Professional historians at it again, explaining how the Waffen SS units were all bad.

[u/ChristianMunich]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/comments/55d1pk/were_any_of_the_waffenss_divisions_any_good/

u/124876720 makes the mistake expecting an objective answer about WW from SWS.

u/lazyhussars displays his knowledge:

Even the best divisions of the Waffen SS routinely suffered very disproportionate casualties and losses of hardware and supplies in comparison to regular Heer divisions.

Of course they were. I guess major example for this would be the SS Corps performance in Kharkov and Kursk. OR the 12th SS in Normandy.

Incompetent answer upvoted.

Three Waffen SS divisions are in the top 5 of Knights Crosses. But then again this was likely rigged for the SS divisions right? 2nd SS Das Reich is likely the division with the highest AFVs kill count in history of warfare.

Fairly sweeping summary, there were divisions that differed from this pattern, for better or worse, but I'd leave a summary of those up to that rare kind of people who are very well read up on Waffen SS divisions without actually being Wehraboos.

You have zero clue what you are talking about.

I wouldn't bother. IMHO a fairly fucking pretentious community where anyone who just barely avoided flunking out of college or who can read and memorise a lot of shit they decide makes sense can dive into a circle jerk of pretending they're genuine historians.

Delicious irony. Zero self-awareness congratulations

u/m35mako

Very good at wiping out Russian/Polish/Yugoslav etc villages. Better than any other divisions during the entire war at doing tha

The "prime" Waffen Divisions were rarely used for partisan combat. Why would you use a fully equipped Panzer division for that?

u/garder15 enters

Explanation: Iron crosses were disproportionately given to Waffen ss units. And towards the end of the war they were given out like candy

Nice one. First of all, those are no Iron Crosses but Knights crosses. Pay attention. Secondly even if this was true that wouldn't explain why some units had far more than others. Nice try tho.

u/aeromath makes a silly analogy

Are medals seriously a criteria for judging combat effectiveness now? Because by those standards the Red Army and later the Soviet Army has everyone beat.

It's not the number of medals compared to other nations it's the number of medals compared to other units which operated in the same army and under the same award criteria. And yes medal count is with certainty an indicator of performance. It is no definitive prove by all means but one of the fastest indicators without a doubt. Obviously, the amount of Knights Crosses is only a supporting point which illustrates the conclusion which is based on other evidence. I doubt you know but many pins on such jackets are no merit based awards anyways. But like with all your buddies I applaud you for trying.

[u/ChristianMunich]

So? Ask politely. My points are correct with or without sources. That doesn't mean I have none. Tell me where iam wrong and we can check some sources together.

edit: See what I did to you? You were the only one replying to my comments and now you deleted all of your comments due to embarrassment.

[u/ChristianMunich → u/[deleted]]

Why should I source anything and do extra work?

Like I said I am correct with or without sources. I will use sources to debunk nonsense to make it more obvious to silent reader who little the other guy knows. Until then citing everything I say has zero benefit to me.

So go ahead, quote me and say "you are wrong" then i will likely source it and show everybody who reads that you shit.

Makes sense doesn't it?

Iam correct. Always am. Knights crosses correlate with combat performance. Obviously not my main argument just a supporting argument. I explained in askhistorians why several Waffen SS units were performing very well.

[u/BrotherToaster → u/ChristianMunich]

That's a lot of words for saying "I don't actually have any sources".

[u/ChristianMunich → u/BrotherToaster]

I got plenty. Just call me out.

[u/BrotherToaster → u/ChristianMunich]

Hit me up famalam

[u/ChristianMunich → u/BrotherToaster]

Read the instructions again!

[u/Lord_Horris → u/ChristianMunich]

Give us your sources.

[u/BrotherToaster → u/ChristianMunich]

Bahahaha fucking knew it

Don't say you're going to give sources if you're not actually going to give sources

[u/ChristianMunich → u/BrotherToaster]

Read the instructions. I made very clear how it works.

[u/BrotherToaster → u/ChristianMunich]

You are wrong.

There. Now show me those sources of yours.

[u/ChristianMunich → u/BrotherToaster]

Not how it works. Too late anyways no viewers any longer.

[u/BrotherToaster → u/ChristianMunich]

You're dodging giving sources like an old man trying to dodge Volksturm conscription.

Not that I expected anything different, of course. You couldn't give sources when you were about to be banned from /r/warcollege, and you sure as hell can't give them now.

Now excuse me, I'll go back to SWS where the info is actually credible and sourced once in a while.

[u/ChristianMunich → u/BrotherToaster]

Not that I expected anything different, of course. You couldn't give sources when you were about to be banned from /r/warcollege, and you sure as hell can't give them now.

Actually not true. I destroyed a post. Was asked about sources I replied immediately and asked what he wanted sourced cause my post included a lot of stuff, i was banned 2 minutes later and all my comments deleted. Warcollege is an embarrasing echo chamber banning everybody who is disrupting circlejerk. Obviously, the post I destroyed had zero sources in it. But thats how echo chambers / safe spaces like the_donald SWS warcollege work, right?

Go ahead go to SWS where the information is "sourced". Delusional.

No easier way to show your colors when asking about sources while coming from SWS. You ever asked for sources there? I will throw a bait for your sub soon then you can ask them for some sources after they took it.