The great SS/ Anglo author conspiracy

pzrmeyer2 · Post by **pzrmeyer2** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Timo wrote:

Anglo-Saxon authors (British and American) love the myths of a political and military nazi elite because it brings more glory to their own achievement. In the end they defeated the "super-soldiers".

ok! now the question I have been asking Sid and Timo has been answered! All I wanted to see is why you believe western allied authors pump up the SS. Thanks for clarifying your positions.

I don;t happen to agree with you theory, although I concede that books on the SS exceed their contribution as compared to the army. Just as books on the 82d or 101st Abn outweigh those on say, the 4th Armored Div or 3rd Inf Div. However, I would just as likely pick up a book about the Panzer Lehr or 116th Panzer in Normandy as the I SS Pzr Korps if it was a good read.

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:15 pm

Well , if I refer to what I have read , there is a tendency ( even fed by some so called german authors ) to mystify the SS and everything that might belong to it . It is presented as an avantgarde , a kind of supersoldiers . I think Timo is right that in the anglo-saxon area this is used to compare the reality that after D-Day they had to spend many fierce fightings with german troops . Creating the picture of a "super" enemy seems like to excuse that there was no "Blitzkrieg" in the West 1944 .

And exactly there is the fault !

At first , the "normal" Heer units that fought bravely are totally ignored ..

And , more important , THE SS ( well , normally I would say it is impossible to say THE Waffen-SS because those units from Div. Nr.1 till Nr. 38 were absolutly heterogen

) in Summer 1944 was , according to the quality of its personal , far away from that what they might have been once !

SO , those "super soldiers" that fought against the brits & Us-Troops were nothing more than a poor rest

Sorrowly it is easy to make good money with spreading those myths ...

Ask people who fought in Normandy 1944 , you might learn that the stuff presented to you is often enough flawed !

A note by myself , the best example ho w effective this subtile "indoctrination" works is the Wittmann-myth ( yes , I am already bored to death ...) ! Look around the forums about tanks & WW 2 . You will get the picture that there was only Wittmann in Normandy , that there was only one talented tanker in German army , that only SS-Men could succesfully use tanks and so on and son ...

So , dear friends , try to be fair and not to produce another "Goldenes Kalb" !

Frohe Ostern ,

Jan-Hendrik

Tom Houlihan · Post by **Tom Houlihan** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:22 pm

I understand what Timo and Sid are referring to, but I'd like to submit a possible correction. I believe that the authors perpetuating the myth ought to be referred to as Anglo-American, vice Anglo-Saxon.

Now, is this to make their nations look better for having defeated Hitler's vaunted supermen? I don't know for sure, though there could very well be a measure of that in the mix somewhere.

Personally, I think that the more people succumb to the propaganda (60+ years old, and still going strong!), then the more authors are going to cash in on it. The more books there are, the more people get to read about it. The catch is that most of the people that read all these books don't know what to believe or disbelieve, so they accept any tripe that is written.

And that is what causes people to come here, and for their first post write the "the XXX SS Division was the greatest bunch of soldiers in history!!!"

Now, if only I could solve the rest of the world's problems that easily!

M.H. · Post by **M.H.** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:28 pm

SO , those "super soldiers" that fought against the brits & Us-Troops were nothing more than a poor rest

I'm not so sure about that anymore since I found this document.
It's fairly clear about how the SHAEF ranked their german counterpart:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/AEF ... ort-3.html

"... The quality of the German ground forces with whom our armies came in contact varied considerably. At the top of the scale came the troops of SS panzer and parachute units, considerably better than those of the ordinary infantry divisions. Their morale, backed by a blind confidence in ultimate Nazi victory, was extremely good, and whether in attack or defense they fought to a man with a fanatical courage. But in the infantry divisions we found opponents inferior, both physically and morally, to those against whom we had fought in North Africa. The lack of air and artillery support, the break-down of ration supplies, the non-arrival of mail, the unsoldierly behavior of some of the officers, the bombing of home towns--all tended to lower the men's spirits. .."

Since reading that I'm inclined to believe that there is really more to it than I thought....

M.H. · Post by **M.H.** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:33 pm

Double

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:34 pm

Damn , that is exactly what I meant in my post !

How could you better hide your misefforts ??

You just tell your enemy was superior !

Try Tiekes "Im Feuersturm letzter Kriegsjahre" ...

Or , intersting enough for autumn 1944 , the KTB of 19th Army

Jan-Hendrik

M.H. · Post by **M.H.** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:36 pm

I'm sorry Jan-Hendrik but this argument is hard to believe.
That wasn't some part of a game, this was an official analyse:

Here is the full report:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/AEF-Report/

"Report by
The Supreme Commander
To the Combined Chiefs of Staff
On the Operations in Europe
of the
Allied Expeditionary Force
6 June 1944 to 8 May 1945"

Why should especially americans single out the SS for praising them as they had after Malmedy for example a REAL bad image!
They could have praised the "normal" troops instead much easier....

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:42 pm

Hey , do you think I am a newbie on this topic ?

At the top of the scale came the troops of SS panzer and parachute units, considerably better than those of the ordinary infantry divisions. Their morale, backed by a blind confidence in ultimate Nazi victory

The man who wrote that must be a "real" expert ...

He seems to have misses that they did not only met Waffen-SS PzDiv. ...

Or that the morale of german soldiers did not backed up so much on Nazi paroles but on defending their home , especially knowing that on the other Fronts Red Army was closing more and more to the Reich .

Just another infantile report written by a desktop expert ...

My opinion

Jan-Hendrik

M.H. · Post by **M.H.** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:48 pm

Just another infantile report written by a desktop expert ...

I believe his name was Eisenhower!

TimoWr · Post by **TimoWr** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:31 pm

Similar reports show that every tank the Americans encountered was a Tiger, every AT-gun an "88" and all opposing soldiers were SS. Know what I mean? Quetionable is if this is true simply because the report "says so".

From the same report:

The cream of the SS panzer troops failed to dislodge us

(I hope) we are all aware of the deplorable state this "cream of the SS panzer troops" was in at that time.

Now for your quote:

the top of the scale came the troops of SS panzer and parachute units, considerably better than those of the ordinary infantry divisions. Their morale, backed by a blind confidence in ultimate Nazi victory, was extremely good, and whether in attack or defense they fought to a man with a fanatical courage.

They supposedly were better due to morale, confidence in victory and fanatical. But did they fight well? If my local football club plays a match against Arsenal or Man Utd. they can be better than other local teams, have high morale, have blind confidence in their victory, attack and defend with great courage...but they will get their asses kicked no matter what they try.

The GI's were convinced that they would encounter the German elite so thats how they saw them. In reality the mythical prestige of the Waffen-SS - based on their pre-Kursk achievements which were hyped by German propaganda - was still in the minds of the allied forces that landed in France in 1944 but they were the hollow remains of what "used to be". The decimated remains of the slaughter in the East, rebuild with fresh recruits. Schoolboys and personell transfered from the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine who lacked equipment and training. Whatever political zeal or dreams about the Endsieg they had was quickly destroyed by allied Jabos, ship- and field artillery and the Falaise Kessel. They did not stand a chance and most of them knew it.

Christoph Awender · Post by **Christoph Awender** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:37 pm

Hello

With this report we have the same old problem I personally always have with such kind of reports or discussions.
There is no doubt that the W-SS divisions in Normandy had more fighting power than the regular infantry divisions like they put it in this report. That is clear as water when you look at the types of divisions stationed there.
Second is that I think there is also no boubt that generally W-SS members fought more fanatically than the other second or third rate divisions.
BUT what I doubt is that fighting more fanatically is fighting better. A Mujahedin will definately fight more fanatically than a US G.I. but is he the better soldier?

\Christoph

TimoWr · Post by **TimoWr** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:40 pm

M.H. wrote:Why should especially americans single out the SS for praising them as they had after Malmedy for example a REAL bad image!
They could have praised the "normal" troops instead much easier....

Bacause the war crimes fit the picture of a ruthless, political elite soldiers. It's part of the myth.

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:50 pm

Eisenhower ? More a politican than a soldier

Jan-Hendrik

Rajin Cajun · Post by **Rajin Cajun** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:23 pm

I disagree with that Eisenhower was always a soldier and hardly a politican.

Tom Houlihan · Post by **Tom Houlihan** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:28 pm

Actually Cajun, I think J-H is pretty close. IIRC, Ike spent most of his time in more staff positions than operational. He was one of those rare officers who was very diplomatic, and quite talented at the political machinations necessary for being SHAEF. As much as I use the word as a perjorative, in this case, I think calling Ike a politician isn't such a bad thing!