Third Party Press

Did the SS only get weapons from bnz?

CMHouchins

Member
Forgive my ignorance again but did the SS pretty much go the whole war without a manufacture supply other than the bnz runs??? In several photos I see gew98's, VZ-24's, even some M95's being used but I see alot of K98's as well. I have seen them using low and high turrets, SSR, double and single claw and a couple with ZF41's as well for sniper rifles/sharpshooter on the ZF :) How and where did they acquire them I guess is what I want to ask? Thanks for the lesson ;)
 
Last edited:
Forgive my ignorance again but did the SS pretty much go the whole war without a manufacture supply other than the bnz runs??? In several photos I see gew98's, VZ-24's, even some M95's being used but I see alot of K98's as well. How and where did they acquire them I guess is what I want to ask? Thanks for the lesson ;)

*Edit- moved to it's own thread, it's a very good question/topic by itself

On the contrary. Waffen SS field units were supplied arms through the Heer supply system. Waffen SS troops were under the command of Army Generals, and drew from Army stocks for weapons. Throughout the war Himmler had a dream of using the Labor Camps to supply the SS with weapons outside of the Army supply system, but incompetence in the SS prevented that from happening. You see, the SS leaders were hard core socialist and hated industrialist and businessmen- this distrust kept them from putting people in charge of SS enterprises that may have benefited from business sense, such as how to run a company. As history shows, the incompetency of the SS led to massive failures throughout most of the war in that regard. Funny, if it hadn't been for Alber Speer, the war may have ended in 43-44. If you get a chance, read Albert Speers memoirs "Infiltration", it's a good read. Keep in mind it's from his perspective, but history bears out most of his assertions.
 
Last edited:
Will pick it up from amazon this week. Thanks for the recomendation. I guess I should start reading more of the other post so I get a more rounded education :hail:
 
Will pick it up from amazon this week. Thanks for the recomendation. I guess I should start reading more of the other post so I get a more rounded education :hail:

Make sure you get "Infiltration". I think it is out of print, I got my copy from a good friend.
 
On the contrary. Waffen SS field units were supplied arms through the Heer supply system. Waffen SS troops were under the command of Army Generals, and drew from Army stocks for weapons. Throughout the war Himmler had a dream of using the Labor Camps to supply the SS with weapons outside of the Army supply system, but incompetence in the SS prevented that from happening. You see, the SS leaders were hard core socialist and hated industrialist and businessmen- this distrust kept them from putting people in charge of SS enterprises that may have benefited from business sense, such as how to run a company. As history shows, the incompetency of the SS led to massive failures throughout most of the war in that regard. Funny, if it hadn't been for Alber Speer, the war may have ended in 43-44. If you get a chance, read Albert Speers memoirs "Infiltration", it's a good read. Keep in mind it's from his perspective, but history bears out most of his assertions.

To expand on this, it seems to me it was the ideology of the early nazi party which was the source of the failure of SS in this regard. Hitler himself did not believe in the industrialism mentality and saw it to only make men slaves to the capital machine. This in turn would lead to the destruction of the people’s originality and individualism. Naturally, the SS as fanatical supporters of the Nazi ideology would adhere to this even after Hitler himself abandoned the idea due to the demands of the war.

The SS failure comes from the unwillingness to change. Himmlers strategy of a state within a state would be accomplished by having key members of the SS in important roles that he could have do his bidding and promote the ideology. To “infiltrate” if you will. Ohlendorf was an example of this when sent to the ministry of the economy. Ohlendorf consistently spoke out against the “self responsibility of industry”. He stated the obvious goal of the self responsibility of industry is to achieve the highest performance with the least amount of manpower and material. This concept of optimal factory must be taken with caution according to him as it would lead to the destruction of the artisan manufacture bringing the assembly line manufacture. Attempting to compete with America in mass production would mean the destruction of the individual german and their qualitative abilities more or less. Thus if germany could not compete in mass, it would have win with quality. They would counter their enemies (us) production with quality in armaments, rockets, jets plans etc.

In trying to stick with the topic, as it is much more complicated than this, the concept of purposely avoiding the highest performance with the least amount of manpower and material seems odd to us as Americans. Naturally speers ministry was against this as their goal was to creation of self responsibility of industry. However, can it be any wonder the SS failed in so many projects when some of their highest leaders at least at some level seemed to be against optimal output?

I look forward to others opinions and thoughts on this. Or even opinions on my analysis as Im well aware that putting ones self out there is akin to placing a large target on ones back.
 
I moved this question to it's own thread- it's a great question and is a great discussion on it's own, and it confusing the original thread.
 
MJA_20, you are on target and have a good grasp of the subject for sure. It was indeed the ideology of the Nazi Party in general that the SS emulated, to a fault. Anyway, I really enjoyed reading that book, it gives a real insight into the SS organization from an economic point of view.
 
On the contrary. Waffen SS field units were supplied arms through the Heer supply system. Waffen SS troops were under the command of Army Generals, and drew from Army stocks for weapons.

+10. While Waffen-SS units certainly did receive weapons from the SS depot and camp systems, the vast majority of their arms came from Army stocks since the Waffen-SS being under de facto Army command meant integration with the Army supply system. Himmler hated this since the Army was the main political rival of his SS. He dreamed of supplanting the Wehrmacht as the primary political force in Germany, and "step one" was a separate arms production capability. Acquiring captured and antiquated arms (neither of which the army wanted) was an early way of trying to get around the Wehrmacht's monopoly in 1940-1941.

Throughout the war Himmler had a dream of using the Labor Camps to supply the SS with weapons outside of the Army supply system, but incompetence in the SS prevented that from happening. You see, the SS leaders were hard core socialist and hated industrialist and businessmen- this distrust kept them from putting people in charge of SS enterprises that may have benefited from business sense, such as how to run a company. As history shows, the incompetency of the SS led to massive failures throughout most of the war in that regard. Funny, if it hadn't been for Alber Speer, the war may have ended in 43-44. If you get a chance, read Albert Speers memoirs "Infiltration", it's a good read. Keep in mind it's from his perspective, but history bears out most of his assertions.

I don't think all of this is true. The efforts of Himmler and the SS to divorce themselves from the Army system were hardly successful, but I don't think you can call them a failure. At all of the camps, hundreds of thousands of prisoners were put to work in SS-run industries in and around the camps, or were farmed out to other arms industries nearby or to various other units (Reichsbahn, etc.). The system produced tons of desperately needed war material and freed up Germans for front service.

I also wouldn't say that the SS or any Nazi "hated business". The Fascist system was one of "cooperation". Property was left nominally private, but was actually heavily controlled and regulated by the state. The Nazis and the SS liked big business just fine. As long as it served the state. Big businesses liked the Nazis just fine as long as they were favored for contracts and protected from smaller rivals. Not all that different from the US.

IMHO, the system was ultimately unsuccessful because it was "crowded out" by the Army, not incompetence in the SS. The Army's needs (and budget) were massive and consequently commanded most of the productive capacity and resources. The SS was left with the scraps, and small contracts here and there. I do not think it is a coincidence that the Steyr contract guns appear in 1943 and 1944 when the SS was at its height in both size and power.

The two books you MUST read to understand National Socialist economics: "Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze (2007) and "The Vampire Economy" by Gunter Reimann (1939) (http://mises.org/books/vampireeconomy.pdf). Tooze dispels most of the myths surrounding the National Socialist state (the economic miracle of the 30's, etc.), taking a particular interest in demolishing Speers' post-war rehabilitation. I wouldn't believe anything written by Speer.
 
+10. While Waffen-SS units certainly did receive weapons from the SS depot and camp systems, the vast majority of their arms came from Army stocks since the Waffen-SS being under de facto Army command meant integration with the Army supply system. Himmler hated this since the Army was the main political rival of his SS. He dreamed of supplanting the Wehrmacht as the primary political force in Germany, and "step one" was a separate arms production capability. Acquiring captured and antiquated arms (neither of which the army wanted) was an early way of trying to get around the Wehrmacht's monopoly in 1940-1941.



I don't think all of this is true. The efforts of Himmler and the SS to divorce themselves from the Army system were hardly successful, but I don't think you can call them a failure. At all of the camps, hundreds of thousands of prisoners were put to work in SS-run industries in and around the camps, or were farmed out to other arms industries nearby or to various other units (Reichsbahn, etc.). The system produced tons of desperately needed war material and freed up Germans for front service.

I also wouldn't say that the SS or any Nazi "hated business". The Fascist system was one of "cooperation". Property was left nominally private, but was actually heavily controlled and regulated by the state. The Nazis and the SS liked big business just fine. As long as it served the state. Big businesses liked the Nazis just fine as long as they were favored for contracts and protected from smaller rivals. Not all that different from the US.

IMHO, the system was ultimately unsuccessful because it was "crowded out" by the Army, not incompetence in the SS. The Army's needs (and budget) were massive and consequently commanded most of the productive capacity and resources. The SS was left with the scraps, and small contracts here and there. I do not think it is a coincidence that the Steyr contract guns appear in 1943 and 1944 when the SS was at its height in both size and power.

The two books you MUST read to understand National Socialist economics: "Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze (2007) and "The Vampire Economy" by Gunter Reimann (1939) (http://mises.org/books/vampireeconomy.pdf). Tooze dispels most of the myths surrounding the National Socialist state (the economic miracle of the 30's, etc.), taking a particular interest in demolishing Speers' post-war rehabilitation. I wouldn't believe anything written by Speer.

Ryan,
You have some valid points and are not the only person to not trust speer. Even farb stated that you would have to take in to context what it written. History is written by the victor. Yes, speer lived and Himmler didn’t. Thus he got to write about what happened and skew things in his favor. Like anything, you have to do your best to separate the facts from fiction, decide what percentage of truth there is to ones statement if you will. He was no saint, there is no excuse for his involvement and claiming that he wasn’t able to equate the numbers on paper to actual lives is just an excuse…..and a poor one at that. Taking what speer said for gospel is a mistake, but to distrust everything he wrote would be a mistake as well.

I still say generally speaking the SS leadership (Not necessarily the nazi leadership) did not trust the industrialist or wanted them in control. If the industrialist were responsible themselves, how would it be possible for the SS organization to meet there goal of power? I’d like to also note that I was separating there “ideology” from what the reality was. Although not all SS leadership believed in being rid of mass production and optimal output. The Irony of those who did, and I believe this is a valid claim that speer points this out, is that there superior products of german quality say at the Bavarian motor works were still being built by machines operated by Russian POW’s?

As to the success or failure of the SS. I guess we would have to define what failure is at that kind of organizational level. What percentage of accomplishments vs goals count as “success”? Sure, the SS was able to gain a good portion of control say of the earth and stone works and even managed to control some armaments production by the seizure weiss. Never the less, I think if one compares what they accomplished in their plans vs what their plans were, there is a large void which to me signals an overall failure. That’s not even taking into account an argument of their inefficiency in running what they did control, say in the german earth and stone work. I believe simson has a good article on DEST in the MRJ, for those who don’t have it, I strongly recommend it.

As always, I enjoy reading others opinions.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Ryan- as mja pointed out, I was careful not to say I believe everything Speer says, but it is still part of the history and should be taken in context.

As to my statement about the failure of the SS in industrial matters, I think history does show this. First, the Germans lost WW2 (so in effect, all of Nazism failed, not just the SS). But, if you look at the actual enterprises that the SS was controlled in regards to 98k production (which is my focus) it was a failure. For the most part the labor expenditure was double or triple I think for the same output at other non-SS facilities, and output was half or less. (I'd have to look all that up again, but it's pretty skewed).

I appreciate different points of view, especially on this subject. The truth is somewhere in between.
 
On the contrary. Waffen SS field units were supplied arms through the Heer supply system. Waffen SS troops were under the command of Army Generals, and drew from Army stocks for weapons...

I suspected that the SS was supplied through the Heer supply system. Thanks for confirming. I have a "41 bnz." with an "H-eagle" Heereswaffenamt mark on the stock. Based on what you said, it could have been supplied to Heer or SS landsers.

... You see, the SS leaders were hard core socialist ...

As were all upper level members of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi Party). Not a whole lot different than their counterparts in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Definitely not governments by the people, for the people. Not many in this day and age understand this.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top