Why Das Heer does not have a branch of his own?
Moderator: John W. Howard
- TH Albright
- Supporter
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:35 am
off-topic, but I agree partly with Sid's analysis of the new volunteer "warrior elite" ethos developing in the US army and being forged in the Iraqi blitzkrieg/insurgency. However, I have yet to see any semblance of a "barbarization" or even hardening of the US soldier in the face of a barbaric, and somewhat cowardly, terror insurgency. The discipline and behavior of US forces is remarkable up to this point. Could you imagine what Heinz Lammerding would do in the face of the chopper shoot downs; there would hardly be a village left standing in the Sunni triangle. Or how about those Romans, with which the US has been recently compared in Europe. Does anybody think that Caesar, Pompey or Trajan wouldn't make an example of Fullijah? But guess what, the Romans were an empire and Nazi Germany aspired to be an empire. If we have imperial aspirations, we might be the most benevolent would be empire in history. But practically speaking, it gets back to cost benefit for us; the US "targeted" approach will probably yield the kind of benefits the draconian German, not just WSS, approach to insurgency failed to yield in Russia and elsewhere. You can already see this in the above Marine effort. In a flawed but interesting book on the German anti-partisan effort in Russia, the author (his name escapes me right now), points out that some WSS leading lights, like Otto Kumm, Bittrich and Steiner, were some of the loudest voices in attempting to moderate the HSSPF/Security police approach to anti-partisan warfare.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 1:06 pm
- Contact:
Hi Tom -
Yes thankfully to date the US Armed Forces have not used Third Reich-style tactics in their counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq nor fallen back on the "civilize them with a Krag" ways of the Philippine insurrection a century ago. Unfortunately, US deftness with regards to the rules of warfare in the current low-intensity conflict don't seem to be earning a lot of kudos on the world stage.
The cost-benefit approach that you mention reminds me of Caleb Carr's book The Origins of Terror, whose theis is basically that warfare against civilians doesn't work in the long run. Perhaps we should start a new thread about the alternating approaches to counterinsurgency warfare (mercy vs. severity or "win their hearts and minds" vs. "kill them all; god will recognize his own") existed -or didn't - for the Third Reich during WWII.
Sounds like Colin Heaton's book, which IMHO was a disaster. Reitlinger's The House Built on Sand, MacLean's The Cruel Hunters or some of Axis Europa's titles on obscure SS/Police formations (e.g. the Kaminski Brigade, etc.) are much, much better researched in presenting some of the complexity and contradictions, and sheer brutality of Third Reich security policies in the east. Raul Hilberg's 3-volume set The Destruction of the European Jews also has some very good information and diagrams on the maddening complexity of the HSSPF/SSPF/BdO/KdO/Heer/Schuma/Orpo/SS/SD mix.In a flawed but interesting book on the German anti-partisan effort in Russia, the author (his name escapes me right now), points out that some WSS leading lights, like Otto Kumm, Bittrich and Steiner, were some of the loudest voices in attempting to moderate the HSSPF/Security police approach to anti-partisan warfare.
Yes thankfully to date the US Armed Forces have not used Third Reich-style tactics in their counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq nor fallen back on the "civilize them with a Krag" ways of the Philippine insurrection a century ago. Unfortunately, US deftness with regards to the rules of warfare in the current low-intensity conflict don't seem to be earning a lot of kudos on the world stage.
The cost-benefit approach that you mention reminds me of Caleb Carr's book The Origins of Terror, whose theis is basically that warfare against civilians doesn't work in the long run. Perhaps we should start a new thread about the alternating approaches to counterinsurgency warfare (mercy vs. severity or "win their hearts and minds" vs. "kill them all; god will recognize his own") existed -or didn't - for the Third Reich during WWII.
- TH Albright
- Supporter
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:35 am
Hi Rob..you are correct, it is Heaton's Book. I did not mind some of his generalizations, but he was awfully and repeatedly inaccurate with his facts on dramatis personae, which leads me to doubt some of his conclusions on the subject. But I do believe that some of the more circumspect and intelligent WSS and Heer commanders came to realize the failure, marked by overarching brutality, inflexibility and most importantly, the "Nazification" (the racial element in particular), of German anti-partisan policies. However, I see little evidence of any substantial change in these policies later in the war. And when you saw what happened in France (Tulle/Oradour) and Italy in 1944 with anti-partisan operations, nothing really changed and nothing was learned. The behavior of the Fallschirmjager, "HG" division, Gebirgsjager and "RFSS" division in Italy in the fall of 1944 indicates the one size-fits-all, Kill 'em all, Metallica approach to insurgency. Maybe our guys are listening to Sarah MacLachlan after all!
- Tom Houlihan
- Patron
- Posts: 4301
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:05 pm
- Location: MI, USA
- Contact:
- Tom Houlihan
- Patron
- Posts: 4301
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:05 pm
- Location: MI, USA
- Contact: