redtom wrote:
Why do you think so many SS either had exclusively slav or partially slav troops: XXIII Wgdb der SS for example.
When you say "Slav", what you mean is mostly Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian recruits. Of a total of 45 SS divisions between 1933 and 1945, 27 were formed outside of Germany, and of those 5 were Volksdeutsch units. Of the 22 remaining foreign SS divisions, 5 were "Slavic"; XIV WGD der SS "Galizien" (Galician western Ukrainians), XXIII WGbD der SS "Kama/Kroatische No. 2 (Croatians), XXIX WGD der SS "Russische 1/Kaminsky Brigade" (Soviet POWs), XXX WGD der SS Russische No. 2 (Soviet POWs), and the XXXI SS-FPgD "Bohmen-Mahren" (Czech). The remaining 17 foreign SS divisions were Baltic (Latvian, Cour and Estonian: 4), Dutch (2.5), Scandinavian (Norwegian, Finnish and Danish: 1.5), Hungarian (2.5), Belgian (2.5), French (2), Moslem (Bosnian and Albanian: 2), and Italian (2). (The ".5"'s represent significant numbers in the V SS-PD division that was a mish-mash of Danes, Dutch, Finns, Norwegians, and Flemish.)
Looking at these numbers, I don't see "so many SS...exclusively Slav or partially Slav troops"; 2% of all SS divisions were Slav, 23% of the foreign SS divisions (non-Volksdeutsch. Large numbers of Russians and Ukrainians in particular joined (Vlasov's army stood at its height at about 1 million strong) but their inducement was obvious. Poles, Serbs, Bulgarians, Slovenes, Slovaks, Sorbs, Macedonians, etc. had little reason to join - they'd little to gain from a Nazi victory. The Russian POWs and Ukrainian nationalists had much to lose from a Soviet victory, as did the Baltic peoples (especially Latvians). Almost every nationality is represented among SS volunteers (including Brits and North Americans), but the real question about SS composition is who joined when. Large numbers of Flemish, Latvians and Ukrainians joined the SS before it became apparent Hitler would lose the war; other groups had to be coerced. Soviet POWs were given a choice between starvation or joining, and as POWs they couldn't go back to the USSR anyway. But again, I would hardly characterize the foreign SS divisions as overwhelmingly Slavic. You'll also note that the first Slavic SS division was formed in 1943, 3 years after the first Western European SS division. The Nazis were only willing to recruit among the Eastern Slavs when their manpower situation was critical.
Admittedly many of them were Hungarians, therefore, Finno-Ugric people rather than slavs, but the argument was about eastern European people rather than a specific ethnic group.
You've switched gears a bit here. You used the term "Slavs" in both your original post and your reply to me, but now you're revealing you included Hungarians in that group - and the Hungarians are certainly not Slavs, as you admit above. (In 4 years of residence in Hungary, a friend used to call me "the Slav in a sea of Hungarians", refering to the common Hungarian expression of Hungary being an island in a sea of Slavs.) The argument - and I rather thought this was a discussion, not an argument - was not about Eastern Europeans; it was about what I thought to be the area Hitler blundered most in his many war foibles, in Operation Barbarossa. The point was Hitler's mistakes, not the Eastern Europeans. My initial reply to your first post was more an elaboration than a disagreement.
P.S.Vrylakas, despite your many historical inaccurancies, you sound like a smart person, but not necessily infallible with your (lack of) historical knowledge.
redtom, there are many intelligent and well-read people in this forum who bring a variety of opinions and experiences to the discussions. I've learned much by participating or just reading. It does no one any good to display condescension or arrogance. I'm quite happy to continue any discussion with anyone, so long as it is civil and worth it for both parties. I do not recall ever claiming to be a Pope or infallible; I would appreciate it therefore if you would refrain from the personal digressions.
