Best SS researchers/authors

[Wolfkin]

Hello!

"the Waffen-SS exhibited no significant military originality not already displayed by the German Army"

This may be true and I agree that there are way too many lousy books on the Waffen SS out there, but perhaps not enough decent books. The thing is though, whether or not one believes that the Waffen SS was justifiable or significant or not, there were many Waffen SS units that participated in combat actions that are worthy of recognition.

We can speculate on how these men and equipment would have been better in the Heer but nevertheless they were in the Waffen SS and that is the reality of the situation. Military History is the study of what actually happened, not speculation on what could have or should have happened. The truth is Waffen SS units, such as Leibstandarte and Das Reich, fought in all major campaigns on most fronts and a study of their actions gives a good account of the decisive battles of WWII.

I agree, however, that there were hundreds of Heer Divisions fighting in these battles as well and to ignore these units is to leave an account of these battles incomplete. In the same way though, to ignore the Waffen SS participation is to leave these accounts incomplete as well. One needs to study BOTH, as they were both there fighting in these battles. To ignore one is to leave the picture incomplete.

Cheers,

Wolfkin

[sid guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Please do not take any of this as a personal criticism. I am talking military-historical generalities here, not individuals.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Reb,

The fact that you cannot find a divisional history in English of 2nd Panzer Division, which was involved in operations from the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936 to the end in 1945, illustrates the point well.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Tom,

My point is that multiple histories of many Waffen-SS divisions exist, whereas none exist of many far more important army formations. This, I would suggest, leads to a distortion of the real historical record in print.

I am sure you would agree that in purely military terms, 2nd Panzer Division was a far more important formation that served in more important theatres over a much longer period than the 6th SS Nord Division. Yet you have chosen to fill the latter void. One has to wonder what led you to make this differential decision? It certainly can't have been their relative military significance.

It is perfectly possible to write as first rate a history of any Waffen-SS division as it is of any army division. What I want to know is why the Waffen-SS is so over represented on the book stands? In my opinion this is a publisher-led trend that has little to do with the Waffen-SS's negligible original contribution to military history and everything to do with the non-military diversity, exoticism and character that makes it marketable today.

I have no objection at all to a good history of the Nord Division in English. However, I would suggest that at least the first four army mountain divisions are each more deserving of an English language divisional history on military grounds. They were, after all, the model for the Nord Division. Why have you bypassed them when they are more militarily significant?

Cheers,

Sid.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Marc,

You would appear to already be at the second generation, revisionist stage of clearing up the confusion left by inadequate first generation Waffen-SS divisional histories. This is a good thing.

However, the bulk of the far more important German Army never even got first generation divisional histories written in English, let alone reached the revisionist stage.

Why did you choose to concentrate on the over-written Waffen-SS rather than the relatively under-written German Army?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Tom Houlihan]

One has to wonder what led you to make this differential decision? It certainly can't have been their relative military significance.

Why have you bypassed them when they are more militarily significant?

Sid, here it is in a nutshell.

As I was corresponding with Voss, making the maps for Black Edelweiss, I realized that I knew very little about that theater. After I read Seven Days in January, I decided to start researching the Karelian theater. As I realized just how much did go on up there, I thought about writing a book about that theater for the American audience, since most probably knew as little or less than I did.

When I finally broached the idea to the publisher I work for, he advised me that two titles like that were forthcoming. One of them was to be from Lars G., with whom I had absolutely no desire to compete. Not that there would have been much competition.

Then Kit suggested that since I had developed some familiarity with Nord due to BE, and since there's damn all written about them in English, that might be a better target for me, and more focused.

In truth, I probably would never have picked a mountain unit, but there you have it.

Still, I will agree that the Waffen-SS is proportionately over represented on the book shelves. Maybe when I win the lottery, I can form an international consortium of researchers, and start developing a series of books on all 300+ Heer divisions?

Oh, and no offense taken, trust me.

[John P. Moore]

There are plenty of books out there on the German Army and Luftwaffe. I have sheves full of these books in my library that I first began purchasing in the early 1970s when I was stationed in Germany. The highest numbered division history that I have is the 290 Infantrie Division published in 1970. Many of these books were published by Podzun-Pallas and are also very well illustrated. Others were privately published by the German divisional associations. Most of those books have never been translated into English because the market was not there in the publishers' estimation. There is a sizable market for Waffen-SS books, otherwise we would not see such publishing activity in that genre. The German Army books are wonderful, but you will need to be able to read German to benefit much from them.

John

[Reb]

Tom

My own complaint is not with division histories per se - I love to read them.

Its just the quality of many of them is so poor - how many times do we read of SS Das Reich attacking at Mortain with Tiger tanks or see ridiculously miscaptioned photos? Or hear the oft repeated nonsense of SS men standing rigidly at attention while they explode grenades on the top of their helmets? I guess it sells books. And why do I think of Rupert Butler for some reason?

Many of us on this forum could sit down and write some of the "histories" I've read by simply calling on memory.

For myself - I'm a detail freak. I want facts, timeboxed accurately so the detail is correct in context. And I look forward to a good history of 'Nord"

cheers
Reb

[Marc Rikmenspoel]

The Waffen-SS is relatively "compact," in the sense there was roughly 40 divisions (some #s being duplicated, such as 23 & 29) and then some smaller formations. Over the past 60 years, many researchers have found it easier to tackle this OOB, rather than the many times more massive one of the Heer. So that laid more of a ready-made ground work for someone like me, born in 1970 and not really in a position to seriously study history until the 1990's. An additional part of the groundwork I mentioned is the HIAG and other Waffen-SS veteran organizations, which function as almost one large group, which is also more convenient than the multitude of smaller Heer veteran groups.

To get back to my first point, if you want to study the 1. PD, there's Stove's divisional history and a couple of bildbands, and then you have to start digging for wartime documents. To study the 1. SS-PD, there's the entire 5 volume divisional history in English, several bildbands, and numerous sub-unit histories (many available in English), not to mention additional studies done in English first, such as those of Weingartner and Reynolds. And then, many people have already accessed the surviving wartime documents, they have mentioned the relevant microfilm in source lists, and these are now relatively easy to locate. And to further simplify matters, folks like John Moore have collected officer files onto CD.

So imagine starting out in 2005 as a researcher. Certainly there's more new to be discovered about the 1. PD than about the 1. SS-PD, but it is much easier and more convenient to study the latter, besides which it offers the greater likelyhood of making back a part of the money put out in the course of writing and researching. This may not be "fair" to Heer formations, but it is the reality as I see it

With further thought, this monetary angle has some importance. I have a room filled with books on the Waffen-SS AND the Heer. I have stacks of printout copies of wartime documents, and many boxes of wartime photos. All this stuff was darned expensive. I obtained this material out of my enjoyment of the learning and studying opportunities that it offers. I fully understand that next to no one gets rich via small press publishing (just ask Mark Yerger, who is far more prolific than I), but it has been a boon that the royalties from my 3 books have made up perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 of what I have spent on my collection of the past 17 years

[Mark C Yerger]

When I started (early 1970s) there was almost nothing in any language on SS units and next to nothing on its personalities. I picked the area for that reason. Lots of books are written, many are junk not worth the paper used to print them. Its also a matter of who took the effort to contact still living members with a focused research idea, beyond what exists in archives. A "Nord" study was done by Munin. Nipe's battle studies show the mistakes of older works. I delved into personalities at levels (and detail) nobody bothered with previously. Many SS units still have no studies. Biographies are few. Sorry, but books like the quick for money series by Butler serve no purpose (superficial, common copied photos, etc). Luftwaffe unit studies abound, perhaps SS and Luft are just more determined than other research areas generally. I have more than enough to keep me busy producing new books with vast majority new material and information (my priority).

Mark C. Yerger

[Mad Volksdeutscher]

Yerger's made a valid point w/r.t. SOME areas not being covered.

(I'm going to repeat myself here, but George Lepre's Himmler's Bosnian Divisions of recent vintage being prety much the best work out there on "Handschar" division, and perhaps the only work dealing with "Kama" and the formation of "Skanderbeg" ... shows that there are some aspects of the WSS that have not yet been 'done to death".)

Though if anyone's taking suggestions for Wehrmacht formations worthy of books...how about one on the 369th "Schachbrett" Regiment?

[sid guttridge]

Hi Guys,

I think there are some excellent and honest replies above.

However, interestingly, nobody has offered any military-historical justification for all the disproportion of books on the Waffen-SS at the expense of the Army.

I would suggest that we are now at the stage that even the very best book on the Waffen-SS is effectively distorting the historical record by virtue of its very existence, because the Waffen-SS was a relatively minor military factor in the German order of battle (let alone in the military history of WWII) that is already massively over represented in the popular historiography.

One only has to look at the number of hits on Feldgrau's Waffen-SS section compared to any other to realise how far this distortion has gone.

A book I came across in France recently on the unlikely subject of the German 157th Reserve Division broke more new military-historical ground on its own than a whole handful of new books on Reich-raised Waffen-SS divisions is now likely to. It illustrates that there is a huge amount of original stuff out their still waiting to be written on, and comparitively little of it is likely to be on the Waffen-SS.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Mad Volksdeutscher]

Sid:

Since the WSS page here gets the most hits, (and I suppose Kreigsmarine got the lowest? )

I have a question--perhaps not so easily answered about same:

Feldgrau here has a topic area of "Foreign Volunteers", which does have some overlap with WSS in that starting at division #13, and definitely by the twenties--WSS units tended towards being of non-Germanic origin.

(For me, the WSS units of the most interest are those of Yugoslavian and Hungarian origins. Not a big surprise. I could care less about 2nd SS Panzer!)

[and there's a couple of fellows 2 towns over from me that seem to have predilection for Ukrainian, Russian and Polish WSS. You know who they are! ]

--> Of the "hits" in WSS, how many are about the Foreign Volunteer units...versus "Germanic" units like LSSAH, Das Reich, HJ--and I suppose the more obscure ones like "Frundsberg" and "Gotz von Berlichingen?"

Have a hunch (based on history buffs I know locally!) that a significant percentage of those interested in SS activity are REALLY interested in Foreign Volunteer formations...that happened to be WSS at some point in their careers.

(My sample demographic may not be random, I'll admit.... )

At any rate, Sid--consider me a DEFINITE vote for someone coming up with a book on the 369th Regiment (one page in Antonio Munoz aint cutting it!) , or the "Blue" Division as of 1943-44 (as in once the Spaniards went home and were replaced by certain OTHER brunettes! )

"Croat" and "Schachbrett" may agree with me on this. Possibly the infamous JP Slovjanski as well.

(Just making a suggestion or 2, Sid old boy! LOL!)

[Reb]

Sid


"However, interestingly, nobody has offered any military-historical justification for all the disproportion of books on the Waffen-SS at the expense of the Army. "

No book on the Waffen SS is written at the expense of the Army. If I have eggs for breakfast it is not at the expense of the Oatmeal!

One thing I've noted consistantly about the SS remains true - the so called "classic" SS divs always seemed to turn up at the most interesting battles. Given the dearth of good material on Mortain and Cherkassy (just for example) I'm personally glad to see these SS books come out because they provide insight into my field of study. (I'm not including the Rupert Butler genre)

And MadVolksdeutcher raised some interesting reasons from a more European viewpoint...

However, feel free to write a book about 2nd Vienna Pz Div - and I'll be at the head of the queue to purchase it!

cheers
Reb

[Tom Houlihan]

However, interestingly, nobody has offered any military-historical justification for all the disproportion of books on the Waffen-SS at the expense of the Army.

Sid, I submit that the primary reason for the skew is economical. Even the publisher I work for, who demands quality over quantity or topic, recognizes that an outstanding book on something nobody (comparatively) is interested in is less than feasible. That's a sad reality, even for those who do care.

[Mad Volksdeutscher]

Agreed, Reb!

(2nd Wehrmacht Panzer div "Vienna" also sounds like an intriguing book)

The "less classic" SS div's tended not to show up as often to the REALLY interesting battles (a noteable exception being 17th SS Pz. Gotz von Berlichingen)

Such as 14th WSS Galicia's big noteable battle being Brody...

29th WSS Kaminski's noteable major battle being Warsaw 1944...

(and poor little 26th WSS Hunyadi lasted for exactly ONE battle, period!)

7th WSS Mtn and 13th WSS Mtn pretty much tasked to doing COIN-type stuff for the bulk of the war not lending to really thrilling Unit Histories and battle honors by the standards of most is a bit of a handicap...

Anyhoo, 2nd Panzer "Vienna"...YES! (and 369th Regiment too!!! )

but please no more 2nd WSS Das Reich, and 1st WSS LSSAH while we're at it. (the latter can show up in another Osprey about the Ardennes I suppose but that's it!!!! )

Oh, and a really thorough study of Gebrigsjaeger general Eduard Dietl would be nice! More books on Mountain troops too!

(I also like stuff about Austrijanskis! For IMHO they are as awesome as Hrvats & Magyars & Bosanskis. Perhaps I am a little biased....LOL!!!)

.
.
.

BTW Reb: Loved those articles you did in SOF back around 1980 about the last days of Rhodesia, et. als!

[Mark C Yerger]

Any book with new data on any topic is worthwhile.

Moderator

[sid guttridge]

Hi Mark C. Yearger,

Yup. Any book with new data is worthwhile.

However, I would argue that there is a great deal more new data waiting to be exploited on the German Army and that over emphasis on one narrow and, militarily, not very original subject distorts the wider historical record.

Why does the Waffen-SS draw niche authors like moths to a flame and yet the far more important German Army gets less attention?

Cheers,

Sid.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Tom,

I think you are near the mark. Waffen-SS books get published more easily than others for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the military merit of the Waffen-SS. They are more easy to market.

But why do Waffen-SS books sell? I would suggest that this is the long term result of the successful wartime branding of the Waffen-SS by the Nazi regime. Slick uniforms, bucket loads of preferential propaganda, etc. We have bought the lot! I think there is also a feeling on the right of today's political spectrum that the Waffen-SS need rehabilitating. As a result, the institution that not only carried Germany's war, but the Waffen-SS as well, is not getting the recognition it deserves.

If there was to be an award for authors of Waffen-SS books, it might more appropriately be for services to the publishing industry or right wing nationalist politics than to military history.

Cheers,

Sid.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Reb,

If the Waffen-SS tended to turn up at important battles, how much truer is it that the German Army tended to turn up at important battles - not infrequently without any significant Waffen-SS presence at all!

According to Overmans' book on German losses, the Waffen-SS suffered a lower proportion of its losses fighting the Nazis' main ideological enemy - the USSR - than did the German Army! It rather looks as though the Waffen-SS was more noticeable by its absence from the key theatre than its presence!

To extend your eggs and oatmeal analogy. One's stomach can only hold so much. The Waffen-SS is rather likely a minor part of one's normal diet that has become the main portion of it. It provides a a minor portion of one's daily needs but for a fully rounded, healthy diet one needs a wider variety of sustenance. Waffen-SS books are filling up a dispropotionate share of the reading public's stomach space at the expense of healthier, more nutritious fare.

(Boy, do we know how to go off subject! Sorry!)

Cheers,

Sid.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hi Mad,

I tend to agree. For me, the fascination of the Waffen-SS is not the senior divisions, (which essentially and unnecessarily aped the German Army) but the junior non-German national divisions. But this has little to do with the Waffen-SS per se. The German Army had started recruiting non-Germans well before the Waffen-SS. If I remember rightly it formed over ten non-German divisions (Four Italian, three Croat, two Russian, one Spanish, oneTurkoman) and numerous smaller units. Others, such as the French, were later transferred administatively to the Waffen-SS from the Army on political instructions.

The Waffen-SS connection of these non-German Waffen-SS divisions has little to do with their fascination. It is their distinct national identities and motivations that is of interest. For me, easily the most interesting Waffen-SS divisional histories are on these miniature national armiers, both under the umbrella of the Army AND Waffen-SS.

Cheers,

Sid.