Andreas

Göring and the Luftwaffe lost influence after the Stalingrad desaster, when they could not keep their promise to keep the encircled forces supplied. Parallel to that it became clear that aerial defense of the Reich was not working. An interesting timeline of the Luftwaffe losing its favoured position could be constructed by its reactions to Kriegsmarine demands for aerial support. It is clear that from 1943, the Luftwaffe became much more amenable to such demands, while in 1940, petty fights such as the one over the allocation of five torpedoes kept the services busy. All the best Andreas

Ugh - 80s hair. Shudder.

Isn't he cute? He told me that when he grows up he wants to be a genocidal maniac dictator ordering around millions. Kids these days. When I was a young'un all we wanted to become was firefighter. Or jet pilot, but only if you had read too much Michel Vaillant. All the best Andreas

We know where your relatives live, Andreas Meyer. Your "look at my school tie" attitude won't spare them. I further insist you give Panther Commander the apology he deserves. If you persist in this perfidy, I have ordered the Division Müncheberg to close down any futher posts of yours. Correction - the Division Müncheberg has just been upgraded to a panzer corps. </font>

By using proper German in your signature? All the best Andreas

I am only against sticky threads if they make baby Jesus cry. All the best Andreas

Forgot about this one. You forget reason No. 3. Massacres of POWs such as happened at Wormhoudt, Abbaye l'Ardenne, Le Paradis, Malmédy, and of civilians such as at Oradour-sur-Glarne, Tulle, Sant' Anna di Stazzema, Marzabotto, and in the east. Clearly, ordinary Wehrmacht divisions (e.g. 1. Gebirgsdivision, some of the security divisions in the east, etc.) contributed to the trail of slaughter and genocide that German forces slashed through Europe, but it is quite interesting to see the number of crimes associated with the W-SS, compared to its small size. For example in Italy, one division, 16. Reichsführer SS, killed ca. 20% of all civilians killed in massacres in Italy, according to a source I have seen. All the best Andreas

Irrelevant - I am not talking about other websites, I am talking about this, specific website you linked. It is apologist Nazi claptrap (ANC) - I have given you my reasons. It is up to you to accept that or not or do your own research, and it is up to me to make up my mind about you or anyone else who accepts it at face value. What's the big deal? So, you never heard of it. When I tell you it did not happen like that (note that I did not say it did not happen), and tell you where to go to research it, you ignore my reasons, don't do the research, and continue to infer that I just dismiss any website being positive about the W-SS as ANC. Nice. I think about those a lot, any time I drive through a German city, and they were not warcrimes. Yes, I know, I think I said pretty much the same two posts ago. Remember, I am not JasonC, if you have an argument with him, address him. Did you join Al Quaida, fight Americans, and slay Christians, or did you speed with your new Thunderbird and crash it? There is a qualitative difference between these two. The former is equivalent to what the Dutchman did, the latter is the kind of ordinary sin one normally associates with youth. I see him as a traitor. I have not posted anything else of the things you say. Unless you completely want to misconstrue the line in my previous post - so just in case, when I wrote the line 'genocidal aryan fanatics', I did not mean that the W-SS was that, but that there are people who think so, and there are websites who say they were not. In the latter case, I look at each website when I come across them to take a view of whether the defense is credible. The charge is not credible, I am sorry if that was not clear. We are not talking about a national recruit, we are talking about a Dutchman joining, voluntarily, the army of a nation that had overrun his country, maybe in a formation that would later engage the forces of his own country coming to liberate it. I hope the difference between that and normal recruitment are clear. How about you show me where I did this in this thread? Or are you now on your soapbox and this is no longer addressed to me? On the off-chance that you are not on your soapbox but still talking to me, I have no trouble playing the Germans, or the W-SS. I can tell the game apart from reality. No idea. How many? How is that relevant, and can you show that those of the Stalingrad survivors who died in captivity were murdered? You do know that the Red Army gave immediate medical care to soldiers who surrendered at Stalingrad, according to one of the 5-6,000 who survived? Actually, if your side loses the war you are also quite unlikely to be charged for it. But if you can tell me how many German soldiers were charged for the kind of crime you describe (if any), I may change my mind. Actually, the Dachau incident is very well documented in the history of 45th Division 'The Rock of Anzio'. Just one example. I wish that German divisional histories were as frank. All the best Andreas

Hi I have given you three specific reasons why I think the website is apologist Nazi claptrap. To wit: 1. The 560 W-SS men killed at Dachau are an invention, often used by W-SS apologists to say 'See, the US was just as bad'. 2. The number of W-SS men killed during the war is irrelevant, so why bring it up? 3. The accusations against elements of the W-SS in partisan combat have nothing to do with shooting partisans, but all with things like Oradour, Tulle, or any number of un-named places in the east. Of course, the author of the site declines to discuss under which part of international law the inhabitants of Oradour were massacred. Now, clearly I have read the page you linked, and I know a bit about what the Nazi apologist who created it wrote. If you show me another site that makes an argument as to why the W-SS was not a bunch of genocidal aryan fanatics with the moral inhibitions of a Great White shark, I'll look at it, digest the argument, and then make up my mind as to whether it is apologist Nazi claptrap or whether the author has a point. Depends on the quality of the argument. This particular site failed the grade badly. Your accusation that to me any site that makes such an argument is apologist Nazi claptrap, or that I say that as an 'easy-out' has absolutely no basis whatsoever. I suggest you reconsider your view. I hope I have made clear enough that you are totally wrong in that belief. HWC section on the AHF forum: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewforum.php?f=6 All the best Andreas

Apologist Nazi claptrap that website, sorry. 560 SS soldiers were not killed at Dachau (do a search in the HWC section of AHF, has been discussed at length there, several times). Whether 313,749 WSS soldiers did or did not come home is irrelevant. Every single one of them could have been a war criminal, or innocent. That they got killed during the war is irrelevant to that. His discussion on partisans shows how clueless the author of the website is - partisans could of course be shot if they were not identifiable, but that is not really the issue, as anyone who has even had a cursory glance at partisan warfare as conducted by the Germans will have to admit. I agree that not every W-SS soldier was a criminal, but the particular case discussed here in this thread is of someone who quite obviously bought the ideology, and became a traitor to his country in the process. Different from a late-war draftee or some surplus Luftwaffe guy sent to the W-SS from his airfield to gain the Endsieg. All the best Andreas

Manstein himself said that an attack in April was a non-starter, since AGC would not have been able to contribute, and AGS would not have been strong enough by itself. The early May attack was delayed after a meeting with Hitler on 4th May, at the request of Model, GOC 9.Armee, when he outlined that his army would not be able to make it through the fortification system in less than six days. This led to consideration by Hitler of further reinforcement prior to the attack to ensure a rapid progress. According to Töppel, there were never any plans to concentrate more infantry, so the delay was not meant to bring more infantry forward.

The question of an earlier attack is also discussed by Töppel (op.cit.). He concludes that an attack in May would not have been possible, due to logistical constraints on the railway network feeding the staging area. At the time there was also a lack of heavy weapons, air support, and tanks. In June, a whole Panzerkorps was busy fighting partisans in Operation 'Zigeunerbaron'. These forces were only back and ready on June 19th, which would therefore be the earliest possible attack. All the best Andreas

This seems strangely relevant: All the best Andreas

'He seems like a genuinely nice man.' That reminds me of the comment of a younger relative of a 1. Gebigsdivision vet made into a TV camera at their reunion this year (IIRC). There were protests outside the meeting because 1. Gebirgsdivision was involved in wholesale slaughter of Italian POWs on Kephallonia, and in retaliatory mass-murder of Greek civlians. What the relative said was along the lines of 'Just have a look at them, do you really think they could have committed such crimes?' But we know they did, no matter what kind of nice cuddly octogenarians they are now. All the best Andreas

While 5 SS has long been seen as a 'clean' unit, there is now apparently evidence that it was involved in mass-murder of Jews early during Barbarossa, during July 41 near L'vov IIRC. All the best Andreas

"MWPS". I like it, has a nice ring to it. All the best Andreas [ November 05, 2005, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Stefan My point was relating to Konev comments on Kursk, not Bagration, where he commanded Steppe Front )IOW - lost 5th Guards Tanks Army thanks to Rotmistrov). If you want to stick to your point, I think there is nothing else I can say except the following: I have no doubt that Rotmistrov was one of the top Soviet armoured commanders of the war (would not put him top two though, where does that leave Rybalko and Katiukov, who after all were never sacked?). I agree he performed very well before Zitadelle. But twice he screwed up royally, in my view. At Minsk, and at Kursk. The former cost him his job, the latter should have. I do not think the idea that he preferred a more academic job has much credibility, but then I have not read his memoirs - I can not think of a single formation commander wanting a different job in the circumstances. What can be more desirable than driving the key assault formation of your country on the road to victory to Berlin? And he did not get 'something really good' after the war. He got Commander of Mech forces in Germany and CiC Mech Forces Far East, each of which was another high-level staff job (formations would be commanded by army commanders) with a boss (Commander of Soviet Forces in Germany) on top of him. Even Malinovsky did better, fer Chris's sake. I don't think he was a bad officer, or incompetent. Just out of his depth on those two occasions. And to be honest, my 4-year old nephew would have done as well at Prokhorovka. Ignore the tank ditch, charge into the superior German tanks. Die a lot. Have a nice day. It's the Russian revenge for the charge of the light brigade minus the cheesy poem. All the best Andreas

You understand correctly. Also, it is not just the original poster, but the documentary evidence that supports that. Neither side lost 300 tanks, and they almost certainly did not lose 300 tanks between them at Prokhorovka. All the best Andreas

Could also be Peter principle - everybody gets promoted to one level above his potential. Maybe he was a great Corps commander, but out of his depth as Army commander? Just like Rommel, who was a great divisional commander, but we can argue about Corps, and there is no question that he was unsuited to command an Army Group. As outlined above - the Panzers would have stopped anyway. To honour Prokhorovka with this achievement is giving it more than its fair due, in my view. As to whether the gesture of p*ssing 200 tanks away was required. Well, Konev disagreed. According to Generals.dk, he did not rise higher than Deputy Commander during the war: Rotmistrov 1942 - 1943 Commanding Officer III Guards Tank Corps 1943 Commanding Officer 5th Tank Army 1943 - 1944 Commanding Officer 5th Guards Tank Army 1944 - 1945 Deputy Commander in Chief Soviet Mechanized & Tank Forces 1945 - 1948 Commanding Officer Mechanized & Tank Forces Soviet Group of Forces, East Germany If that is wrong, Steen would be happy to be corrected. And yes, I see this as a demotion/punishment appointment. He lost battlefield command of a key formation of the Red Army in exchange for a staff job without command responsibility. It basically says 'You are clearly bright and useful, but an able battlefield commander at Army level you are not, so we are going to use you in a position more suited to your abilities.' In my view. All the best Andreas

I think you are going a bit too easy here on Comrade Rotmistrov. AIUI he was sacked when he put in a repeat performance at Minsk a year later (woops, sorry, I mean 'promoted' to Deputy Commander in Chief Soviet Mechanized & Tank Forces). Unfortunately I have not been able to find a German version of his memoirs yet, so I can not pass judgement on them. But to say that sacrificing all those tanks got a desired result is a bit of a stretch - the same result may have been had if the tanks had not been sacrificed. After all, it is clear that it was not the losses at Prokhorovka, but the overall operational and strategic situation that led the German high command to call it off. They probably would have done so anyway within days, and the 5th Guards TA would have been around in force to support Polkovodets Rumyantsev in force, instead of half-strength. Konev in his memoirs is highly critical of committing 5 GTA at all during the defensive phase. He obviously believed that it made no positive difference (first volume of his memoirs), IIRC. The charge at Prokhorovka achieved very little, if not nothing at all, that could not have been achieved, at much lower cost, by continued tenacious defense, and what was achieved was achieved at horrendous cost that stood in no relation to the gain. It was all harm to the friendly war effort, none to that of the enemy. In my view. All the best Andreas

Hi George I don't think his figures are wrong. Just his analysis based on the figures. All the best Andreas

Just noted this. As I stated above, 3rd SS (SS-T) is not included by Töppel in the 3 TWO count, since they were not fighting directly at Prokhorovka. Neither are other Korps units not present on that battlefield. Only LSSAH and DR (1st, 2nd SS) are included. The others would be included in the 248 TWO count for the whole offensive though. All the best Andreas

Probably still closer to the truth than Carell/Schmidt or Rotmistrov. Just to make that clear, Töppel also sees Kursk as a defeat on the battlefield, not as a defeat in the Wolfschanze, i.e. a battle that could have been won if Hitler had kept his nerve or not 'misused' reserves. So while he is understating the effect of the battle by restricting the analysis to TWOs, he is not one of those peddling the line that Kursk was a lost victory. All the best Andreas

With apologies to Mr. Nipe, but his conclusion is rubbish, and his view that sending armoured reserves to the Mius was 'misuse'is just nonsense. He also ignores the existence of the Steppe Front, and the fact that the break-in in the north had already failed, and that there the front around Orel was collapsing. Discussion on Myths of Kursk on AHF All the best Andreas

You did not get my message. I was just pointing out that war of conquest seems not a fitting term to me. Using it does not make you a Nazi apologist however, and I have no reason to believe you are one, or indeed any intention to call you one. That term I used because it was how I read Russophile's comment on my willingness to use the term plunder (along the lines of 'He is willing to just talk about the plunder and ignore the genocide). Had nothing to do with you or what you wrote, and I apologise for the misunderstanding. All the best Andreas