what were the best waffen ss features????

pzrmeyer2 · Post by **pzrmeyer2** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:24 pm

Christoph,

As defensive as you are, I knew it would not take long for you to reply.

I wouldn't say I'm "battle-hardened" as you (no doubt insultingly) put it, but I have served in various units, some regular, and some which thought they were elite. And I do place a value on personal experiences contributing to understanding history. There is a phrase you should familiarize yourself with: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach". (What "dead humans" are you referring about? do you work in a morgue?) I also know a bit about military history from reading, research, and 1st person accounts. My Opa and his siblings served the same volk and reich as yours, albeit in "regular" Heer units. None of them had any great fondness for the SS as individuals, but all recognized their great fighting ability. They were happy to have them at their flanks rather than opposing them.

The initial discussion revolved around UNITS, not individual soldiers or crews, so I don't find your tank crew comparison relevant. Individuals, with the right experience, training, and mindset will shine regardless of which division they belonged to. How those individuals came together and fought in large groups does matter. So does consistant good leadership. We are talking about general concepts here.
I agree with your point about effectively using your manpower versus sustaining casualties and I shake my head in disgust at the way the WSS in particular (and the Heer as well) needless squandered there own men. I also acknowledge that they benefited from propaganda which highlighted their performances over that of the Heer and their priority in receiving equipment. None of that diminishes in any way the fact that they fought with an intensity that exceeded MOST other units. In regards to combat exploits, they earned every bit of press they received. That, coupled with their morale, standards, and elan made them elite. Once again I'm talking the core divisions here. This doesn't mean the Heer did not have its share too. I acknowledge and tip my hat to them.

Finally, what bothers me most about your posts and why I feel compelled to reply is the supremely arrogant tone to your posts. This is as much a forum for gaining knowledge as it is for discussion. You say you don't care about others opinions and whether you're liked or not. Fine. Maybe you shouldn't feel compelled to weigh in if your only response is to insult others who may not devote as much time as you to these topics but wish to learn something.

Christoph Awender · Post by **Christoph Awender** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:49 pm

As defensive as you are, I knew it would not take long for you to reply.

Well , I don´t think you posted your thread to not get an answer from me. And if there is a quiet nightshift like tonight I post quickly yes.

I wouldn't say I'm "battle-hardened" as you (no doubt insultingly) put it, but I have served in various units, some regular, and some which thought they were elite. And I do place a value on personal experiences contributing to understanding history. There is a phrase you should familiarize yourself with: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach". (What "dead humans" are you referring about? do you work in a morgue?) I also know a bit about military history from reading, research, and 1st person accounts. My Opa and his siblings served the same volk and reich as yours, albeit in "regular" Heer units. None of them had any great fondness for the SS as individuals, but all recognized their great fighting ability. They were happy to have them at their flanks rather than opposing them.

Well, this is your oppinion. That I serve as reserve NCO in an austrian unit which is stationed in former Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht barracks makes no difference of any kind. I would have my knowledge also if I wouldn ´t have been to the military. No I work as paramedic which is sometimes like working in a morgue.

This sentence: "They were happy to have them at their flanks rather than opposing them." is always coming from American people who know veterans. Exactly the same sentence is always used as THE argument for the Waffen-SS best of all times in discussions. I wonder why all the veterans I know didn´t use this sentence one single time. I guess it must be in one of the books available for the US market which portrays the Waffen-SS in the usual unbiased, factual way. Or maybe "History" channel?

The initial discussion revolved around UNITS, not individual soldiers or crews, so I don't find your tank crew comparison relevant. Individuals, with the right experience, training, and mindset will shine regardless of which division they belonged to. How those individuals came together and fought in large groups does matter. So does consistant good leadership. We are talking about general concepts here.
I agree with your point about effectively using your manpower versus sustaining casualties and I shake my head in disgust at the way the WSS in particular (and the Heer as well) needless squandered there own men. I also acknowledge that they benefited from propaganda which highlighted their performances over that of the Heer and their priority in receiving equipment. None of that diminishes in any way the fact that they fought with an intensity that exceeded MOST other units. In regards to combat exploits, they earned every bit of press they received. That, coupled with their morale, standards, and elan made them elite. Once again I'm talking the core divisions here. This doesn't mean the Heer did not have its share too. I acknowledge and tip my hat to them.

Units are made of single soldiers and individual tank crews. An division with 200 experienced tank crews is far more effective than a division with 200 newly trained tank crews.
Consistant good leadership is exactly that what the Waffen-SS lacked of. This is proofed by many, many first hand reports, documents etc..
I wonder how you measure fighting intensity and how you know that it "exceeded MOST other units".
They did not earn every bit of press they received! I can give you several examples where Waffen-SS units have been given credit by the Propaganda press while in reality Heer units did the job resulting in heavy protests from the Heer. This is another thing you should have checked before saying it! It is simply not true.

Finally, what bothers me most about your posts and why I feel compelled to reply is the supremely arrogant tone to your posts. This is as much a forum for gaining knowledge as it is for discussion. You say you don't care about others opinions and whether you're liked or not. Fine. Maybe you shouldn't feel compelled to weigh in if your only response is to insult others who may not devote as much time as you to these topics but wish to learn something.

If someone really wants to learn something I am the first to give the information. I am here now for years and the people know that I share information if I have the time too. Max Wiedl didn´t want to learn... he already had the "knowledge" that the Waffen-SS is better than any other armed force which I disagree.

\Christoph

pzrmeyer2 · Post by **pzrmeyer2** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:31 pm

This sentence: "They were happy to have them at their flanks rather than opposing them." is always coming from American people who know veterans. Exactly the same sentence is always used as THE argument for the Waffen-SS best of all times in discussions. I wonder why all the veterans I know didn´t use this sentence one single time. I guess it must be in one of the books available for the US market which portrays the Waffen-SS in the usual unbiased, factual way. Or maybe "History" channel?

Unbelievable. So the LAH and HJ contributed nothing at Normandy? How about Kursk?

Consistant good leadership is exactly that what the Waffen-SS lacked of. This is proofed by many, many first hand reports, documents etc

No kidding! As they took over 100% casualties after being thrown into every major operation and firefight. Seriously, put down the crackpipe. I am not demeaning the Army's pantheon of heroes in any way by choosing to highlight the combat leadership of Wittmann, Peiper, Knittel, Hansen, Sandig, Meyer,Tychsen, Lammerding, Diefenthal, and almost all of the Corps commanders. Why do you denigrate their performances?

Max Wiedl didn´t want to learn... he already had the "knowledge" that the Waffen-SS is better than any other armed force which I disagree

How do you know this? Your outerworldly powers of reserach again? Amazing. Everyone for 60 years has it all wrong. Everyone. Only the brave, and incredibly knowledgable Christoph knows the real truth, as stated in his many books and and documentaries in which he is interviewed. Your right, Chris. The waffen SS did nothing, other than have better camo and the little skull on their caps. We all prefer the combat leadership of the Austrian reserve forces anyday over the Waffen SS...

Christoph Awender · Post by **Christoph Awender** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:49 pm

Code: Select all

Unbelievable. So the LAH and HJ contributed nothing at Normandy? How about Kursk?

Well maybe I should not write too fast for you.... I say it again. Now for the second time alone in this thread.
I never said that they were bad or worse than the workhorse divisions of the Heer. They contributed as much as the divisions fighting with them in these battles and all other battles before and after. Not just the Waffen-SS did all the fighting alone... NO there were also some enemies beaten by Heer divisions. Again - none of these two branches were better than the other. Both had their excellent effective formations.

No kidding! As they took over 100% casualties after being thrown into every major operation and firefight. Seriously, put down the crackpipe. I am not demeaning the Army's pantheon of heroes in any way by choosing to highlight the combat leadership of Wittmann, Peiper, Knittel, Hansen, Sandig, Meyer,Tychsen, Lammerding, Diefenthal, and almost all of the Corps commanders. Why do you denigrate their performances?

Do I denigrate their performance?? It is ridiculous to point out these few individuals.. And some of these you listed also have discussable command abilities. YOu think these men made up the entire Waffen-SS? There are thousands of platoon, company, battalion commanders which were the factors on the battlefield. From a certain stage on the Waffen-SS had problems to even hold the lowest rank requirements for their positions which means that inexperienced soldiers were hastily promoted to ranks where they had to perform tasks where they were hopelessly overcharged.
Look at the rank structure of a Waffen-SS later in the war. Some regiments did not have even one officer who held the rank his command would require.

How do you know this? Your outerworldly powers of reserach again? Amazing. Everyone for 60 years has it all wrong. Everyone. Only the brave, and incredibly knowledgable Christoph knows the real truth, as stated in his many books and and documentaries in which he is interviewed. Your right, Chris. The waffen SS did nothing, other than have better camo and the little skull on their caps. We all prefer the combat leadership of the Austrian reserve forces anyday over the Waffen SS...

Everyone has it wrong? You should really get different sources than those you have now. There are plenty of possibilities to gather factual knowledge about the Waffen-SS including veteran memoirs. But Panzermeyers book is definately one that should be read with many grains of salt.
Which better camo did they have? When someone brings in this ridiculous camo argument I always remember and quote my granduncle who said they looked like frogs in these smocks and greeted each other with "Quack" for days after they received them.
Get some of the many books written by other veterans if you can read german. Also none of the Waffen-SS veterans I know including my grandfathers and their brothers would ever make such quotes like many of you on this forum do.
And the last sentence is more than cheap.

\Christoph

Christoph Awender · Post by **Christoph Awender** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:22 pm

Here just one of the many examples how the Waffen-SS was seen:

GFM Erich Manstein:
"The SS-"T" Division met better terrain conditions but also a strong bunker line at the advance towards Sebesh. Here the weakness got obvious, which was inevitably present in such kind of unit where the leader-corps lacked of proper training and experience. The division gave without a doubt a good impression concerning discipline and military attitude. The very good march discipline, which was important for the smooth movements of motirzed units, gave me cause to highlight the division. The division always attacked with guts and stood strong in defense. The division was several times under my command later and I think that it was the best division of the W-SS which was under my command. Its commander in that time was a brave man who was wounded and fell later. But all this wasn´t was not enough to compensate the lack of training of the officer corps. The unit had extraordinary high casualties because the men and officers had to learn in battle what regiments of the Heer knew already for a long time.
These casualties and lack of experience caused that there was no advantage taken of favourable situations which lead to new fighting. Nothing is more difficult to learn than taking advantage of favourable situations where the weakness of the enemy allows a success of the attacker.
So I had to help and intervene at the division several times during the fighting but without being able to reduce the high casualties. Already after ten days the three regiments of the division had to be reduced to two.

As brave as the divisions of the Waffen-SS fought, as nice as their successes may have been there is no doubt that the forming of this special formation was an unforgivable mistake. Replacements which could have filled the ranks of NCO´s in the Heer were used up in the Waffen-SS in a manner that was not justifiable. The high toll of lives stands in absolutely no relation to the successes achieved.
It is self-evident that the responsibility cannot given to the troops. The guilt was with these which formed this special organisation in total disregard of positions in the Heer.
It may not be forgotten that the units of the W-SS stood as good comrades beside the Heer and bravely fought and stood strong. For sure many members of the W-SS would have been happy to get out of the power circle of Himmler and become a member of the Heer"
Erich von Manstein, Verlorene Siege, Bonn 1955

\Christoph

Tom Houlihan · Post by **Tom Houlihan** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:06 am

They did not earn every bit of press they received! I can give you several examples where Waffen-SS units have been given credit by the Propaganda press while in reality Heer units did the job resulting in heavy protests from the Heer. This is another thing you should have checked before saying it! It is simply not true.

Christoph, I'm not going to weigh in on this discussion, as I have my own views. As long as it doesn't get insulting, I find this discussion interesting.

I would be interested in those reports. Are they readily available, or is it something we'd have to ask you to dig up. I have heard of it happening that way, but I'd like to see the actual who/what/where information.

Christoph Awender · Post by **Christoph Awender** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:43 am

Tom wrote:
They did not earn every bit of press they received! I can give you several examples where Waffen-SS units have been given credit by the Propaganda press while in reality Heer units did the job resulting in heavy protests from the Heer. This is another thing you should have checked before saying it! It is simply not true.
Christoph, I'm not going to weigh in on this discussion, as I have my own views. As long as it doesn't get insulting, I find this discussion interesting.

I would be interested in those reports. Are they readily available, or is it something we'd have to ask you to dig up. I have heard of it happening that way, but I'd like to see the actual who/what/where information.

One example I have ready is the opening of the Tscherkassy pocket which was solely credited to the LAH division by contemporary media and is repeatedly used by many people as glorious victory of the Waffen-SS. The main work of braking up and holding the pocket ope was done by Heer units and several commanders of the involved Heer formations protested officially at the OKW.
I will have to look up which commanders exactly.

Actually elements of the 1.Pz.Div. and Pz.Rgt.Bäke had the major part in fighting the way towards the pocket and hold the positions where most elements from the pocket arrived in the night 16./17.2. and the next days.

Here how it was and which units were directly involved.
The Pz.Pi.Btl.37 defended a crossing across the Gn.Tikitsch south at Lissjanka-Ost where the first elements of "Gruppe Stemmermann" (Inf.Rgt.105) arrived.
The 1.Pz.Div. met in Lissjanka: Gruppe Lieb, elements 72.Inf.Div., Korps.Abt.B, elements of Wiking, rest of "Sturmbrigade Wallonien", mass of an austrian Art.Rgt.

From "Militärgeschichtliche Rundschau August 1944":
"II./Pz.Gren.Rgt.113 supported by tanks and Pz.Art.Rgt.73 can retake Oktjabr which changes the owner several times on tis day. Just because of these defensive actions by the 1.Pz.Div. and elements of 198.Inf.Div. it was possible that the broken out elements were able to reach the ordered area east of Uman via Bushanka - Risino.

On 18.2. the commander of Pz.Pi.Btl.37 Major Braun has order to form the rear guard with 2./Pz.Pi.Btl.37, verst.5./Pz.Rgt.1 in Lissjanka. The Korps promises a verst.SS-Pz.Gren.Btl. of LAH as reinforcement for the rear guard. The "reinforcement" arrives with a total of 50 men and 2 Panther which are subordinated to the 1.Pz.Div. in Lissjanka.

http://chrito.users1.50megs.com/karten/ ... 1pzdiv.jpg

\Christoph

Reb · Post by **Reb** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:09 am

Perhaps a contemporary example would help clarify this. First, the average person cannot absorb too much data so govts try to keep it simple for us - plus they don't want us thinking too much anyway.

In Rhodesia, where I served, you would have thought there were only two army units: The Rh. Light Infantry (para) and the Selous Scouts. A conscious decision had been made (partly to confuse enemy intelligence) to focus press reporting on those units.

It actually occurred in a an external assault against a neighboring country harboring terrorists that some comrades of mine from the Paras exclaimed in surprise when they showed up and found my gang (from the armoured regt but infantry none the less) had been fighting for two days. "I didn't know you armoured car wankers actually did any fighting..." quoth one.

Did I like this? Hell no - it annoyed me a lot. But it did it detract from the actual accomplishments of either my outfit or the two that got reported a lot? Again, no...

Now in Nazi Germany the propaganda corps was more extreme and focused on all things Nazi and since the W-SS was created by the Party it was natural to focus on them. Guys like Dietrich and Wittman gave them plenty to write about. And lots of pictures...

Plus - the allied troops, like all soldiers, tend to talk about most about their most exotic enemies - namely the W-SS. "Big hulking Nazi fanatics - the vaunted SS - were thrown back by heroic (American, British, Soviet - fill in the blank) troops!" say so many of the war books...

My point is not to denigrate the W-SS - simply to help put into perspective the reason why they are so well known and to point out that even though they did fight very well on many ocassions - so did other outfits.

Hell - I once saw a fight start between US vets when an Army para asked a Marine the famous question, "How many photographers in a marine rifle squad?" Yep - the marines are great at publicity. Does that detract from their fighting qualities? Nope. Does it mean a top notch Army unit is any worse than them? Nope. Same thing with W-SS.

Just my contribution to world peace

cheers
Reb

Christoph Awender · Post by **Christoph Awender** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:22 am

Uiui Reb you don´t want to start the same discussion about MArines and Army?? Our American friends can be very "special" with such comparisons.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:31 am

Hi guys

I have nothing against the Waffen SS, I own many books on them and I have enjoyed reading about their many actions. But the army that pushed German power out to the Atlantic and the Volga in the space of a couple of years had (virtually) nothing to do with the W-SS. But you wouldn't think so when there are about a dozen books available in English on (for example) the 12th SS, which existed for a year, and almost not a single one on the many panzer and infantry divisions that existed for far longer and saw much more action. The only reason I have so many W-SS books is because mainly that's all that's available. If as much were available on all the Heer divisions, I don't think I'd have a single book on the W-SS in particular.

As far as I can tell, the work of the Propaganda Ministry lives on. All the publicity accorded the W-SS at the time leaves us with masses of photographs and quite detailed information on so many of their actions and even the individuals taking part, enough to fill all these many volumes over and over again, and all the Heer panzer and infantry divisions almost fade into the background (unless you can read German of course

). This seems the reverse of how things should be. I look forward to all the Heer divisional histories becoming available in English over the next 10 or 20 years, and to becoming as familiar with the details of their actions and individuals as I am with the W-SS, and to the W-SS being put in its rightful place.

Regards
Jake

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:20 am

Hi HvM,

When have I ever said that "the Waffen-SS was not effective"? Please either provide a source or withdraw the suggestion. It is not possible to conduct an informed debate if we are going to invent each others' positions.

My point is now, and has always been, that it is very much to be questioned if the Waffen-SS represented any "value added" to the Wehrmacht. Almost all its men, tactics and equipment were derived from the Army. The creation of the Waffen-SS did not put a single extra man or gun in the field for Germany and it provided no new military speciality that the German Army did not already possess.

If you know otherwise, perhaps you could tell us all what this "value added" consisted of and what the evidence is for it? I have been asking this question on Feldgrau for years without a remotely convincing answer. Perhaps you can surprise us with one?

Cheers,

Sid.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:16 am

Hi Sid

Would foreigners have been able to join the Wehrmacht in such numbers if not for the Waffen SS? If not, maybe the W-SS did put a few extra men in the field for Germany.

Regards
Jake

Alex Coles · Post by **Alex Coles** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:31 pm

To sum up :

People glorify the SS because they see so much Propaganda. Infact, too much.

The only differences of an SS and Army division were the courage, leadership, and behaviour in a way. SS were very courageous at times, and Heer divisions were. Leadership. Now this is the problem, for there are SS leaders which are unskilled but absolutely National Socialist pro-nazi to the core. Behaviour, for it wasn't exactly the Heer who did huge massacres like at Oradour-sur-Glane where the "Das Reich" division just burnt it down.

Well, without the SS the Wehrmacht/Heer divisions could of got more of their supplies. The SS took the best equipment leaving scraps for the wehrmacht. So, without the Schuetzstaffel the equipment could be shared around equally.

TimoWr · Post by **TimoWr** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:44 pm

17 SS Panzer Grenadier wrote:Well, without the SS the Wehrmacht/Heer divisions could of got more of their supplies. The SS took the best equipment leaving scraps for the wehrmacht. So, without the Schuetzstaffel the equipment could be shared around equally.

De SS did not have first choice in equipment. Distribution for Waffen-SS and Heer went through the Heeres Waffenamt.

M.H. · Post by **M.H.** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:06 pm

17 SS Panzer Grenadier wrote:To sum up :People glorify the SS because they see so much Propaganda. Infact, too much.

Actually...come to think of it...when and where is the SS glorified in today's media? Which movie? Which book?
Yes, there are many books out there which have the history of SS units or SS celebrities at their center (I enjoyed my part of them too), but there isn't any "propaganda" for them out there...
I mean if you ask the average guy for him the SS is still clearly the baddie, don't you think?

So I think the reason is somewhat deeper...