr as elsewhere. Assimilating their mere presence to combat power would be quite an error. They did not have any combat power per se, contrary to SS brigades or divisions. Moreover, in the Ruhr pocket there is no example of high level commanders from civilian organizations (Allgemeine SS / Landschutsschtzen etc) taking control (and 'imposing their will on') of Wehrmacht units."

I understand your caveat, but I'm not sure it is relevant, especially given you also stated they were sometimes "taking control (and "imposing their will on") of Wehrmacht units".

Given that I fail to see where Mac was in error stating that SS personnel were present in the Ruhr Pocket and affecting the resistance put up at different places?
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Mori
Member
Posts: 1003
Joined: 25 Oct 2014 11:04
Location: Europe

Re: Patton .................

Post by Mori » 04 Feb 2019 20:43

Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Feb 2019 18:56
Exactly. Perhaps you should let Mr. Ward know that. :lol:
I didn't get the joke :oops:

But... never explain a joke! Forget it.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1003
Joined: 25 Oct 2014 11:04
Location: Europe

Re: Patton .................

Post by Mori » 04 Feb 2019 20:50

Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Feb 2019 19:09
I guess I'm getting confused now? I just did so. The 1st ID under VII Corps on 8 April 1945, while in the vicinity of Peckelsheim, reported the capture of 13 SS from the "1st SS Pz Ren Tng Bn", "2d SS Ren Repl Tng Bn", and "SS NCO Pz Ren Repl Tng Bn" out of the 143 captured that day.
Yes, correct. But Peckelsheim is not in the Ruhr pocket! It's 30km south-east of Paderborn, definitively outside the pocket.

Charles M. talks of those SS slowing down the Americans in the reduction of the pocket. The sentence that starts this conversation comes just after he writes of the Ruhr river and the Rhein-Herne canal, of Duisburg, Essen, Dortmund or the much smaller Soest. All these places are inside the pocket, not outside.

Again: there weren't any meaningful SS troops inside the Ruhr pocket.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Patton .................

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Feb 2019 21:09

Mori wrote:
04 Feb 2019 20:43
Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Feb 2019 18:56
Exactly. Perhaps you should let Mr. Ward know that. :lol:
I didn't get the joke :oops:

But... never explain a joke! Forget it.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Patton .................

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Feb 2019 21:16

Mori wrote:
04 Feb 2019 20:50
Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Feb 2019 19:09
I guess I'm getting confused now? I just did so. The 1st ID under VII Corps on 8 April 1945, while in the vicinity of Peckelsheim, reported the capture of 13 SS from the "1st SS Pz Ren Tng Bn", "2d SS Ren Repl Tng Bn", and "SS NCO Pz Ren Repl Tng Bn" out of the 143 captured that day.
Yes, correct. But Peckelsheim is not in the Ruhr pocket! It's 30km south-east of Paderborn, definitively outside the pocket.
Good point, technically they were trying to attack into the pocket rather than out of it.
Charles M. talks of those SS slowing down the Americans in the reduction of the pocket. The sentence that starts this conversation comes just after he writes of the Ruhr river and the Rhein-Herne canal, of Duisburg, Essen, Dortmund or the much smaller Soest. All these places are inside the pocket, not outside.

Again: there weren't any meaningful SS troops inside the Ruhr pocket.
So it wasn't meaningful if they were only sometimes "taking control (and "imposing their will on") of Wehrmacht units"? Wouldn't it be true by the same token that if "no more than 10% of the 300,000 PoW officially taken in the Ruhr pocket were serving in army formations" then Mac mentioning Wehrmacht troops in the pocket was also a mistake? :D
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”