Why the Waffen-SS

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Freikorps, Reichswehr, Austrian Bundesheer, Heer, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Fallschirmjäger and the other Luftwaffe ground forces. Hosted by Christoph Awender.
Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9467
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Sid Guttridge » 08 Mar 2021 18:32

Hi Aida1,

You post, "The only divisions having longer periods without action would be the ones that were lucky to be sent to OB West or anywhere else without action and that included Heer divisions." These Heer divisions were which ones? I bet they don't include half the Army's panzer divisions or a single Army motorized infantry division. By contrast, 100% of the Reich-raised Waffen-SS divisions spent time out of the line bin in France over June 1942 and June 1944.

You post, "Geting enough vehicles was a problem for waffen ss divisions too, particularly the ones set up later." So I ask again, why set up divisions you cannot equip?

You post, "DR and LAH would be the only ones that would get priority over other waffen ss divisions where men and equipment is concerned." And yet LAH and DR spent nearly half their time between mid 1942 and mid-1944 not on any active battlefront! Why not give the equipment to Army divisions that actually were on an active battlefront throughout this period? At least it might get more use!

You post, "And obviously completely not talking about waffen ss divisions that were on the front most of the time." There were only six Reich-raised, Waffen-SS, panzer divisions. Of them, only the Totenkopf was almost continually on an active battlefront.

You post, "Being meant for OB West meant that they SHOULD not be deployed elsewhere.......but then did it anyway when a crisis developed in the east and as a consequence 9 and 10 ss were absent in june 1944." I never said I believed what you posted, as I have previously pointed out to you. I was simply saying that if you deploy that argument then it reinforces my point by suggesting that it makes the senior Reich-raised look less flexibly deployable than their Army equivalents. If you want to back off that suggestion, then it is fine by me.

You post, "Germany did continuously have to have divisions in France including good mobile divisions and so they would spend this time not fighting." A point I have made to you repeatedly.

My question is why such a high proportion of the senior, Reich-raised, Waffen-SS mechanized divisions "spend this time not fighting" but such a low proportion of their nearest Army equivalents? It's not as if Germany didn't "continuously have to have..... good mobile divisions" on the Eastern Front, is it?

You post, "You actually want Hitler to send depleted mot div of AGN or AGC when an allied landing was considered imminent instead of the almost refitted DR which was near and LAH which was at full strength." Given that you say above that the two Waffen-SS divisions had suffered no more heavily than Army divisions, this leads to the question as to why were they given the preferential treatment of being withdrawn from the Eastern Front and refitted while their Army equivalents weren't?

You post, "You really are overestimating here by thinking you have made a discovery that not any historian has ever noticed....." I am only following what you posted above. As a matter of interest, who else has pointed out the absence of the senior, Reich-raised, Waffen-SS divisions from any active battlefront for so much of mid-1942 to mid-1944 compared with their more operationally active Army equivalents?

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 14:08

Das deutsche Reich und der zweite Weltkrieg 6 Der globale Krieg DVA 1990 PP 790_791
'The beginning of may it was indeed clear that only the divisions and army troops of Army Group South could be generally refilled upto the beginning of the operation; large gaps in the equipment of the fast units could only be expected regarding pz II. This filling up could- similarly to the personell sector-only be realised at the expense of Army Groups Center and North. Namely its pz divisions would- according to the calculations of the Algemeines Heeresamt included in the memorandum 'Wehrkraft 42'- instead of 3 only dispose of 1 Abteilung and through this barely justify its denomination.
…..
End march 1942 ,at the moment when the Weisung 41 was decided the number of divisions suitable for all missions had shrunk to 8 of totally 162 divisions, therefore to around 5 percent, among them not more than 2 pz and 3 inf div(june 41 21 Panzer and 19 inf div) which were considered as fully usable.
Even when could count with a not negligable increase of the battleworth of the east divisions in the remaining weeks before the beginning of the main operation, among all offices and staffs there was a minimum consensus to the effect that a 'refitting of the whole east army to full battle strength and mobility was possible neither materially nor personell".

Just to make clear that the suggestion that any division could be sent west in july 42 does not make much sense.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9467
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Sid Guttridge » 09 Mar 2021 14:16

Hi Aida1,

I see no specific mention of Waffen-SS divisions.

You post, ".....the suggestion that any division could be sent west in july 42 does not make much sense." Who made such a suggestion? It wasn't me.

And why not, anyway? 6th, 7th and 10th Panzer Divisions had been sent to France to recuperate in May.

You are still evading the fundamental question as to why, in mid 1942, the senior, Reich-raised, Waffen-SS divisions (1) received priority in being withdrawn from any active battlefront and (2) nevertheless received priority in re-equipment?

This is clearly special treatment, because none of that happened to their Army equivalents, which had to struggle on on the eastern Front throughout 1942.

Cheers,

Sid
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 09 Mar 2021 14:23, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 14:19

Sid Guttridge wrote:
08 Mar 2021 18:32
Hi Aida1,



You post, "You actually want Hitler to send depleted mot div of AGN or AGC when an allied landing was considered imminent instead of the almost refitted DR which was near and LAH which was at full strength." Given that you say above that the two Waffen-SS divisions had suffered no more heavily than Army divisions, this leads to the question as to why were they given the preferential treatment of being withdrawn from the Eastern Front and refitted while their Army equivalents weren't?

You post, "You really are overestimating here by thinking you have made a discovery that not any historian has ever noticed....." I am only following what you posted above. As a matter of interest, who else has pointed out the absence of the senior, Reich-raised, Waffen-SS divisions from any active battlefront for so much of mid-1942 to mid-1944 compared with their more operationally active Army equivalents?

Cheers,

Sid.
Contrary to you ,no historian would find it abnormal that Hitler sent LAH and DR to reinforce OB west. And they would certainly not believe it was meant to intentionally spare them from combat as you always suggest.
LAH had been refitted behind the front so you make no sense as it was not withdrawn from the eastern front for refit. DR was also upgraded so there is nothing peculiar in that the remnants of it would join the units being set up for the upgrade in Germany.
Decisions on refit and upgrade of waffen ss divisions are completely separate from that of army divisions as their manpower is recruited differently.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 14:21

Sid Guttridge wrote:
09 Mar 2021 14:16
Hi Aida1,

I see no specific mention of Waffen-SS divisions.

You post, ".....the suggestion that any division could be sent west in july 42 does not make much sense." Who made such a suggestion? It wasn't me.

Cheers,

Sid
You did state any Heer division coould have been sent to OB West which makes no sense given the depleted state of mobile divisions of AGC and AGN.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 14:34

Sid Guttridge wrote:
08 Mar 2021 18:32
Hi Aida1,

You post, "The only divisions having longer periods without action would be the ones that were lucky to be sent to OB West or anywhere else without action and that included Heer divisions." These Heer divisions were which ones? I bet they don't include half the Army's panzer divisions or a single Army motorized infantry division. By contrast, 100% of the Reich-raised Waffen-SS divisions spent time out of the line bin in France over June 1942 and June 1944.


Cheers,

Sid.
A statement without merit as decisions to allocate units to theatres are not based on quotas. Originally OB West got zero waffen ss diviSons in 1942. Two were simply added later because of an imminent threat. Your statement about the 100% is obviously ridiculous given that you are forgetting a number of SS divisions. :lol: :lol: Anyway, you are making the very stupid assertion that it is somewhat a demerit to a division if it is raised with the explicit mission to be reserve for OB West. And again suggesting that it was done to spare divisions from combat. :roll:

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 14:40

Sid Guttridge wrote:
08 Mar 2021 18:32
Hi Aida1,





You post, "Being meant for OB West meant that they SHOULD not be deployed elsewhere.......but then did it anyway when a crisis developed in the east and as a consequence 9 and 10 ss were absent in june 1944." I never said I believed what you posted, as I have previously pointed out to you. I was simply saying that if you deploy that argument then it reinforces my point by suggesting that it makes the senior Reich-raised look less flexibly deployable than their Army equivalents. If you want to back off that suggestion, then it is fine by me.

Y

Cheers,

Sid.
Devious or plain stupid as the prohibtion to deplete OB West affects all divisions there. Any unit can be materially deployed anywhere including 9,10 and 12 ss and 9 and 10 ss were which was a stupid decision as there were good grounds to have full strength divisions as reserve of OB west IN 1944.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 14:44

Sid Guttridge wrote:
08 Mar 2021 18:32
Hi Aida1,



You post, "DR and LAH would be the only ones that would get priority over other waffen ss divisions where men and equipment is concerned." And yet LAH and DR spent nearly half their time between mid 1942 and mid-1944 not on any active battlefront! Why not give the equipment to Army divisions that actually were on an active battlefront throughout this period? At least it might get more use!


Cheers,

Sid.
Being devious again as being sent to OB West to be mobile reserve there is not meant as way of keeping units away from combat. Theoretically OB West should continuously have had full strength firstrate inf and mobile divisions. In reality it got lowgrade infdiv and refitting or setting up mobile divisions generally including in 1944 asc Germany had insufficient resources..

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9467
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Sid Guttridge » 09 Mar 2021 14:49

Hi Aida1,

You now post, "....no historian would find it abnormal that Hitler sent LAH and DR to reinforce OB west." So you are reversing what you said and are now saying no-one else has pointed out the absence of the senior, Reich-raised, Waffen-SS divisions from any active battlefront for so much of mid-1942 to mid-1944 compared with their more operationally active Army equivalents? Well, I have been pointing it out to you for a year, yet you still can't bring yourself to accept it, even though you don't ever disagree with the fact of it.

You post, "And they would certainly not believe it was meant to intentionally spare them from combat as you always suggest." I have never suggested that, so I don't have to defend it.

But the fact remains that 1st and 2nd Waffen-SS Divisions were "spared combat" (your phrase) for nearly half the period between June 1942 and June 1944, 9th and 10th Waffen-SS Divisions saw only two or three months of operations each and 12th Waffen-SS Division none at all. By contrast, almost all their nearest Army equivalents were on active battle fronts for longer.

You post, "LAH had been refitted behind the front so you make no sense as it was not withdrawn from the eastern front for refit." I know. Yet even though fully formed, it was moved to the backwater of France for six months and took part in no operations. Not its fault, but a fact nonetheless.

You post, "DR was also upgraded so there is nothing peculiar in that the remnants of it would join the units being set up for the upgrade in Germany." As I pointed out above, its Army equivalents did not enjoy the luxury of being withdrawn from the Eastern Front and upgraded. They had to carry on on the Eastern Front while the DR also spent six moths inactive in Germany and France. Again, not its fault, but a fact nonetheless.

You post, "Decisions on refit and upgrade of waffen ss divisions are completely separate from that of army divisions as their manpower is recruited differently." Nope, not "completely separate". Every man and weapon used by the Reich-raised Waffen-SS divisions was subtracted from Army resources. There was no net gain of men or weaponry in the existence of the Waffen-SS, but there were a number of disadvantages in duplication of activities and the Waffen-SS, because it lacked the infrastructure, took longer to get new formations to the front than did the Army, so there may well have been a net disadvantage to its separate existence.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 14:50

Sid Guttridge wrote:
08 Mar 2021 18:32
Hi Aida1,





My question is why such a high proportion of the senior, Reich-raised, Waffen-SS mechanized divisions "spend this time not fighting" but such a low proportion of their nearest Army equivalents? It's not as if Germany didn't "continuously have to have..... good mobile divisions" on the Eastern Front, is it?



Cheers,

Sid.
When waffen ss division were dployed to France there were solid reasons for it. OB West needed good mobile divisions too. You are the one that never wants ss divisions in France :roll: , including when the landing was imminent. :lol: You will have to allow to Hitler the privilege of determining where his elite divisions go and he never send them anywhere to intentionally spare them from combat as you always suggest. :roll:

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 14:53

Sid Guttridge wrote:
09 Mar 2021 14:49
Hi Aida1,

You now post, "....no historian would find it abnormal that Hitler sent LAH and DR to reinforce OB west." So you are reversing what you said and are now saying no-one else has pointed out the absence of the senior, Reich-raised, Waffen-SS divisions from any active battlefront for so much of mid-1942 to mid-1944 compared with their more operationally active Army equivalents? Well, I have been pointing it out to you for a year, yet you still can't bring yourself to accept it, even though you don't ever disagree with the fact of it.

Cheers,

Sid.
You are clearly either stupid or devious as the sending of waffen ss divisions in july 1942 and in 1944 made perfect sense so no historian would find anything abnormal in this. :roll:

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 14:57

Sid Guttridge wrote:
09 Mar 2021 14:49
Hi Aida1,



You post, "And they would certainly not believe it was meant to intentionally spare them from combat as you always suggest." I have never suggested that, so I don't have to defend it.

But the fact remains that 1st and 2nd Waffen-SS Divisions were "spared combat" (your phrase) for nearly half the period between June 1942 and June 1944, 9th and 10th Waffen-SS Divisions saw only two or three months of operations each and 12th Waffen-SS Division none at all. By contrast, almost all their nearest Army equivalents were on active battle fronts for longer.



Cheers,

Sid.
Contradicting yourself as you are again suggesting they were intentionally spared combat which is obvious nonsense. There is no demerit in not being in combat anyway. :lol: Poor OB West did need mobile units permanently but never got enough. You have tunnel vision.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 15:00

Sid Guttridge wrote:
09 Mar 2021 14:49
Hi Aida1,


You post, "LAH had been refitted behind the front so you make no sense as it was not withdrawn from the eastern front for refit." I know. Yet even though fully formed, it was moved to the backwater of France for six months and took part in no operations. Not its fault, but a fact nonetheless.


Cheers,

Sid.
Devious as you know why it was sent and it was not for going on holiday. :lol: You seem not to want OB west ever to have mobile reserves even when an imminent threat is perceived; :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 15:03

Sid Guttridge wrote:
09 Mar 2021 14:49
Hi Aida1,



You post, "DR was also upgraded so there is nothing peculiar in that the remnants of it would join the units being set up for the upgrade in Germany." As I pointed out above, its Army equivalents did not enjoy the luxury of being withdrawn from the Eastern Front and upgraded. They had to carry on on the Eastern Front while the DR also spent six moths inactive in Germany and France. Again, not its fault, but a fact nonetheless.


Cheers,

Sid.
Not true obviously as Heer divisions upgrading would not do that behind the eastern front. :roll: Only short refits are done behind the front. An upgrade is a more comlicated operation than just refilling a unit. :roll:
Last edited by Aida1 on 09 Mar 2021 15:11, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

Post by Aida1 » 09 Mar 2021 15:09

Sid Guttridge wrote:
09 Mar 2021 14:49
Hi Aida1,



You post, "Decisions on refit and upgrade of waffen ss divisions are completely separate from that of army divisions as their manpower is recruited differently." Nope, not "completely separate". Every man and weapon used by the Reich-raised Waffen-SS divisions was subtracted from Army resources. There was no net gain of men or weaponry in the existence of the Waffen-SS, but there were a number of disadvantages in duplication of activities and the Waffen-SS, because it lacked the infrastructure, took longer to get new formations to the front than did the Army, so there may well have been a net disadvantage to its separate existence.

Cheers,

Sid.
Obvious nonsense given the small size of the waffen ss. In the big picture there is no disadvantage that there were waffen ss divisions.
Your last phrase is historically incorrect. Makes your obsessive attacks against waffen ss divisions seriously ridiculous.

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”