SS - supermen or just mama's boys with lots of toys?

[sburke]

Also, what is our American friends view of the Big Red 1? I’ve heard that they considered themselves elite, but did that translate into combat effectiveness?

A veteran division for sure, but also one with issues. The flip side of being a veteran division is you also have an issue of combat fatigue to overcome. Their performance in the Ardennes on the northern shoulder was without doubt deserving of respect. That they were able to push off the beach on D Day as well despite their leadership not preparing them well enough also reflects their determination and experience. However elite? Not sure I would consider them that. The US did develop some very good divisions at least on par with them (the 30th for example) and I think the US tended toward having a fairly uniform standard and the overall baseline improved as they gathered experience and developed the leadership cadre.

On another tangent - has anyone read anything on whether the US ever considered using the Marines to land in Normandy or at least take advantage of the techniques and equipment they had developed? It seems such a glaring shortcoming that the US Marines had so much specialized equipment and experience that it is almost criminal that it wasn't reflected in the D Day landings.

[TrailApe]

has anyone read anything on whether the US ever considered using the Marines to land in Normandy

I'm no expert on this, but I reckon the 6 USMC divisions in existence at the time were fully committed to their Island Hopping in the Pacific. D-Day was just one, single amphibious assault (a hell of a big one to be sure) so mebbes it was not seen as a cost effective exercise to disrupt the Pacific campaign by dragging an appreciable lump of the USMC halfway across the world just to take part in one landing.

I'll not touch on the politics betwixt Marines/Army, don't know enough about it but I can make a few guesses.....

[Secondbrooks]

To be frank, I think there was a lot of that going around. There is some question as to whether US units during the landing had a more or less official policy of being prepared to not take prisoners. In Destination Normandy by GH Bennett, he discusses briefly the issue of treatment of POWs and suggests it was fairly routine on both sides to shoot prisoners. The regimental history of the 115th for example is quoted as saying "..while few prisoners taken by our troops reached the collecting cages".

Treatment of civilians however is another matter.

Yeah. Same in Beevor's book, Normandy 1944. From that book i get impression that killing prisoners were very regular in both sides atleast during start. 101th Airborne was seen as exceptionally blood thristy unit at their drop night when men would go searching for Germans to kill at their own initiative in small groups.

And allied mostly killed Germans. Troops from "Ost divisions" were typically spared.

[Sgt Joch]

To continue on the prisoner issue.

You have to make distinction between soldiers killed while attempting to surrender and the deliberate murder of POWs.

Surrendering has always been one of the most dangerous act for a soldier in any war. In the heat of action, the line between legitimate military target and POW is not always clear and mistakes or excesses were made by both sides.

However the deliberate cold blooded murder of POWs who have been disarmed and are in custody is an entirely separate issue. All the documented cases on the western front are of German, especially SS troops, cold bloodedly murdering allied troops. The murder of close to 100 canadian soldiers by the 12th SS is one example. Canadian soldiers were murdered days or weeks after they had been captured, sometimes hundred of kilometers from the front.

In the case of 26 canadian prisoners held at Chateau d'Audrieu, the order to execute them came directly from 12th SS officers.

There is no evidence that allied officers ever ordered the murder of German POWs, only the SS sank to that level.

[Vark]

Well no not really and again we see myth created were there is none.

The "abortive coup-de-main" came about because the recce co had moved across the bridge and driven down to Nijmegen bridge to investigate reports of paratroopers.

When they got to Nijmegen there was nothing going on (don't get me started on that !) so they turned around and headed home, only to be ambushed on the Arnhem bridge by 2 Para which had taken up positions after they had gone through.

Kershaw, (pp 128-31) discussing the 'attack' seems to suggest Graebner knew the far side was occupied and decided to use speed and surprise to get through. You are right thought the WTF moment happened when they realised they had fatally underestimated the defence. Again, kershaw suggests that Graebner nearly pulled of the attack and that his reaction, when confronted by opposition, was typical, charge, with fingers crossed. For all the much 'celebrated' occasions the SS 'pulled it off' there were an equal/greater number of, less documented, times this overly-aggressive approach cost them dear.

The fact that the Canadians often shot their POW's, especially members of the Waffen-SS, might also have something to do with that...

It's a bit more complex than sheer revenge, Linderman in "The world within war" a suggests the shooting of German troops (not just SS) was due to cultural differences regarding the 'rules of war'. Germans, especially machine gunners believed they could mow down soldiers and then, when they were about to be close assaulted, stand up and be taken prisoner. Understandably the allied troops, who'd often lost comrades to these gunners summarily shot them down when they stood up. Also the SS habit of pretending to surrender or concealing and using weapons (often grenades) after surrendering didn't endear them to allied troops.

There is no evidence that allied officers ever ordered the murder of German POWs, only the SS sank to that level.

I thought the official toleration of canadian 'ghoul squads' was quite well documented

[MikeyD]

I recall my father telling me stories about the Pacific theatre. U.S. would load Japanese P.O.W.s aboard transport aircraft, fly out over the ocean then land a short while later at the same airstrip empty. You're not going to find that story in any history books.

[zukkov]

i've heard tales of american platoon leaders ordering the b.a.r. guy to take prisoners to the rear. then he would say "you have 5 minutes to get back!" which could mean only one thing. he took them over the hill or around the corner and shot the prisoners, then returned to the platoon. haven't read any documentation on that, just what i've heard. it seems to me in a fluid situation prisoners are a burden that an army on the move can't afford.

[gunnergoz]

I'm no expert on this, but I reckon the 6 USMC divisions in existence at the time were fully committed to their Island Hopping in the Pacific. D-Day was just one, single amphibious assault (a hell of a big one to be sure) so mebbes it was not seen as a cost effective exercise to disrupt the Pacific campaign by dragging an appreciable lump of the USMC halfway across the world just to take part in one landing.

I'll not touch on the politics betwixt Marines/Army, don't know enough about it but I can make a few guesses.....

SOME Marines almost made it to Pointe du Hoc (sp?) when it looked like the Ranger assault there might falter. As I recall reading about it, Marines from the ship's detachment based on board the cruiser which was the local capital ship, were readied to go ashore to lend a hand via Higgins boats, when the venture was called off because they could see the area had finally been taken by the Rangers. If they had gone, it would have been about two platoon's worth, so no major contribution, but clearly they were itching for a fight. I still have the book somewhere, it was quite a read.

BTW one of my high school teachers was a WW2 Marine and had the mis-fortune (?) to be assigned to the ETO instead of the Pacific, to his intense frustration. The only person he ever shot was a US deserter trying to escape from a stockade in England, and that was apparently with a load of rock salt from a trench gun.

[gunnergoz]

(snip)

The same goes for other armies too, for example the US 101st Airborne Division.

They were meant to be elite and fought well...but were they that much "better" then a ordinary Army division ?

(snip)

Actually, if you do your homework, you will find the 82nd and 101st in particular did perform on the average better than ordinary leg units. There were several reasons for this:

- They were composed largely of volunteers

- These volunteers were inculcated with a belief that paratroops were special and different

- They were trained for a longer period of time than many infantry troops, particularly in field exercises

- The training included a lot of focus on independent operations and tactical maneuvering while isolated

- Personal initiative was encouraged

- Once committed to combat, they were usually withdrawn after a while to regroup, replenish and ready for their next assignment, thus benefiting from refresher breaks that were uncommon for line infantry divisions.

When I say that they "did perform better" I do not mean to say that they were infallible but simply that they did an outstanding job under conditions where ordinary infantry units might have faltered. This was, after all, what they were trained for and expected. For instance, when the night drops over Normandy scattered the two divisions and intermingled their forces, the airborne troops took it in stride, made extemporaneous fighting units and carried on until their regular organizations could be re-established. Not many line infantry units could have done that.

The stand of the 101st at the Bulge is legendary, but the 82nd did yeoman service on the Northern shoulder too. There the two divisions fought as regular infantry, but they did so with determination that was not always present in line infantry outfits.

If I had to say what made the WW2 US paratroopers different from line infantry, it would be the combination of preparation and attitude before being committed to battle, confidence and self-reliance once committed to battle, to which you have to add "combat smarts" after surviving and moving on to the next battle.

[wolf66]

I recall my father telling me stories about the Pacific theatre. U.S. would load Japanese P.O.W.s aboard transport aircraft, fly out over the ocean then land a short while later at the same airstrip empty. You're not going to find that story in any history books.

You would if the Japanese had won the war.

[Rokko]

Where would that have been? Soldiers beeing executed weeks after they'd been captured? Also for all I care it doesn't matter a lot if you murder someone how's just trying to surrender or wait until you've captured a bunch of soldiers and kill them then. Besides, I have read accounts for both also for the allied side. I for example remember having read about the remnants of a SS-Batallion (about 200 men) beeing murdered after they were captured by American soldiers in 1945, or think of the Dachau massacre, although that's a different situation.

When judging the SS imho you have to understand that it makes not much sense to talk about "them", simply because there were so many reasons to end up in the Waffen-SS for people of about a dozen of nationalities (I believe all in all only 40% of the men were Germans).

Look at the command level: You have some die hard nazis, fanatical and merciless. Think of Theodor Eicke, CO of 3rd SS "Totenkopf", the guy who had founded Dachau concentration camp. Or Sepp Dietrich (1st SS), who had been a party member since almost the beginning.

There is a documentation on YouTube (sadly only in German) about Walter Krüger, who was the CO of an SS reconaissance batallion and pretty much qualifies for beeing called a "fool" and nazi fanatic.

But then you also have some who didn't give much about the specific SS ideals and not even about nazi politics like Paul Hausser and Felix Steiner and even the highest Waffen-SS commanders would defy direct orders from Hitler if they were stupid and suicidal like the order hold Kharkov in early 1943.

And look at the lower ranks: There were those who joined the Waffen-SS before the war, for whatever reasons (believing in the nazi cause, wanting to belong to the "elite", wanting to wear a fancy uniform, etc). Then, from 1941 onwards, many ethnic Germans from Hungary, Romania, etc. who could not be drafted by the Wehrmacht (besides, the Waffen-SS did not really have better access to replacements, it was actually an ever increasing struggle to get more reserves from anywhere possible). And from 1943 onward, when volunteers didn't suffice anymore to fill the ranks, many were also drafted into the SS. I don't really believe that someone drafted would be more fanatical than anyone drafted into the Wehrmacht?

And then there were of course the many foreign volunteers, who, again joined the SS for many different reasons. Some probably wanted to search for adventures, Balts had pretty good reasons to fight the Soviets, although the Germans probably wouldn't have granted them independence either, although I know many recruitment officers promised just that.

Maybe they believed in the "European idea" Hitler proclaimed, although he didn't really think about sticking to it.

But I admit, with all the propaganda (both in favour and against the Waffen-SS), myths, gloryfication, and so on it's really hard to see the real picture and I don't claim to fully do.

As for war-crimes, which is something the Waffen-SS is especially infamous for, I believe this is an issue which can be mostly tracked down to the "real" die-hard nazis at command level. Also one mustn't forget the Wehrmacht doesn't have a white west at all and neither do the Allies do, although the (Western) Allies admittedly did never conduct any massacres against civillians, at least none I have heard of.

For the French campaign I do only know of 3 massacres, and all were committed by the Waffen-SS, to of them by the Totenkopf division, which had a really bad reputation until about 1942. Then there are of course the very well known Waffen-SS crimes like Oradour or Malmedy, but one should also remember Wehrmacht crimes in Italy, on Kelafonia (1st Gebirgs Division killed some 4000 Italian prisoners), in the Soviet Union of course.

One last thing I wanted to mention:

The fact Waffen-SS divisions were stronger in their TOE is mainly due to the fact, that they didn't have anything at corps level until 1943, so the single units had those support units directly, while in Wehrmacht they would be at corps level.

Also the fact, that the first 3 SS-Panzergrenadier-Divisions had two armored batallions instead of only one was simply a naming issue and they were actually renamed little later, other PzGren divisions like the 17th did only have one I believe.

[gunnergoz]

I recall my father telling me stories about the Pacific theatre. U.S. would load Japanese P.O.W.s aboard transport aircraft, fly out over the ocean then land a short while later at the same airstrip empty. You're not going to find that story in any history books.

With all due respect to your dad and his service, MikeyD, I suspect that many of those stories are apocryphal; my dad was a GI also and he had his favorite "latrine tall tales." I'm not saying it never happened, only that it seems a bit dubious. Why? First, because there were so few Japanese taken prisoner in the first place. Second, if they survived combat, capture and the trip to the rear, their care and treatment was pretty well regulated and managed. There was a lot of effort taken to get intel from these prisoners and to induce some of them to cooperate actively in getting their still-resisting companions to surrender.

That's not to say it never happened, but I suspect the telling of the story at the time was cause for much glee and humor among GI's.

As for similar stories about VC and NVA captured in Viet Nam, "accidentally falling" from US evacuation helos, well, that's another thing entirely...

[LongLeftFlank]

Interesting thread here.

As to the Canadians, my relatives who were all infantrymen with the various Maritimes regiments, related (to my Mum, who was interested in such things) that while they were fairly businesslike with the Germans in Italy (we're willing to take them prisoner as long as they take ours), after 12 SS shot those Saskatchewan boys at the Ardenne Abbey the consensus became that "well if that's how they want to play, fine".

And this is hearsay possibly tinged with bigotry, but they also claimed that the French-speaking units pretty much shot all their Hun prisoners (SS and other) in the woods at the end of the day.

Atrocities aside, the standard German practices of sniping, mining and booby-trapping were also instrumental in creating significant animosity among the Allied troops, as these measures were (incorrectly) seen as serving no "legitimate" tactical purpose other than to kill and maim in an indiscriminate way. Unlike carpet bombing of course....

That said, of the German losses in France, I believe close to half were prisoners. While many may have been negotiated full unit surrenders (e.g. Cherbourg), I suspect that there were plenty of prisoners taken on the battlefield.

[Sgt Joch]

And this is hearsay possibly tinged with bigotry, but they also claimed that the French-speaking units pretty much shot all their Hun prisoners (SS and other) in the woods at the end of the day.

What I heard from relatives (or friends who had relatives) who did serve in the french-canadian regiments was that they just did not give the germans a chance to surrender. This was after it became common knowledge that the SS were shooting prisoners. However, I know from experience that Quebeckers never let facts get in the way of a good story.

[Wiggum]

Actually, if you do your homework, you will find the 82nd and 101st in particular did perform on the average better than ordinary leg units.

Yes, but does this mean that they were better units with more combat power ?

I would say that a fresh 29th Infantry Division could perform as good as the 82nd or 101st.

Would the 101st performed better then an ordinary Infantry Division if used the same way in the Hurtgen forest ?

Elite, yes !

Much better then an ordinary Infantry Division, no !

[DLaurier]

Armys are not trained to take prisoners.

This has always been a problem.

There is not one army that has ever bothered to train it's troops to take prisoners.

Lone soldiers surrendering have always had a low chance of survival.

This is sometimes mitigated by the captor having something in common with the captive.

Speaking the same language usualy increases the odds astronomicaly.

If you can say "I am surrendering. Please dont shoot me" in the language of the troops you are surrendering too, you have a 50/50 chance of not being shot. Otherwise you might as well not even bother.

[sburke]

To continue on the prisoner issue.

You have to make distinction between soldiers killed while attempting to surrender and the deliberate murder of POWs.

However the deliberate cold blooded murder of POWs who have been disarmed and are in custody is an entirely separate issue. All the documented cases on the western front are of German, especially SS troops, cold bloodedly murdering allied troops. The murder of close to 100 canadian soldiers by the 12th SS is one example. Canadian soldiers were murdered days or weeks after they had been captured, sometimes hundred of kilometers from the front.

There is no evidence that allied officers ever ordered the murder of German POWs, only the SS sank to that level.

I think part of the problem you have here is the US and other allies aren't going to particularly go out of their way to try and document their own abuses. It wouldn't sell well at home. Even today this type of issue gets hyped up by the needs of one side to hide it in order to maintain public support for sometimes difficult to understand missions and for folks on the opposite side to undermine those very same missions. Politics has everything to do with how well these are pursued. Let's be real though, war is by it's nature the suspension of the standard rules of behavior we like to think we follow. Give a million people guns and send em into a fight and under the stress of combat and their own standards of morality you are going to have issues with this.

Without the Allies taking the time and effort to pursue this it isn't likely we will have hard evidence, but there are numerous accounts of the Allies executing prisoners in cold blood. As the most recent work I have read covering this Destination Normandy cites some specific examples.

Where the distinction becomes an issue though is when these same troops behave the same way towards civilians. Once you cross that line on a systematic basis the murder of POWs is just a second thought. The brutalization of both sides on the Eastern front is on a different scales than the western front. And for the Russians it wasn't just a reaction to German behavior - Katyn preceded Barbarossa.

The number of incidents on the Western front in 1940 was small but so was the time frame of combat. However within 16 days the SS had already resorted to this behavior at Les Paradis.

[Vark]

I had read that MBT's crewed by Poles often had trouble with their water cooled engines overheating, the reason, the water inlets were fouled with flesh. Apparently some crews had a habit of running through enemy crews, in the water. Given what the Germans did to the Poles I can fully understand such barbarity, what goes around comes around, especially in wartime.

[LongLeftFlank]

I suspect that battlefield capture is extraordinarily situation dependent....

If you've just pulverized the enemy line with artillery for an hour and then advanced against only scattered opposition, you may be only too happy to accept the surrender of dazed enemy soldiers emerging from their entrenchments, not because you pity them, but because you want to encourage their buddies to follow likewise rather than having to grenade every last hole.

On the other hand, if you've had to close assault these positions and a whole bunch of your buddies have fallen doing so, then your adrenaline and hatred and bloodlust are up and you're probably not going to be inclined to take the bastards alive. And they likely know it and are trying to get the hell away.

[ChrisND]

I had read that MBT's crewed by Poles often had trouble with their water cooled engines overheating, the reason, the water inlets were fouled with flesh. Apparently some crews had a habit of running through enemy crews, in the water. Given what the Germans did to the Poles I can fully understand such barbarity, what goes around comes around, especially in wartime.

I'd love to see a citation for that.

[sburke]

I suspect that battlefield capture is extraordinarily situation dependent....

On the other hand, if you've had to close assault these positions and a whole bunch of your buddies have fallen doing so, then your adrenaline and hatred and bloodlust are up and you're probably not going to be inclined to take the bastards alive. And they likely know it and are trying to get the hell away.

Absolutely. I like to think I operate with at least some basic humane behavior, but put me in the above mentioned situation and I can't say I know what I would do. (Probably back hiding in the IFV bawling my eyes out :-P )

Where I think this thread has wandered off to though is the afterward behavior. When the adrenaline of combat has wound down, would you stroll off with a prisoner and put one in his head, or line nine of em up and do the same. I hope like hell I would not be capable of that but not having ever had to face the stress of combat etc, I honestly don't know.

Though there are witness accounts of executed prisoners amongst the allies, I don't know of any once the POWS were brought amongst the rear area troops.

[womble]

Another factor will be the capability of the unit to deal with surrendered troops. I'm pretty sure someone here mentioned an official 'no prisoners' line for D-Day itself, and that's, I suppose, understandable given the exigences of war and the given situation: taking prisoners at that point could even be considered to be using surrendered troops as a shield against further enemy action, they would have been so intermixed on the first day of the beachead.

I know it's fiction, but I'm sure the situation of "Do we kill 'em or let 'em go, cos we surely can't take 'em with us?" that Saving Private Ryan depicted occurred more than once between D-Day and Berlin, and that sometimes even decent men had to choose the first option.

[gunnergoz]

Yes, but does this mean that they were better units with more combat power ?

I would say that a fresh 29th Infantry Division could perform as good as the 82nd or 101st.

Would the 101st performed better then an ordinary Infantry Division if used the same way in the Hurtgen forest ?

Elite, yes !

Much better then an ordinary Infantry Division, no !

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "combat power." There are no numerical "combat factors" in the real world. And I'm not going to get into what-if's. The Hurtgen was a meatgrinder and part of the reasons the casualties were as high as they were had to do with the bone-headed management of resources at the Army and Corps level.

"Much better?" They did not need to be "much better" only better at what they did.

[JonS]

Another factor will be the capability of the unit to deal with surrendered troops. I'm pretty sure someone here mentioned an official 'no prisoners' line for D-Day itself, and that's, I suppose, understandable given the exigences of war and the given situation: taking prisoners at that point could even be considered to be using surrendered troops as a shield against further enemy action, they would have been so intermixed on the first day of the beachead.

Just to inject a note of reality into these increasingly surreal proceedings: there are plenty, PLENTY, of photos taken on D-Day of German PWs on the various beaches.

[gunnergoz]

In all my reading, I've never, ever seen an "official" US "no prisoners" order at any time, anywhere during WW2. What went on at the small unit level was never officially sanctioned. The leadership might have looked the other way once or twice, but if something came to their official attention through channels. action was taken against the perpetrators. The only thing is, there was little reporting of such incidents, such being the pressure of peers and circumstance.

Late edit: Halsey's famous "Kill Japs, Kill Japs, Kill more Japs..." sign was not official policy, but more of a battle cry. But the Pacific war was unique and there was much less humanity shown there by both sides. Still, I know of no Allied direct orders to kill prisoners, even in the Pacific.