How Rude!

[Sigrun]

Originally posted by Mace:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigrun:

Regardless of that, you need to distinguish between the Allgemeine SS (concentration-camp scum) and the Waffen-SS (front-line combatants). Yes, there was an unfortunate overlap in the case of some Totenkopf personnel, but that's an exception that proves no revisionist BS rule.

Seems the Waffen SS were almost as busy as the Allgemaine SS, or SD:

http://members.iinet.com.au/~gduncan/massacres.html

The fact they did it so much better than any other country's elite force is what sticks in so many peoples' craws.

Have you got examples of Waffen SS facing off the elite Allied Divisions and 'doing better' or are you merely speculating?

I'd love to see some examples. </font>

[Sigrun]

Originally posted by Sickie:

Sigrun,

"Elite status" is a very dodgy word in this respect. I hold anyone joining a group where bloodlines play a roll in being elite responsible for at least not thinking about and probably agreeing with one of the foulest ideologies ever.

Sure there where Gunther Grass-like cases, especially near the end of the war, those where maybe not pure evil but like I said utterly insane. You admit the overlap between the allgemeine and waffen ss yourself. You think your avarage friendly, innocent heart and mind conquering ss soldier didn't know what was happening? That they didn't had to get involved?

The SS was founded in 1929 as bodyguards for Adolf Hitler. How can you make a difference between nazi-ideology and ss esprit de corps?

In Nuremberg it was decided the ss was a criminal organisation. All former members are under suspicion. People will do anything to hide their wrongdoings or make them look not so bad. They have a reason to be ashamed.

Why defend them?

I defend them because the broad majority of them were simply soldiers doing their duty, and those individuals do not deserve the dishonourable treatment that has been inflicted upon them by those motivated purely by spite and resentment at how they were bettered in combat by them.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Sigrun:

Having the opinion (and calling it fact) that the general German soldier was a civilised, cultured and honourable man, whilst most soviet soldiers were illiterate child rapists, does not make me a nazi.

Would you like to explain just how "the general German soldier" was civilized, cultured and honourable? They read Goethe? They refused to carry out illegal and immoral orders? They felt in any way that them being civilized, cultured and honourable might contradict with them obeying rabid Nazis? And how were "most Soviet soldiers" illiterate child rapists? Do you have some new statistics showing that literacy percentage in Soviet Union during 1940's was < 50%? And of the 29 million men and women drafted into Red Army during WW2, how many did rape children?

Obviously you're a racist liar, as merely calling you ignorant fool would be the understatement of year.

[Sigrun]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigrun:

Having the opinion (and calling it fact) that the general German soldier was a civilised, cultured and honourable man, whilst most soviet soldiers were illiterate child rapists, does not make me a nazi.

Would you like to explain just how "the general German soldier" was civilized, cultured and honourable? They read Goethe? They refused to carry out illegal and immoral orders? They felt in any way that them being civilized, cultured and honourable might contradict with them obeying rabid Nazis? And how were "most Soviet soldiers" illiterate child rapists? Do you have some new statistics showing that literacy percentage in Soviet Union during 1940's was < 50%? And of the 29 million men and women drafted into Red Army during WW2, how many did rape children?

Obviously you're a racist liar, as merely calling you ignorant fool would be the understatement of year. </font>

[Andreas]

Keep digging.

All the best

Andreas

[Sickie]

How about answering questions instead of ignoring them?

You admit the overlap between the allgemeine and waffen ss yourself. You think your avarage friendly, innocent heart and mind conquering ss soldier didn't know what was happening? That they didn't had to get involved?

The SS was founded in 1929 as bodyguards for Adolf Hitler. How can you make a difference between nazi-ideology and ss esprit de corps?

[Michael Dorosh]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigrun: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

The fact they did it so much better than any other country's elite force is what sticks in so many peoples' craws.

Have you got examples of Waffen SS facing off the elite Allied Divisions and 'doing better' or are you merely speculating?

I'd love to see some examples. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Since Sigrun seems to have ignored this the first time, I'll repeat it in its entirety, though he already admitted to Mace had has no actual historical examples to draw on:

If the Waffen SS were the "best" soldiers the world has ever seen, why did they lose?

The Allies had a much superior artillery force - the Parnham system was second to none in calling down fire accurately and in quantity, quickly. Waffen SS never developed anything like it.

The US rifle squad put down disciplined and heavy semi-automatic fire as per their training - the SS relied on bolt-action rifles, the substandard MP40 machine pistol which veterans threw away in favour of PPSh where possible, and a general purpose machine gun that ate up ammunition in astonishing quantities. Later issues of semi-automatics and assault rifles didn't make up for the fact that basic training was by late 1944 more than halved from 16 to 7 weeks. They were also conscripting soldiers by that time as well, not to mention lowering the draft age and height requirement.

The SS were also known to take heavy casualties due to their indoctrination in aggressiveness, which was wasteful in lives and counter-productive. Read the AAR of SS-Panzergrenadierbattaillon 25 at Buron in July 1944 and tell me the teenage pukes hiding in the anti-tank ditch and holding out until subdued at point blank range with 75mm tank fire were "the best soldiers in the world". The HLI and Sherbrooke Fusilier Regiment threw them out of the village (at great cost, to be sure) and fought off a counterattack by an entire Panther company. The tactics of the SS that day were basically to hide in their holes until overrun. In fact, a lot of the SS "tactics" seem to have been tied to overreliance on material superiority based on superior tanks.

You can read about Peiper and his men in the Ardennes as well taking out frustrations by running other units off the roads, not to mention the occasional massacre of prisoners and civilians.

I am not saying they were inferior to Allied troops, but the best soldiers in the Canadian, British, American and Russian armies were more than a match for them. I think Buron is a great demonstration of that.

[Sigrun]

Originally posted by Sickie:

How about answering questions instead of ignoring them?

You admit the overlap between the allgemeine and waffen ss yourself. You think your avarage friendly, innocent heart and mind conquering ss soldier didn't know what was happening? That they didn't had to get involved?

The SS was founded in 1929 as bodyguards for Adolf Hitler. How can you make a difference between nazi-ideology and ss esprit de corps?

Do you think your average, freindly, innocent heart and mind-conquering (?!) allied soldier didn't know about allied atrocities against captured Waffen-SS troops? Or Heer ones for that matter. Or how about the virtually open practice of some US pilots shooting German pilots on their chutes over europe from 1943 onwards? Is your argument that the behaviour of a few condemns all others equally, so long as they 'knew' about it? If so, how incredibly naive.

Do you boycott google, knowing as you surely do that it is in bed with the mass-murdering chinese govt? How many other examples would you like of naturally pragmatic human behaviour? "Oh dear, Mr Waffen-SS man, you knew some other Waffen-SS soldiers were murdering innocent civillians/POWs, so you is equally guilty for not protesting (and getting yourself executed for mutiny/sedition)."

[Canuck_TAR]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

and a general purpose machine gun that ate up ammunition in astonishing quantities.

You mean the MG42..........the best MG of its time and to this day??

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sigrun:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sickie:

How about answering questions instead of ignoring them?

Do you think your average, freindly, innocent heart and mind-conquering (?!) allied soldier didn't know about allied atrocities against captured Waffen-SS troops? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Canuck_TAR:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

and a general purpose machine gun that ate up ammunition in astonishing quantities.

You mean the MG42..........the best MG of its time and to this day?? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sigrun:

The Waffen-SS achieved on the eastern front what no allied force could have ever emulated. Indeed, the exact same thing can be said of the western front following D-Day, in particular the HJ's mauling of any western force it came up against (prompting allied atrocities a-plenty, but you won't hear about those in allied history books).

So name a German history book that discusses it, I'd love to read more about it. I forgot to mention Dandelion and M Hofbauer earlier in my list of people not to argue with; both are German scholars and perhaps they are familiar with the titles and ISBNs you're about to provide us.

As for mauling Allied forces, the 12th SS Division was virtually destroyed in Normandy. Two of their chief opponents - 2nd and 3rd Canadian Divisions - remained combat effective throughout Normandy though losses (material and neuropsychiatric) were heavy. It worked both ways; Normandy was a meatgrinder and the Allies were on the offensive in a bridgehead too small to allow concentrations of force one would find on the Eastern Front. And yet the SS divisions there won no major victories. How come?

Is it possible their "superior soldier skills" didn't count for anything, then?

[ October 11, 2006, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Vergeltung]

Airpower.

[Andreas]

Wrong - but a predictable excuse.

All the best

Andreas

[Sickie]

Originally posted by Sigrun:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sickie:

How about answering questions instead of ignoring them?

You admit the overlap between the allgemeine and waffen ss yourself. You think your avarage friendly, innocent heart and mind conquering ss soldier didn't know what was happening? That they didn't had to get involved?

The SS was founded in 1929 as bodyguards for Adolf Hitler. How can you make a difference between nazi-ideology and ss esprit de corps?

Do you think your average, freindly, innocent heart and mind-conquering (?!) allied soldier didn't know about allied atrocities against captured Waffen-SS troops? Or Heer ones for that matter. Or how about the virtually open practice of some US pilots shooting German pilots on their chutes over europe from 1943 onwards? Is your argument that the behaviour of a few condemns all others equally, so long as they 'knew' about it? If so, how incredibly naive.

Do you boycott google, knowing as you surely do that it is in bed with the mass-murdering chinese govt? How many other examples would you like of naturally pragmatic human behaviour? "Oh dear, Mr Waffen-SS man, you knew some other Waffen-SS soldiers were murdering innocent civillians/POWs, so you is equally guilty for not protesting (and getting yourself executed for mutiny/sedition)." </font>

[Hitori Kyo]

Jussi Köhler

german troops were general better for these reasons

- Training encouraged initiative ( somethin the allied forces lacked and was even discourage by some nations at the begining of the war)this helped the german army exploit situations in attack and defence.

- a flexible military system dirived from in part from prussian idealologies, the fexibility allowed rapid movements of troops (even tho germany was least mechanised army late in the war), the use of battle groups which gave more tactical freedom.

- less reliance on material such as artillery and air support ( some western allied divisions would seldom do nothing unless there was artillery and air support )

- Hitori kyo

[Canuck_TAR]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Canuck_TAR:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

and a general purpose machine gun that ate up ammunition in astonishing quantities.

You mean the MG42..........the best MG of its time and to this day?? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hitori Kyo:

Jussi Köhler

german troops were general better for these reasons

- Training encouraged initiative ( somethin the allied forces lacked and was even discourage by some nations at the begining of the war)this helped the german army exploit situations in attack and defence.

Allied training encouraged initiative also; it was not always practiced in the field, but one might look at any number of small unit examples. The Calgary Highlanders at Walcheren Causeway provide an example of staff officers taking the initiative to assume command of badly deplete rifle companies in a crisis. Currie at St. Lambert strikes me as an example of intiative, though one is leery of using VC exploits as evidence since by their nature they were extraordinary. The seizing of a bridgehead over the Albert Canal by 10 men in Sep 1944 is another example from my own regiment of "initiative". I am sure others can provide similar examples. Have you ever seen Allied training memorandums? I have.

- a flexible military system dirived from in part from prussian idealologies, the fexibility allowed rapid movements of troops (even tho germany was least mechanised army late in the war), the use of battle groups which gave more tactical freedom.

The US, British, Canadians also used battle groups, called Task Forces. There is a long list of CW battlegroups at the Axis History Forum.

- less reliance on material such as artillery and air support ( some western allied divisions would seldom do nothing unless there was artillery and air support )

Because they developed an artillery-based doctrine that moreover worked extremely well. What's wrong with using shells instead of men?

[ October 11, 2006, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Canuck_TAR:

Well I don't consider having a 1200rpm GPMG on your side vs a 500rpm as a waste of ammo.

Try carrying it....

Firing a GPMG from the hip is trick at the best of times..........and why would you want to.

On the assault; the C9 is perfect for this role. ON the other hand, who really needs an LMG that can fire out to 1000 metres? How often will an infantry section need to engage targets thar far out on its own?

As for the Bren, reliable but draw backs where slow rate of fire and 30 mag. Belt beats mag. Heck the MG34 also had a mag (drum) at 150 rds.

In your opinion.

The CDN C6 GPMG is based on the MG42. The U.S. army just went to the same version after they found it to be better that the M60.

The M240B is the weapon you're thinking of. The C6 is a platoon support weapon, issued one or two per weapons det at the platoon level. Was never used as an LMG in Canada. The British did use it as an LMG for a time. Canadian LMGs were the Bren and then the C2 automatic rifle (not really an LMG but all we had). Both were magazine fed and fired ammo carried by the entire section (the former by design, the latter by accident as FN C1 mags could fit the C2 in an emergency.)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I am going to have to accuse you of wisdom now. See how you like it.

All the best

Andreas

I suspect I shall like it much more than when you called me a 'tosser' and told me to shut up, but then I've always been sensitive that way.

[Canuck_TAR]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Canuck_TAR:

Well I don't consider having a 1200rpm GPMG on your side vs a 500rpm as a waste of ammo.

Try carrying it....

Firing a GPMG from the hip is trick at the best of times..........and why would you want to.

On the assault; the C9 is perfect for this role. ON the other hand, who really needs an LMG that can fire out to 1000 metres? How often will an infantry section need to engage targets thar far out on its own?

As for the Bren, reliable but draw backs where slow rate of fire and 30 mag. Belt beats mag. Heck the MG34 also had a mag (drum) at 150 rds.

In your opinion.

The CDN C6 GPMG is based on the MG42. The U.S. army just went to the same version after they found it to be better that the M60.

The M240B is the weapon you're thinking of. The C6 is a platoon support weapon, issued one or two per weapons det at the platoon level. Was never used as an LMG in Canada. The British did use it as an LMG for a time. Canadian LMGs were the Bren and then the C2 automatic rifle (not really an LMG but all we had). Both were magazine fed and fired ammo carried by the entire section (the former by design, the latter by accident as FN C1 mags could fit the C2 in an emergency.) </font>

[Prince of Eckmühl]

If it's true that there's an "economical" way to conduct a war, then I'd have to say that the SS was a bad idea. The existance of the units made it more difficult for Germany to allocate its resources in a rational way. Instead of sending the men and/or equipment where they'd do the most good, they were redirected to serve ends that were largely political.

Conversely, in the Wehrmacht, there was no real need to artificially create elite units. These tended to arise on their own, through a confluence of leadership and, perhaps, good fortune, along with proper provisioning of course. The existance of the SS made the latter of these factors more difficult to sustain. Because of this, the SS likely hurt the German war effort, rather than aiding it.

I believe that it's also true, that the regular Army had NO respect for the SS as a professional fighting force, viewing them rather as the ultimate expression of Nazi meddling in matters about which they were the worst sort of amateurs.

PoE

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Canuck_TAR:

- Have carried ammo.........not fun.

- Even the C9 has a 200rd box.........a 30 rd mag is a draw back in the time to change it. Try the C9 with mags, its a pain in the rear.

- CDN section have 2 C9's per......only at the Pl level will you find the C6. C6 light role rated to 800M, SF roll 1800M. Reaching out and touching someone at distance, even at the sction level is better than dealing with them up close.

- C2.........Your dating yourself!!! LOL!!!

- The CDN force also had a LMG, was the .30 cal american model, replaced the Bren.

Hey, I never said I fired the C2, though in honesty, I have. Once with blanks, once on the range. We replaced them the year after I did my basic.

The Brownings we used (C5?) were rebored to NATO (.308 Winchester) rather than the US 30.06, but yeah, same weapon. It was also a GPMG and used at platoon level AFAICT and did not replace the Bren - the C2 did.

[Bartokomus]

Lots of intelligent discussion and rebuttal but one reminder: you don't convine Nazi's of anything. They just ignore what they can't refute, repeat themselves endlessly, and nitpick the tiny inaccuracies they can find in your argument.

Regretably i have family who had strong leanings that way, who served at least in the Wehrmacht, and quite possibly the SS (he won't be explicit enough for me to investigate); he was captured on the West Front though, as he never went to Siberia. Good old Canada let him in around 1950-51. At 78 he still hates Russians and Jews, and can't see any wrong with that. The problem for Nazi's and neo-Nazi's is they have too much invested to back away from their beliefs. So no matter how much proof was supplied they'll believe:

-Barbarossa was a spoiler attack on a pending Soviet attack

-German soldiers were uber

-Concentration camps were the product of allied propaganda

-etc etc ad nauseum

So... when is that demo coming?