Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/28/2004 3:17:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 3:31:28 PM EST by Mr10anahaf]
Seeing as how today was Nazi day on the history channel it reminded me of a tid bit of information I heard some place that I wondered about. I heard that Gen. Patton had requested that German SS and other special units be kept together after the war and continue to train so that they could be used to fight the Russians. Because he thought that we would end up going to war with them next and these units already had experience fighting them. Has anyone heard this before or have anymore info about it. Gen Patton has always fascinated me, and if true it just goes to show what a genius this man was.

edit to add the S in his name
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:18:47 PM EST
Wouldnt surprise me. Patton was a man who loved war.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:21:41 PM EST
Patton asked for permission to continue right past Moscow.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:25:50 PM EST
Well you know he was correct. We did end up going against the Russains.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:26:19 PM EST
I read in Farago's book, which I don't have with me now, that Patton did not object to keeping German army units together to keep peace in the interem between wartime and the formation of a civilian police force.

Having read the Patton Papers, Farago, and Ayer, I think, however, it is not out of the bounds of Patton's character to have said such a thing.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:26:21 PM EST
Gen Patton was a hardcore anticommunist. He also respected the Waffen SS for their military abilities. They were far and away the best armored units in the war. Also, there was a distinction between the Waffen SS and the political SS. As strange as it seems, by the end of the war, the Waffen SS was mostly nonGerman. It was used to recruit the anticommunist portions of the occupied countries into the war against the USSR.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:27:45 PM EST
In some tabliod I read a few years ago it said he was killed by poisoned toilet paper
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:28:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 3:29:20 PM EST by Johnny_Reno]
George S. Patton


Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:30:02 PM EST
Along this lines of the history channel, I also learned that the SS troopes had a tattoo on/in their armpit denoting that thery were SS and there blood type. This was to make sure they recived blood and medical attention first while on the battle feild. The US used this to filter them out when sending German POW's to the US camps. Just food for ........... well you know
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:30:16 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:33:40 PM EST
I have often wondered in a alternate history sort of way what the following 50 years would have been like if we had let Patton have his way.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:34:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:36:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:
I think Patton was familiar enough with the combat record of the SS to not want to have them under his command. The SS troops were touted as the best Germany had to offer, but this was not true. Most SS troops had lots of training, but it was mostly ineffective training taught to them by leaders who had no military experience. The SS units were more plolitical untis than military. SS units also had the highest causualty rates of all German forces, yet they inflicted far lower casualties upon thier enemies. The reason teh Russians and eventually Americans hated them was because they were fanatics, and would not surrender, they were far more likely to be willing to die for thier cause than give up. This fanaticism alone would have kept Patton or any other general worth a shit from wanting them, they were Nazis dedicated to Hitlers master plan, it was religion to them, and any thing else was blasphemy, any army that was foolish enough to try and fold them into thier forces would have found themselves in a terrible situation, the Russians in front of them and a hate filled fifth column amongst them. I am sure there are a few Nazi worshippers who will disagree, and claim that the SS was the greatest fighting force of all time, but the truth is that they weren't even mediocre, the average Wehrmacht Infantry unit would have kicked thier ass all day long.



The SS did get better equipment than the normal Wermacht troops.
I think Patton was willing to use any German troops with experience against Stalin.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:42:38 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:48:42 PM EST
Hmmm. I wouldn't think so. Patton really and truly hated Nazis. His hate for the soviets was secondary to that. I wonder if it's true?
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:58:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:

Originally Posted By SS109:

The SS did get better equipment than the normal Wermacht troops.
I think Patton was willing to use any German troops with experience against Stalin.



Hell they got better pay, better gear, better food, and nearly everything else you can think of, what they were lacking was tactical leadership. Thier leaders were too often political figures rather than military men, the SS troops looked down on the military veterans as the men who had lost the first World War, and allowed the Wiemar republic to happen. I am not saying that they didn't cause thier fair share of damage, but thier exploits have been greatly mischaracterized in the years since the war.



+1 for historical accuracy
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:17:10 PM EST
The SS really was an elite unit at the start of the war. By the end, the ones who knew WTF was going on were dead.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:40:36 PM EST
Patton considered the SS troops at the end of the war to be of much lower calibre than those at the beginning. He felt many of the officers should be punished, but that the rank and file SS were no worse than the Wehrmacht.

I spent the last 30 minutes going over the second volume of Martin Blumenson's great work, The Patton Papers 1940-1945. He recognized the growing threat of the Soviet Union, but seemed to have little true enthusiasm for keeping German military units in tact. Nevertheless, he did want to use Germans to fight the Soviets in an upcoming war that he saw an inevitable.

Patton disliked the Communists immensely. He also came to dislike the Jews, who he saw as a group more than willing to aid and abet the Commies. Anti-semitism was common in the first half of the 20th century in American society. Patton came from a family of great wealth and was not immune to anti-semetic rhetoric. His brother-in-law believed in the sinister Protocols of Zion, even though it had been long discredited. As a side note, Henry Ford published an English version of the Protocols and Zion and also authored a book on the evils of "international Jewry."
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:03:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 5:05:28 PM EST by Atencio]

Originally Posted By Boomvang:

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:

Originally Posted By SS109:

The SS did get better equipment than the normal Wermacht troops.
I think Patton was willing to use any German troops with experience against Stalin.



Hell they got better pay, better gear, better food, and nearly everything else you can think of, what they were lacking was tactical leadership. Thier leaders were too often political figures rather than military men, the SS troops looked down on the military veterans as the men who had lost the first World War, and allowed the Wiemar republic to happen. I am not saying that they didn't cause thier fair share of damage, but thier exploits have been greatly mischaracterized in the years since the war.



+1 for historical accuracy



Definitely not true.

Equipment that units received varied greatly. GrossDeutschland was probably one of the best equiped divisions in the German military. It's sister division, Lehr had only half as many infantry battalions but had enough armoured half-tracks for all it's troops.

Compare that to SS-Polizei which was using primarily horse drawn transportation. SS-Prinz Eugen and even SS-Totenkopf when it was first formed relied on captured equipment.

Granted SS-Liebstandarte, Das Reich, and others later were supplied with better supplies such as Liebstandarte and Hitlerjugend(the only two) being given Nebelwerfer battalions they were also the troops that were spearheading the attacks and filling in the holes which would only make sense that they should be given better weaponery. On the other side you have the 29th Waffen-Grenadier division which was probably supplied worse than the average Heer division.

SS troops looking down at military leaders with WW1 experience/Poor Leadership qualities :

Paul Hausser and Felix Steiner served in WW1 with both men crucial in forming the exceptional tactical
training programs that the SS employed. They emphasized initiative over blind obedience, and infiltration over direct attack. They required officers to earn their commands rather than receive them out of "birthright" as was common in the Heer. Hausser was regarded as an excellent field commander by the allies.

Fritz von Schuolz was a vetern of the Austro-Hungarian Army in WW1 and was the founder of SS-Nordland being well respected by his men.
Theodoe Eicke served in the Bavarian army in WW1
Herbert Otto Gille was an artillery officer in WW1
Willi Bittrich was a pilot in WW1
Matthias Kleinheisterkamp was an infantry officer in WW1
Dr. Oskar Dirlewanger served as an enlisted soldier and later officer in WW1

That leaves Sepp Dietrich who was a police officer in WW1 as the only noteable Waffen-SS officer who was old enough to have served in WW1 that did not actually serve in it.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:07:14 PM EST
The problem was FDR loved "Uncle Joe" too much.

Patton wanted to liberate Czechoslovakia, Europe’s best functioning democracy, but FDR had sold the Czechs out to Stalin.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 5:10:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By tfod:
The problem was FDR loved "Uncle Joe" too much.

Patton wanted to liberate Czechoslovakia, Europe’s best functioning democracy, but FDR had sold the Czechs out to Stalin.



We sold pretty much all of eastern Europe out much to the irritation of Churchill.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:05:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:24:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:
I think Patton was familiar enough with the combat record of the SS to not want to have them under his command. The SS troops were touted as the best Germany had to offer, but this was not true. Most SS troops had lots of training, but it was mostly ineffective training taught to them by leaders who had no military experience. The SS units were more plolitical untis than military. SS units also had the highest causualty rates of all German forces, yet they inflicted far lower casualties upon thier enemies. The reason teh Russians and eventually Americans hated them was because they were fanatics, and would not surrender, they were far more likely to be willing to die for thier cause than give up. This fanaticism alone would have kept Patton or any other general worth a shit from wanting them, they were Nazis dedicated to Hitlers master plan, it was religion to them, and any thing else was blasphemy, any army that was foolish enough to try and fold them into thier forces would have found themselves in a terrible situation, the Russians in front of them and a hate filled fifth column amongst them. I am sure there are a few Nazi worshippers who will disagree, and claim that the SS was the greatest fighting force of all time, but the truth is that they weren't even mediocre, the average Wehrmacht Infantry unit would have kicked thier ass all day long.



Bullshit...you can ask my Uncle Walter (Panzer tank driver SS)if you want...he lives in Stutgart if you want his address and tel. He has the pics to prove it from the Russian front.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:30:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:
The Nazi war machine was better suited to fighting against unprepared and unequipped nations like Czechoslavakia and Poland, than to taking on countries that had any fight in them. The scum bag Nazis tactics were brilliant when fighting defenseless countries, or countries that pretended they were not in danger of attatck, that is what explains thier early success, nothing more, not thier brilliant tactics, or thier pure Aryan heritage. When it came time to fight countries who were willing to fight, the Krauts got the shit kicked out of them. The Russians chewed them up and spit them out, we ran them out of Africa, then the Mediteranian, then Europe itself. The best the Nazis ever managed to do was in North Africa, they had the place locked down tight, and were giving the Brits hell, unti the US showed up. As soon as the US showed up that was it for the Germans, all of the Sudden the vaunted Luftwaffe was faced with the an adversary who wasn't afraid of them, nor challenged by them, once the US Army Air Corp caused the Tanks to run out of gas, the Germans beat feet out of Africa they didn't even bother to bring most of thier tanks with them. The really amusing thing about it was Rommel was the only really succesfull general that the Krauts had, and the moron head goose stepper decided that since he was one of the old school prussians that he couldn't be trusted (of course what do you expect when the madman was trying to destroy several entire races, including his own, yet claiming he was Aryan).






Umm....no.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:34:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By byron2112:

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:
The Nazi war machine was better suited to fighting against unprepared and unequipped nations like Czechoslavakia and Poland, than to taking on countries that had any fight in them. The scum bag Nazis tactics were brilliant when fighting defenseless countries, or countries that pretended they were not in danger of attatck, that is what explains thier early success, nothing more, not thier brilliant tactics, or thier pure Aryan heritage. When it came time to fight countries who were willing to fight, the Krauts got the shit kicked out of them. The Russians chewed them up and spit them out, we ran them out of Africa, then the Mediteranian, then Europe itself. The best the Nazis ever managed to do was in North Africa, they had the place locked down tight, and were giving the Brits hell, unti the US showed up. As soon as the US showed up that was it for the Germans, all of the Sudden the vaunted Luftwaffe was faced with the an adversary who wasn't afraid of them, nor challenged by them, once the US Army Air Corp caused the Tanks to run out of gas, the Germans beat feet out of Africa they didn't even bother to bring most of thier tanks with them. The really amusing thing about it was Rommel was the only really succesfull general that the Krauts had, and the moron head goose stepper decided that since he was one of the old school prussians that he couldn't be trusted (of course what do you expect when the madman was trying to destroy several entire races, including his own, yet claiming he was Aryan).






Umm....no.



seriously, would you consider the road to ve day a cakewalk?
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:36:36 PM EST
woulnt think so

patton hated commies and nazies alike

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:10:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 7:10:23 PM EST by Atencio]

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:
I think Patton was familiar enough with the combat record of the SS to not want to have them under his command. The SS troops were touted as the best Germany had to offer, but this was not true. Most SS troops had lots of training, but it was mostly ineffective training taught to them by leaders who had no military experience. The SS units were more plolitical untis than military. SS units also had the highest causualty rates of all German forces, yet they inflicted far lower casualties upon thier enemies. The reason teh Russians and eventually Americans hated them was because they were fanatics, and would not surrender, they were far more likely to be willing to die for thier cause than give up. This fanaticism alone would have kept Patton or any other general worth a shit from wanting them, they were Nazis dedicated to Hitlers master plan, it was religion to them, and any thing else was blasphemy, any army that was foolish enough to try and fold them into thier forces would have found themselves in a terrible situation, the Russians in front of them and a hate filled fifth column amongst them. I am sure there are a few Nazi worshippers who will disagree, and claim that the SS was the greatest fighting force of all time, but the truth is that they weren't even mediocre, the average Wehrmacht Infantry unit would have kicked thier ass all day long.



I am sorry Lightning_P38, but you really do not have any idea what you are talking about.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 3:12:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:
The Nazi war machine was better suited to fighting against unprepared and unequipped nations like Czechoslavakia and Poland, than to taking on countries that had any fight in them. The scum bag Nazis tactics were brilliant when fighting defenseless countries, or countries that pretended they were not in danger of attatck, that is what explains thier early success, nothing more, not thier brilliant tactics, or thier pure Aryan heritage. When it came time to fight countries who were willing to fight, the Krauts got the shit kicked out of them. The Russians chewed them up and spit them out, we ran them out of Africa, then the Mediteranian, then Europe itself. The best the Nazis ever managed to do was in North Africa, they had the place locked down tight, and were giving the Brits hell, unti the US showed up. As soon as the US showed up that was it for the Germans, all of the Sudden the vaunted Luftwaffe was faced with the an adversary who wasn't afraid of them, nor challenged by them, once the US Army Air Corp caused the Tanks to run out of gas, the Germans beat feet out of Africa they didn't even bother to bring most of thier tanks with them. The really amusing thing about it was Rommel was the only really succesfull general that the Krauts had, and the moron head goose stepper decided that since he was one of the old school prussians that he couldn't be trusted (of course what do you expect when the madman was trying to destroy several entire races, including his own, yet claiming he was Aryan).



This fits in with a certain bias pattern, but it isn't even close to true. Politically, much of Nazi Germany was repugnant (with a significant exception made for its anticommunism) but militarily, in tactics, doctrine and equipment, they were far ahead of other nations, especially in pioneering combined arms operations.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 3:20:49 AM EST
Best armored unitof WWII?… US 3rd Armored without a doubt. Even with it's mediocre Sherman tanks it thrashed the best of the German Army time after time…they became the masters of Blitzkrieg and showed the Germans how it should be fought.

The SS were overated, fanatical but often lacking in tactical common sense. Most Wehrmacht Panzer units were much better led and better fighters. The SS were great at do or die 'last stands' and that's usually what happened to them…they died.

Andy
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 6:22:27 AM EST
That is very debatable vito113. You have to factor in such things as supplies and air support. All things being equal I would take Das Reich, Liebstandarte, Lehr, or Grossdeutschland over the 3rd Armour. All were well led and had superior equipment.

Much of your second comments I could see applying to such units as SS-Totenkopf but not as a broadbrush to all Waffen-SS. You would be hard put to state a Heer panzer unit that was much better led/fighting skills than one of Liebstandarte or Das Reich.

As far as the last stand remark which would also tie in with high casualties in battle, I just don't see it. For one thing, Hitler never left a major SS unit in a doomed situation, ala Stalingrad. There are other complexities as well that make any decision difficult one way or the other. Heer divisions had much larger numbers of non-combat personnel such as larger headquarter staffs, combat support, and service staff. What this means is that a Waffen-SS division had a much higher proportion of combat units. So you would expect more cassualities. It gets more confusing. The Waffen-SS had 27% casuality rate. The Heer had a just under 30% casuality rate. But, Waffen-SS units did not fight in fixed defenses as one example or as I said earlier, allowed to stay in doomed positions both of which took heavy tolls on the Heer. So I find the whole question impossible to say for certain one way or the other.

Better fighters, leaders. I wouldnt say that Waffen-SS leaders were lacking in tactical skills. I would be curious of some examples. As far as fighters go I would take Meyer and his crew over any Heer panzer crew.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 8:38:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 8:39:48 AM EST by vito113]
Fair points… However 12th SS HJ was effectively wiped out in Normandy. It is interesting to note that the Grossdeutschland fought some of it's finest actions when commended by Hasso Von Mantuefel, a Heer Officer, now IMHO, he is without a doubt one of the finest all round German Generals, a true master of his craft. I think we should not forget Kesselring, a brilliant tactician, and much underrated.

Kurt Meyer? personaly I think Sepp Dietrich was the better of the two… Meyer was a good fighter, but usually had the best units and a brilliant staff to sorth things out when his somewhat 'headstrong' nature got him into a tight situation… IIRC he was often called 'Schnellmeyer' for his habit of charging off into the blue!



I have a pair of those Zeiss Binoculars Meyer is holding, WWII Heer coded, superb optical quality!

Concentrating on which was the best General however misses the great strength of the German army in WWII… it's NCO's

Have you read 'The Forgotten Soldier' by Guy Sajer?…

Andy
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 9:16:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
Fair points… However 12th SS HJ was effectively wiped out in Normandy. It is interesting to note that the Grossdeutschland fought some of it's finest actions when commended by Hasso Von Mantuefel, a Heer Officer, now IMHO, he is without a doubt one of the finest all round German Generals, a true master of his craft. I think we should not forget Kesselring, a brilliant tactician, and much underrated.

Kurt Meyer? personaly I think Sepp Dietrich was the better of the two… Meyer was a good fighter, but usually had the best units and a brilliant staff to sorth things out when his somewhat 'headstrong' nature got him into a tight situation… IIRC he was often called 'Schnellmeyer' for his habit of charging off into the blue!

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/meyer2.jpg

I have a pair of those Zeiss Binoculars Meyer is holding, WWII Heer coded, superb optical quality!

Concentrating on which was the best General however misses the great strength of the German army in WWII… it's NCO's

Have you read 'The Forgotten Soldier' by Guy Sajer?…
Andy




I have three copies of the Forgotten Soldier. One that I got back in '76. The best war story around. One thing that I'd add to this thread was that when the US was facing most of their German opponents, the Wehrmacht and SS units were either being refitted, re-trained, re-built, or on leave from the East. If /when we did face a premier unit, they were typically under supplied and lacking in sufficient air cover. There is absolutely no way to compare a fully eguipped summer 1944 US or British Tank Unit to a German unit of the same period...even during the Battle of the Bulge, the German supply situation was tenuous at best.


Back to the initial Patton question, Patten did indeed want to keep certain levels of German (Nazi) bureaucrats in administrative positions to help with the occupation. Same as we are using former Baath party members in Iraq.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 9:42:05 AM EST
lots of revisionist history in this thread

The Waffen SS had a record in combat that was matched only by its criminal record.

Making light of their accomplishments as soldiers doesn't do them justice and finding ways to absolve them of responsibility for their atrocities doesn't do their victims justice.

Link Posted: 9/29/2004 11:43:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
Kurt Meyer? personaly I think Sepp Dietrich was the better of the two



Meyer fought under Dietrich. I mentioned his name only in regards to him being a good fighter.



Orginally Posted By Dino:

Making light of their accomplishments as soldiers doesn't do them justice and finding ways to absolve them of responsibility for their atrocities doesn't do their victims justice.



You lost me Dino. Who made a post here absolving the Waffen-SS of their atrocities?

Link Posted: 9/29/2004 11:46:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
Concentrating on which was the best General however misses the great strength of the German army in WWII… it's NCO's

Have you read 'The Forgotten Soldier' by Guy Sajer?…

Andy



I think it would be fair to say that NCO's are the backbone of any good army.

Never heard of the book Andy. What is it about?
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 12:13:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dino:
lots of revisionist history in this thread

The Waffen SS had a record in combat that was matched only by its criminal record.

Making light of their accomplishments as soldiers doesn't do them justice and finding ways to absolve them of responsibility for their atrocities doesn't do their victims justice.




"SS" means a whole bunch of things, prison guards, foriegn fighters, political units, and soldats.

The Germans fought man-man much better than any other nationality. They were outnumbered everywhere they fought. Sometimes their equipment was better, most of the time it wasn't, and they had far less of it.

Unit supplies were a mess, for political, as well as logisitical reasons. German units were often understrenght, underequipped, and underfed. Reading about supplies, weapons, etc. it is more amazing that the Germans were even able to put up serious defenses in Italy and France at all.

Most of the units on the "Western Front" were foriegn conscripts, or units being refitted. The Germans would move spent units to the west to refit, then send them back east. So no matter when the Allies hit France, they would have been fighting German units that were in some stage of refitting. Of course that also meant the Allies would also be fighting experienced troops.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 12:26:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Atencio:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Concentrating on which was the best General however misses the great strength of the German army in WWII… it's NCO's

Have you read 'The Forgotten Soldier' by Guy Sajer?…

Andy



I think it would be fair to say that NCO's are the backbone of any good army.

Never heard of the book Andy. What is it about?



It's the memoirs of a Soldier who fought in the GrossDeutschland Division… excellent book.

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1574882864/qid=1096492747/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-9993743-5430451?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Andy

Link Posted: 9/29/2004 12:49:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By Dino:
lots of revisionist history in this thread

The Waffen SS had a record in combat that was matched only by its criminal record.

Making light of their accomplishments as soldiers doesn't do them justice and finding ways to absolve them of responsibility for their atrocities doesn't do their victims justice.




"SS" means a whole bunch of things, prison guards, foriegn fighters, political units, and soldats.

The Germans fought man-man much better than any other nationality. They were outnumbered everywhere they fought. Sometimes their equipment was better, most of the time it wasn't, and they had far less of it.

Unit supplies were a mess, for political, as well as logisitical reasons. German units were often understrenght, underequipped, and underfed. Reading about supplies, weapons, etc. it is more amazing that the Germans were even able to put up serious defenses in Italy and France at all.

Most of the units on the "Western Front" were foriegn conscripts, or units being refitted. The Germans would move spent units to the west to refit, then send them back east. So no matter when the Allies hit France, they would have been fighting German units that were in some stage of refitting. Of course that also meant the Allies would also be fighting experienced troops.



Yes but thats why I specifically said Waffen SS. They were the combat arm of the SS (as opposed to the Allgemeine-SS and the SS-Totenkopfverbande) and were often considered the 4th part of the German military along with the Heer, Luftwaffe, and Kriegsmarine.

The Waffen SS were tough, brutal soldiers who committed some of the worst atrocities in the European theater. Granted a lot of those atrocities had more to do with local ethnic tensions than anything on the SS agenda. Some of the nastiest crimes were committed in the area of modern Kosovo by Albanians against Serbs. Big surprise there eh?

Like many things in war, there are 2 sides to the Waffen SS. They were soldiers and criminals and they were extremely talented at both.






Link Posted: 9/29/2004 1:02:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 1:03:47 PM EST by Warpiper]
I read a short bio, written well after the war, of an SS Panzer officer. In it he said the Americans had a "white list" of German divisions(including SS divisions) that dictated how various units would be treated when they surrendered. He said several units were allowed to keep their weapons and were redeployed alongside American units in anticipation of possible action with Russian troops.

Fascinating read, the guy was born in New Jersey but was sent to Germany by his mother at a young age. After the war he joined the U.S. Army and stayed in until he retired.

To say all SS units were brutal criminals is to show an extreme ignorance towards history.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 1:12:49 PM EST
yes but to say the Waffen SS as a whole was a brutal criminal organization is correct.

I'm sure there were many Waffen SS soldiers who were never involved in atrocities. The stain is on the individuals who committed the acts AND on the unit itself.

You can read lots of books by Waffen SS soldiers (i'm on my 9th) and they all fall into 2 categories

1) they compare with the atrocities committed by allied units (and there were many)
2) they deal with the fact that while they and their immediate comrades might have been honorable, some of the people they ate with in the messhall were not. The same beliefs were instilled into the honorable men and those who committed atrocities. It leads some to question the root beliefs.

I find the second book to be far more interesting to read.



Link Posted: 9/29/2004 1:36:11 PM EST
FWIW...I have spoken with...several times in the past...a man who claims to have been Patton's personal pilot during the desert campaign. His words...not mine..."we flew several times intio Rommel's camp and I was all alone guarding the aircraft while Gen. Patton played chess with Rommel...I was scared shitless!" I have no idea if he is correct or full of shit, but I DO know he is a multimillionaire...or was about 25 years ago.
Top Top