Why Das Heer does not have a branch of his own?
Moderator: John W. Howard
-
SS-Gruppenfuhrer-Wilck
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 5:03 am
Why Das Heer does not have a branch of his own?
and by the way,greetings everyone.
-
Edelweiss.
- Supporter
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:48 pm
- Location: UK
Yes Paul you are correct.
The Waffen SS has been referred to as the "fourth branch of the Wehrmacht" in some instances. Whilst this is not necessarily a falsehood, it is not necessarily the complete truth either. As you state, the Waffen SS came under the tactical command of the OKW from it's creation in 1940 (thus becoming a de facto branch of the Wehrmacht). However, strategic control remained in the hands of the SS. That being said, the Waffen SS was a front line military formation that evolved beyond anything envisioned by the politicians of the Reich. It was substantially (although not completely) seperate from the KZL/Allgemeine SS.
Regards,
Edelweiss
The Waffen SS has been referred to as the "fourth branch of the Wehrmacht" in some instances. Whilst this is not necessarily a falsehood, it is not necessarily the complete truth either. As you state, the Waffen SS came under the tactical command of the OKW from it's creation in 1940 (thus becoming a de facto branch of the Wehrmacht). However, strategic control remained in the hands of the SS. That being said, the Waffen SS was a front line military formation that evolved beyond anything envisioned by the politicians of the Reich. It was substantially (although not completely) seperate from the KZL/Allgemeine SS.
Regards,
Edelweiss
-
SS-Gruppenfuhrer-Wilck
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 5:03 am
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Wilck,
The Army used to have its own section on Feldgrau, and I tried to preserve it. However, Jason felt that all the Army stuff could be accommodated under other existing headings and so it was discontinued.
My feeling was that to give the Waffen-SS its own segment and not the Army served to distort historical perceptions by giving the Waffen-SS undue prominence. Even before the Army section was deleted the Waffen-SS section was getting far more hits. I imagine the change has made this situation even more unballanced, but now there is no easy way to measure it.
Cheers,
Sid.
The Army used to have its own section on Feldgrau, and I tried to preserve it. However, Jason felt that all the Army stuff could be accommodated under other existing headings and so it was discontinued.
My feeling was that to give the Waffen-SS its own segment and not the Army served to distort historical perceptions by giving the Waffen-SS undue prominence. Even before the Army section was deleted the Waffen-SS section was getting far more hits. I imagine the change has made this situation even more unballanced, but now there is no easy way to measure it.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Paul 9686,
The important thing is that Feldgrau exist in the first place.
Given that it does, it is a secondary matter how it is organised.
If organised proportionally to the importance of the organisations concerned, the Army would be far more obviously prominent on Feldgrau.
However, there is also the matter of user interest. There is no doubt that the Waffen-SS excites much more popular interest than its true military value merits. Feldgrau's structure caters for this.
The distinctiveness of the Waffen-SS lies largely in its political and ideological aspects, not in its unique military contribution.
Yes, indeed, Germany was primarily a land power. However, this land power depended overwhelmingly on its Army, not the Waffen-SS. The Army conquered most of Continental Europe without any indispensible contribution by the Waffen-SS.
Cheers,
Sid.
The important thing is that Feldgrau exist in the first place.
Given that it does, it is a secondary matter how it is organised.
If organised proportionally to the importance of the organisations concerned, the Army would be far more obviously prominent on Feldgrau.
However, there is also the matter of user interest. There is no doubt that the Waffen-SS excites much more popular interest than its true military value merits. Feldgrau's structure caters for this.
The distinctiveness of the Waffen-SS lies largely in its political and ideological aspects, not in its unique military contribution.
Yes, indeed, Germany was primarily a land power. However, this land power depended overwhelmingly on its Army, not the Waffen-SS. The Army conquered most of Continental Europe without any indispensible contribution by the Waffen-SS.
Cheers,
Sid.
COMPLETELY OFF THE TOPIC -sid guttridge wrote: The important thing is that Feldgrau exist in the first place.
Sid.
MR.GUTTRIDGE:
Were you one of the originals that started this excellent site? I notice on the member list that Jason starting 25 Sept. 2002 and the rest of the world joining 27 Sept. 2002. Do you know how this all got started?
Just curious!
-best-
Signed: "The Shadow"
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Like Sid, I also noticed a strange fondness for the Waffen-SS among many Anglo-Saxons. Regrettably, perverted principles of honor like "right or wrong, my country" or "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" are still quite commonly shared "values" in those societies, just as "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" was in Hitlers death squads. According to those Landsknecht ideologies, it doesn't matter for what you're fighting as long as you are a fierce and tenacious warrior at all. In other words, warfare as some kind of "L'art pour l'art". Perhaps this archaic mindset also is one explanation for unneccessary bloodbaths like the Iraq war etc. we have been witnessing since 1945.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Stefan,
Personally, I don't consider the Gulf War either a bloodbath or unjustified. At the rate people were dying prematurely under Saddam Hussein's regime I would suggest that "peace" under Saddam represented an on-going bloodbath without foreseeable end. The actual war probably involved under 10,000 deaths, which is not a major bloodbath by recent Iraqi historical standards.
However, I think your point otherwise has some merit. Since turning fully professional after the Vietnam War, the US military has cultivated a "warrior" self-image and it is clear from the posts of one ex-US Marine on Feldgrau that he identifies very strongly with the Waffen-SS in this regard.
The problem with this "warrior" self image is that it is entirely focused on the military world and sees only absolutist military solutions to the world's problems. It overlooks the fact that soldiers are an appendage of a wider civil society, and not the other way around.
It is interesting to note that a row has recently broken between the USS Marines and the US Army. 1st US Marine Division is due to take over from 82nd Airborne Division on security duties in Iraq. The Marine commander has implicitly criticised the Army for excessive use of heavy weapons on its counter-insurgency operations and has declared that his men will learn some basic Arabic, support the work of Iraqi civil institutions and take off their helmets, flak jackets and sun glasses. (Interestingly, these are all things the British Army has been doing in southern Iraq since the war ended). Hopefully this means that elements of the US forces are quite capable of adapting to lower threat situations without always having to display warrior-machismo all the time.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. Please don't mistake the Anglo-Saxon posters on Feldgrau for a typical cross section of the population. Most Anglo-Saxons don't know anything much at all about military history or the Waffen-SS and care even less. Homo Feldgrauensis is a rare subspecies of Homo Sapiens.
Personally, I don't consider the Gulf War either a bloodbath or unjustified. At the rate people were dying prematurely under Saddam Hussein's regime I would suggest that "peace" under Saddam represented an on-going bloodbath without foreseeable end. The actual war probably involved under 10,000 deaths, which is not a major bloodbath by recent Iraqi historical standards.
However, I think your point otherwise has some merit. Since turning fully professional after the Vietnam War, the US military has cultivated a "warrior" self-image and it is clear from the posts of one ex-US Marine on Feldgrau that he identifies very strongly with the Waffen-SS in this regard.
The problem with this "warrior" self image is that it is entirely focused on the military world and sees only absolutist military solutions to the world's problems. It overlooks the fact that soldiers are an appendage of a wider civil society, and not the other way around.
It is interesting to note that a row has recently broken between the USS Marines and the US Army. 1st US Marine Division is due to take over from 82nd Airborne Division on security duties in Iraq. The Marine commander has implicitly criticised the Army for excessive use of heavy weapons on its counter-insurgency operations and has declared that his men will learn some basic Arabic, support the work of Iraqi civil institutions and take off their helmets, flak jackets and sun glasses. (Interestingly, these are all things the British Army has been doing in southern Iraq since the war ended). Hopefully this means that elements of the US forces are quite capable of adapting to lower threat situations without always having to display warrior-machismo all the time.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. Please don't mistake the Anglo-Saxon posters on Feldgrau for a typical cross section of the population. Most Anglo-Saxons don't know anything much at all about military history or the Waffen-SS and care even less. Homo Feldgrauensis is a rare subspecies of Homo Sapiens.
-
Rob - WSSOB
- Supporter
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 1:06 pm
- Contact: