Waffen SS during WWII

FYI:

Other Military and Auxiliary Organizations
Section I. SS AND POLICE


1. Introduction
Any description of organization, mission, and structure of the SS cannot be understood unless one tries to conceive it inwardly with one's blood and heart. It cannot be explained why we contain so much strength though we number so few.

Heinrich Himmler.

The SS, or Schutzstaffel, is the Protective Guard of the National-Socialist [German Worders'] Party (NSDAP). Officially an independent Gliederung (Branch) of the Party, led by Heinrich Himmler, it actually has a status and importance far exceeding those of the other branches and even those of the Party itself. From its original function of guarding the person of Party leaders and speakers, the SS developed even before the war, into a far-flung organization to protect the entire Nazi movement against all internal enemies. More recently, it has extended its influence and power into every conceivable aspect of German national life and has finally acquired a large measure of control over the Army itself. It is more than a state within a state; it is superior to both the Party and the government.

The rise of the SS has been gradual but unceasing. Because of its origin and its own experience as an underground organization, it has always understood how to combat systematically and unrelentingly any subversive activities in the Reich and in all occupied areas. It was by extension of its responsibility for internal political security that the SS first acquired control of the Secret State Police and later (in 1936) of the entire police forces of Germany. Quite naturally therefore, it was given the policing powers in most of the countries occupied by Germany during the war. It was also logical that the SS, as the elite corps of the Party, should take part in the march into Austria and Czechoslovakia along with the troops of the Army, and that it should furnish small contingents of trained men to fight in the Polish campaign in 1939. This led to the building up of the Waffen-SS, at first consisting of the equivalent of two or three divisions and finally growing to a substantial and favored branch of the armed forces of the nation. In 1943 the SS gained control of the powerful Ministry of the Interior, in which it had already constituted the most important group in the form of the police. During 1943 and 1944 the SS gained more and more influence in the Army itself, taking over successively control of political indoctrination, of the intelligence services, and of the whole replacement, training, and material procurement system.

Apart from these obvious acquisitions of power and authority, the SS has steadily extended its influence into many branches of German life which would seem, on the surface, to have little or nothing to do with its original or derived mission. High-ranking officers of the now occupy controlling positions in most of the central departments of the government, in regional and local administration, in heavy industry, finance, and commerce, and in cultural and charitable activities. Directly or indirectly the SS controls the training of youth in the Hitler Youth organization, the storm troops (SA), and most of the other Party organizations and activities.

The character and purposes of the SS would not be clear without reference to its mystical worship of the German "race". This is exemplified not only by the physical requirements for becoming an SS man, but also by a vast program of procreation propaganda, resettlement of populations, eradication of elements considered racially undesirable, genealogical research, and welfare. Typical of the SS is its insistence that the abbreviation of its title always be printed or typed as the runic symbol of victory and arbitrariness:


Continue -> HyperWar: Handbook on German Military Forces (Chapter 3)
 
The Waffen SS during WWII were arguably the best trained and most professional combat soldiers to fight in any modern war. Their field grade and staff officers came from Prussian families who's ancestors had been military men for several generations. ... :cool:
They also committed some of the worst war crimes so I wouldn't call them 'professional'.

Not advocating war crimes but so did the Russians, Japanese, and U.S. committed atrocities. War is Hell.

The 88MM gun was also used in the Tiger and Panther tanks and probably others.
The war crimes that Russia, Germany, and Japan committed were orders of magnitude worse than the US or the Brits (unless you count the area bombing of cities, then it was one or two orders of magnitude worse).
Got a ref for the numbers?
Includes 1000000 Iraqi civilians?
That number has been proven over and over to be nothing but a LIE.
Thanks for pointing that out.
So it was only 20000 and 30000 in afghan?
I Feel better now.
Still waiting for your ref.
 
The Waffen SS during WWII were arguably the best trained and most professional combat soldiers to fight in any modern war. Their field grade and staff officers came from Prussian families who's ancestors had been military men for several generations. ... :cool:
They also committed some of the worst war crimes so I wouldn't call them 'professional'.

Not advocating war crimes but so did the Russians, Japanese, and U.S. committed atrocities. War is Hell.

The 88MM gun was also used in the Tiger and Panther tanks and probably others.
The war crimes that Russia, Germany, and Japan committed were orders of magnitude worse than the US or the Brits (unless you count the area bombing of cities, then it was one or two orders of magnitude worse).
Got a ref for the numbers?
Includes 1000000 Iraqi civilians?
That number has been proven over and over to be nothing but a LIE.
As the old Brit joke goes "if you are not smart enough to get a real job, join the military. Great socialist benefits"
 
The problem you have is they didn’t fight to the bitter end. They surrendered. In addition, if the Emperor had surrendered earlier, the military would have too. Why? Because that is exactly what they did ultimately.
The point is, they surrendered only after the a bombs. They were prepared to fight to the last man. The military was not ready to surrender, they were sure they could inflict so much damage on the US they could get something short of unconditional surrender. They were probably right though not before millions died in an invasion.
If they were so fanatical, as Americans have been taught, why didn’t they fight to the death? They could have ignored the Emperor’s surrender order.

Do you think it appropriate that our leaders imposed unconditional surrender? I don’t. It caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides. Then when they did surrender unconditionally, the war criminal Truman granted their one condition, after he mass murder thousands of innocent civilians with the a-bombs.

Technically, they didn't surrender unconditionally. The US left one condition that the Japanese insisted on. The Emperor was left in place. Taking that off the table allowed the Japanese People to at least save a little face and saving face to a Japanese Culture is all there is. Until the last round, the Emperor was to be removed and tried like all the Generals and Admirals. So did they surrender Unconditionally? Yes and no.
No. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally. Then Truman granted their one condition after he mass murdered thousands of innocent women and children, with the a-bombs.

You don't listen too well. The one condition that the Japanese would not budge on was the removal of the Emperor. And until the last round, that was still in the agreement. Even after all the wholesale deaths, they Japanese would not surrender. To them, the Emperor was a God and they would not forsake their God. On the last round AFTER the 2nd A-bomb, they left the Emperor in place and the Japanese surrendered. You can't change history just by saying something different. And you can't use Western Logic on the Japanese even today.
And you think mass murdering innocent women and children was justified, because they refused to accept the one condition Truman ultimately accepted, after he did his blood thirsty deed.
 
The point is, they surrendered only after the a bombs. They were prepared to fight to the last man. The military was not ready to surrender, they were sure they could inflict so much damage on the US they could get something short of unconditional surrender. They were probably right though not before millions died in an invasion.
If they were so fanatical, as Americans have been taught, why didn’t they fight to the death? They could have ignored the Emperor’s surrender order.

Do you think it appropriate that our leaders imposed unconditional surrender? I don’t. It caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides. Then when they did surrender unconditionally, the war criminal Truman granted their one condition, after he mass murder thousands of innocent civilians with the a-bombs.

Technically, they didn't surrender unconditionally. The US left one condition that the Japanese insisted on. The Emperor was left in place. Taking that off the table allowed the Japanese People to at least save a little face and saving face to a Japanese Culture is all there is. Until the last round, the Emperor was to be removed and tried like all the Generals and Admirals. So did they surrender Unconditionally? Yes and no.
No. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally. Then Truman granted their one condition after he mass murdered thousands of innocent women and children, with the a-bombs.

You don't listen too well. The one condition that the Japanese would not budge on was the removal of the Emperor. And until the last round, that was still in the agreement. Even after all the wholesale deaths, they Japanese would not surrender. To them, the Emperor was a God and they would not forsake their God. On the last round AFTER the 2nd A-bomb, they left the Emperor in place and the Japanese surrendered. You can't change history just by saying something different. And you can't use Western Logic on the Japanese even today.
And you think mass murdering innocent women and children was justified, because they refused to accept the one condition Truman ultimately accepted, after he did his blood thirsty deed.




They were going to die horrible deaths anyway. You need to read more history than this howard zinn shit you have filled your noggin with.
 
If they were so fanatical, as Americans have been taught, why didn’t they fight to the death? They could have ignored the Emperor’s surrender order.

Do you think it appropriate that our leaders imposed unconditional surrender? I don’t. It caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides. Then when they did surrender unconditionally, the war criminal Truman granted their one condition, after he mass murder thousands of innocent civilians with the a-bombs.

Technically, they didn't surrender unconditionally. The US left one condition that the Japanese insisted on. The Emperor was left in place. Taking that off the table allowed the Japanese People to at least save a little face and saving face to a Japanese Culture is all there is. Until the last round, the Emperor was to be removed and tried like all the Generals and Admirals. So did they surrender Unconditionally? Yes and no.
No. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally. Then Truman granted their one condition after he mass murdered thousands of innocent women and children, with the a-bombs.

You don't listen too well. The one condition that the Japanese would not budge on was the removal of the Emperor. And until the last round, that was still in the agreement. Even after all the wholesale deaths, they Japanese would not surrender. To them, the Emperor was a God and they would not forsake their God. On the last round AFTER the 2nd A-bomb, they left the Emperor in place and the Japanese surrendered. You can't change history just by saying something different. And you can't use Western Logic on the Japanese even today.
And you think mass murdering innocent women and children was justified, because they refused to accept the one condition Truman ultimately accepted, after he did his blood thirsty deed.




They were going to die horrible deaths anyway. You need to read more history than this howard zinn shit you have filled your noggin with.
Yeah we HAD to invade and mass murder, because we are Imperialists.

It was NEVER necessary to invade. They would have surrendered long before August ‘45, thus saving untold lives. Just agree to not touch the emperor, which is exactly what they agreed to AFTER MASS MURDERING.
 
They also committed some of the worst war crimes so I wouldn't call them 'professional'.

Not advocating war crimes but so did the Russians, Japanese, and U.S. committed atrocities. War is Hell.

The 88MM gun was also used in the Tiger and Panther tanks and probably others.
The war crimes that Russia, Germany, and Japan committed were orders of magnitude worse than the US or the Brits (unless you count the area bombing of cities, then it was one or two orders of magnitude worse).
Got a ref for the numbers?
Includes 1000000 Iraqi civilians?
That number has been proven over and over to be nothing but a LIE.
As the old Brit joke goes "if you are not smart enough to get a real job, join the military. Great socialist benefits"
Actually the military model is communism: central planning from the top down, everyone provided everything they need, everyone contributes to the best of their ability. And it has worked for millenia.
 
The point is, they surrendered only after the a bombs. They were prepared to fight to the last man. The military was not ready to surrender, they were sure they could inflict so much damage on the US they could get something short of unconditional surrender. They were probably right though not before millions died in an invasion.
If they were so fanatical, as Americans have been taught, why didn’t they fight to the death? They could have ignored the Emperor’s surrender order.

Do you think it appropriate that our leaders imposed unconditional surrender? I don’t. It caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides. Then when they did surrender unconditionally, the war criminal Truman granted their one condition, after he mass murder thousands of innocent civilians with the a-bombs.

Technically, they didn't surrender unconditionally. The US left one condition that the Japanese insisted on. The Emperor was left in place. Taking that off the table allowed the Japanese People to at least save a little face and saving face to a Japanese Culture is all there is. Until the last round, the Emperor was to be removed and tried like all the Generals and Admirals. So did they surrender Unconditionally? Yes and no.
No. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally. Then Truman granted their one condition after he mass murdered thousands of innocent women and children, with the a-bombs.

You don't listen too well. The one condition that the Japanese would not budge on was the removal of the Emperor. And until the last round, that was still in the agreement. Even after all the wholesale deaths, they Japanese would not surrender. To them, the Emperor was a God and they would not forsake their God. On the last round AFTER the 2nd A-bomb, they left the Emperor in place and the Japanese surrendered. You can't change history just by saying something different. And you can't use Western Logic on the Japanese even today.
And you think mass murdering innocent women and children was justified, because they refused to accept the one condition Truman ultimately accepted, after he did his blood thirsty deed.

Okiniwa made Iwo Jima look like a cake walk and I don't remember the correct figures but I believe we lost over 16,000 people at Iwo. At Okinawa, the loss for just the Navy was over 10,000. There was absolutely no indication that the Japanese were going to surrender for any reason even after those two meat grinders. And if you think the US fared poorly in those two places, the Japanese fought to the death and lost many times more. Then with them training their civilians including their grade schoolers to attack invaders right on the shoreline with all sorts of barbaric weapons what was Truman to think? The Kamakazis kept coming in the form of Aircraft and mini subs. Bashito was real and practiced by almost everyone. It's a religious base that means pretty much, to the death. And that is what faced out troops if we had to invade. Can you imagine losing at least a hundred thousand troops on that invasion and the Japanese losing over a Million defending? That is what was faced without those two bombs. Winning a battle isn't killing the other side, it's removing their will to fight. Until after those two bombs and the agreement not to prosecute the Emperor, the Japanese still had the will to fight. Even so, the Emperor agreed to become largely symbolic at that point so it all worked out anyway.

Tell me, how would you have handled it?
 
The Waffen SS during WWII were arguably the best trained and most professional combat soldiers to fight in any modern war. Their field grade and staff officers came from Prussian families who's ancestors had been military men for several generations. ... :cool:
They also committed some of the worst war crimes so I wouldn't call them 'professional'.

I wish I included your point. I'll ad:

Professional to the point they made the current Ukranians want Stalin back?

:)
its an old Stalinist myth no one wants koba back , everyone knew what koba was going to do to them , and they were gonna die from hunger again, and they have been right ...

Soviet famine of 1946–47 - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946–47

Jump to In Russia - In the summer of 1946 there was a famine in the provinces of Rostov, Voronezh, Orel, Kursk and Tambov which was made worse by a ...
In Moldova · ‎In Ukraine
 
He's the male Cortez. That's all you need to know.
AOC's a socialist. All we know about Beto is that he was born in the US (probably) and he lives in Texas.

Yes, terrorism works. It always succeeds in causing government to grow, and allow politicians to have an excuse to trample our rights. The Patriot Act, and the Department of Homeland Security are two huge examples supported by BOTH PARTIES.

How has that benefited terrorist organizations?

He's the male Cortez. That's all you need to know.
AOC's a socialist. All we know about Beto is that he was born in the US (probably) and he lives in Texas.

Yes, terrorism works. It always succeeds in causing government to grow, and allow politicians to have an excuse to trample our rights. The Patriot Act, and the Department of Homeland Security are two huge examples supported by BOTH PARTIES.

How has that benefited terrorist organizations?

The goal of terrorists is to force relatively FREE societies to change their lifestyles in order to promote "safety and security". They have succeeded in doing that.

No, freedom fighters are terrorists as well.
You can invoke terror for good or bad equally.
It is a tactic, not a motivation.

But the US has never been a FREE society.
The first 70 years we had slavery.
Then we switched to imperialism and colonialism, invading tribal lands, Mexico, Cuba, South America, etc.
With WWI, we expanded to global domination.

Not advocating war crimes but so did the Russians, Japanese, and U.S. committed atrocities. War is Hell.

The 88MM gun was also used in the Tiger and Panther tanks and probably others.
The war crimes that Russia, Germany, and Japan committed were orders of magnitude worse than the US or the Brits (unless you count the area bombing of cities, then it was one or two orders of magnitude worse).
Got a ref for the numbers?
Includes 1000000 Iraqi civilians?
That number has been proven over and over to be nothing but a LIE.
As the old Brit joke goes "if you are not smart enough to get a real job, join the military. Great socialist benefits"
Actually the military model is communism: central planning from the top down, everyone provided everything they need, everyone contributes to the best of their ability. And it has worked for millenia.

You are missing one big fact. In the military you voluntarily sign a lot of your rights away when you join. Also, there is a rigid chain of command where if you do not follow orders, you got to jail, or are dishonorably discharged or both. You don't have that in the civilian world. I don't have to do what you to tell me to do.

Bad analogy.
 
Technically, they didn't surrender unconditionally. The US left one condition that the Japanese insisted on. The Emperor was left in place. Taking that off the table allowed the Japanese People to at least save a little face and saving face to a Japanese Culture is all there is. Until the last round, the Emperor was to be removed and tried like all the Generals and Admirals. So did they surrender Unconditionally? Yes and no.
No. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally. Then Truman granted their one condition after he mass murdered thousands of innocent women and children, with the a-bombs.

You don't listen too well. The one condition that the Japanese would not budge on was the removal of the Emperor. And until the last round, that was still in the agreement. Even after all the wholesale deaths, they Japanese would not surrender. To them, the Emperor was a God and they would not forsake their God. On the last round AFTER the 2nd A-bomb, they left the Emperor in place and the Japanese surrendered. You can't change history just by saying something different. And you can't use Western Logic on the Japanese even today.
And you think mass murdering innocent women and children was justified, because they refused to accept the one condition Truman ultimately accepted, after he did his blood thirsty deed.




They were going to die horrible deaths anyway. You need to read more history than this howard zinn shit you have filled your noggin with.
Yeah we HAD to invade and mass murder, because we are Imperialists.

It was NEVER necessary to invade. They would have surrendered long before August ‘45, thus saving untold lives. Just agree to not touch the emperor, which is exactly what they agreed to AFTER MASS MURDERING.




Who invaded first? Actions have CONSEQUENCES. The Japanese raped and pillaged their way across the Pacific. They then lost the war. Be thankful they lost.
 
Even the great Gen. Patton at the end of the war, found the German people to be a cultured and honorable people, and said, "We have defeated the wrong enemy". Meaning the Allies should have fought along side the German's to rid Europe of the commie Russians, ie. the Bolshevik jews. ..... :cool:
he was party right. usa´d wait until Hitler finished off commie totalitarian ideology in Moscow, than USA/UK ´d move in and destroy Nazism in Germany but not before

ps Bolshevik were not Jews, Jews never were on position N1 in ussr,. its an idiotic lie
 
He has been convinced by those that wish to further harm us. My father fought in that campaign. The truth is known, he just chooses to ignore it.
Whatever.

Americans like to believe that mass murdering thousands of innocent civilians of a nation defeated, defenseless, and desperately trying to surrender, was justified.

Proving government propaganda works.




And you are a victim of socialist propaganda. The facts are the japanese military was prepared to fight to the bitter end. They created "Pole Bayonets" for the civilian population to use by affixing them to spears the theory being that as soon as the Marines hit the beach the civilians would rush in with their spears and attack the Marines before our superior firepower could annihilate them. This is all well known history. Not theory, or opinion, but HISTORY that is documented by both written, and physical objects.

Below is one of those pole bayonets.

604cf06d29635723bb3c619abce1b7a1.jpg
J234.jpg
The problem you have is they didn’t fight to the bitter end. They surrendered. In addition, if the Emperor had surrendered earlier, the military would have too. Why? Because that is exactly what they did ultimately.
The point is, they surrendered only after the a bombs. They were prepared to fight to the last man. The military was not ready to surrender, they were sure they could inflict so much damage on the US they could get something short of unconditional surrender. They were probably right though not before millions died in an invasion.
If they were so fanatical, as Americans have been taught, why didn’t they fight to the death? They could have ignored the Emperor’s surrender order.

Do you think it appropriate that our leaders imposed unconditional surrender? I don’t. It caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides. Then when they did surrender unconditionally, the war criminal Truman granted their one condition, after he mass murder thousands of innocent civilians with the a-bombs.






They were getting ready for just that. I dare you to read a few articles about the pole bayonet I posted.

Go ahead. i dare you.
 
Actually the military model is communism: central planning from the top down, everyone provided everything they need, everyone contributes to the best of their ability. And it has worked for millenia.

You are missing one big fact. In the military you voluntarily sign a lot of your rights away when you join. Also, there is a rigid chain of command where if you do not follow orders, you got to jail, or are dishonorably discharged or both. You don't have that in the civilian world. I don't have to do what you to tell me to do.

Bad analogy.[/QUOTE]
Seems irrelevant how you got in. The rigid chain of command where if you do not follow orders, you got to jail sounds like how most of the old communist countries treated their civilians. Point is, in the military or in communist totalitarian countries, you do what you're told and you get what you need to survive, disobey and you suffer.
 
Why is it so hard to grasp that no nation should fight a war it does not fully intend to win?

Why are there "rule books" for war?

War is for winning. By whatever means.

Any nation that wages war according to "rules" is a nation in name only. One that deserves to be conquered.

Screw "nice".

Win.
most wars are not total wars as WW2 was
 
The valiant Wehrmacht army using the new blitzkrieg invasion technique was unstoppable at the beginning of the war.

Unfortunately, poor long term logistical planning by those in charge left the army short on food rations, petrol, ammunition, and winter weather gear. ... :cool:

DisfiguredDaringArchaeocete-size_restricted.gif
you sound like you wanted the Nazi's to win???
the Germans were very good
...they beat not 1 but two nations' armies --''quickly''...France had one of the largest armies
...there's nothing wrong with admiring ANY countries' soldiers/etc and opining good vs bad
...the Germans were beaten by MANY armies--whose countries where much bigger/more populated/etc
 
The valiant Wehrmacht army using the new blitzkrieg invasion technique was unstoppable at the beginning of the war.

Unfortunately, poor long term logistical planning by those in charge left the army short on food rations, petrol, ammunition, and winter weather gear. ... :cool:

DisfiguredDaringArchaeocete-size_restricted.gif
you sound like you wanted the Nazi's to win???
the Germans were very good
...they beat not 1 but two nations' armies --''quickly''...France had one of the largest armies
...there's nothing wrong with admiring ANY countries' soldiers/etc and opining good vs bad
...the Germans were beaten by MANY armies--whose countries where much bigger/more populated/etc
if it was any other than the nazis I might agree with you,,,but not on this one,,,they were merciless and killed without reason any including children that stood in their way

and beating france is nothing to brag about
 

Forum List

Back
Top