This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The section below dates from almost two years ago and was the result of a user writing up an essay on how the SS got its name. This section has never been sourced and is pretty much straight up WP:OR. I'm placing it here for storage in case the original user who wrote it returns. -OberRanks (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Upon the creation of the SS, the correct term was Schutzstaffeln der NSDAP. Schutzstaffeln is the plural form of Schutzstaffel, i.e., "Protection Squads". The NSDAP is the abbreviation for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers' Party, the official name of the Nazi Party. "SS" became the actual name of the organization after it became an independent organization within the Nazi party in 1934. References to Schutzstaffeln der NSDAP were not used after this time by the SS itself. At the Nuremberg Trials, the term Schutzstaffel was used as a name for the entire organization. In the modern age, "SS" has become the most accurate transliteration.
POV
I think "worst" in "Built upon the Nazi ideology, the SS, under Heinrich Himmler's command, was responsible for many of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Nazis during World War II, and most of the worst of those crimes." in the header is clearely a POV. I suggest replacing it with "severest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by MassNssen (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Holocaust Banner
The Holocaust banner on the right hand side of the screen creates a significant screen error in that my browser shows a huge amount of white space in the Sonderkommondo section. I would recommend simply linking to Holocaust and removing the banner.
I'm trying to condense/prep this article for a possible Featured Article look. -OberRanks (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree it creates too large a gap in the overall presentation of the article. Kierzek (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed per this discussion
Article Reorganization
I just finished a major reorganization of the article in an attempt to get the flow a little bit better. The SS was so huge and massive by the time frame of World War II that the many branches and sub-branches can get very confusing. Hopefully, the current version will help with the reading of the article.
I think we can proceed with a possible Featured article attempt at this stage. A first step would be to give citations to every statement in the article and also add some SS specific pictures.
I do appreciate the Holocaust photos; however, this article I think should have pictures only of SS personnel and SS offices. Cluttering the article with Holocaust photos, when there are plenty of additional articles for those, detracts from the main purpose of this article which is to explain what the SS was and the mechanics of how it operated. -OberRanks (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I have added and will add more cites as my time permits. Kierzek (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The German government maintains excellent archives of WW2 photos, including SS photos. Can we use these in Wikipedia? I'm not an expert at uploading photos to Wikipedia, but there's excellent German archival material out there, free for the taking. For instance:
Once again, someone wants to add in this photo. It was discussed by editors in Talk:Schutzstaffel/Archive 3 and inconclusive to a degree but in the end the consensus was not to include it. As all editors know, the burden is on the one who wants to add something, as is the case here. If they get consensus then so be it. I don't think it should be added under the argument of WP:UNDUE, as in undue weight being given to a section that should be mentioned but not be given as much attention as the majority view being conveyed herein. It is about NPOV and balance and has nothing to do with "censorship". Thoughts guys? Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. This is a general article about the SS, not about Buchenwald. Buchenwald has its own article and those photos would be fine there. I think adding them to the main SS article is for little purpose other than "shock value" and saying "See what bad things they did?!?". Another way to look at it is that the camp service was, honestly, covers perhaps 10% of the SS duties. Filling this broad article with photos about the camps detracts from the purpose and, yes, is against the UNDUE Wikipedia guidelines. Keep the photos out. BTW, I feel the same way about filling up the article with Einsatzgruppen execution photos. -OberRanks (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it is undue weight. Suggests that the Schutzstaffel organization were as commonly victimized as other people, etc. I certainly have a good idea of the probable reason why someone wanted to add in this photo; to show that the SS could be victims of their own regime at times. Which is true. But it is undue weight. OberRanks already summed it up pretty succinctly. Perhaps it could be added to the respective camp article? I do believe, however, that it is fine to have several Einsatzgruppen execution photos in the article pertaining to Einsatzgruppen. Because that is, sadly, not undue weight. In other words, I believe that you are correct.Hoops gza (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
bodies of two SS guards who were killed in the Ohrdruf concentration camp soon after the liberation.
The picture is encyclopedic, it illustrates the kind of retribution levelled on SS members after the liberation of a camp, is in color and is freely licensed, also no conclusion can be drawn about its 'shock value' since individual reactions will vary upon seeing any picture and wikipedia is not censored Coasttrip (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Since consensus is not with you herein Coasttrip, I would suggest you may want to add it to the Buchenwald article, if you wish. The reaction to it there is unknown at this time, but you have a much better argument for it there, I would agree (as stated by the other editors above). Kierzek (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I suggest waiting for more replies to this thread since the only two editors were canvassed by you on their talk pages, more neutral view points are welcomed, I encourage others to respond with your thoughts about this encyclopedic image Coasttrip (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The image doesn't seem relevant to the focus of this article per WP:UNDUE. (Hohum@) 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I asked two editors who hold a great interest in World War II and German history to give their own opinion; Hohum has now, as well. Enough said. Kierzek (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Values of the SS
This newly added section has some problems. For one, it is too long; second, it expresses the opinions of only one author. I would suggest the section be edited down and if anyone has cites from others reliable sources to further confirm or add to the points of the section, then that would be helpful. Kierzek (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion that entire section should be removed as breaking nearly every rule of No OR. Not only does it read like a personal research essay, but it isnt really accurate. The SS was a vast and huge organization. The personal values and morales of SS members is a deep and extensive topic and relies very much on personal opinions of researchers. Also, depending on what area of the SS one studies, the results of such research would be vastly different. Take for instance a desk bound paper pusher in the SS-Hauptamt, a front line Private in the Waffen-SS, and a camp gaurd at Auschwitz. The morales and values of these three persons are not the same, nor should ane attempt be made to extropolate or interpret them in a Wikipedia article. No, the section as it reads heavily as OR. It should be removed. -OberRanks (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Assuming the contents reflect the citations given, it clearly isn't OR. However, a broader range of sources would be better. It has also become far too long and wanders off the point. (Hohum@) 20:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the new section is too long, and that it shouldn't rely on one source so heavily - particularly as that source is over 40 years old. It seems to me that there are other problems - mostly that some of it is general to (elite) military units (the hardness, readiness to fight, etc.) and some of it is more generally applicable to other units carrying out the Holocaust as well. (The last two paras contain points made by Christopher Browning about Ordnungspolizei units in his book Ordinary Men). For this reason, some of what is written in the values section would be better incorporated into Responsibility for the Holocaust (another article which needs some help). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I added an accuracy tag. I think a solution would be to create a new article entitled Ideology of the SS and move both this section and the section on "Class Egalitarianism" over to the new page. If the material can;'t stand up on its own, it should and will be deleted. Right now, this is pretty much a weak essay type section placed inside a much larger article. -OberRanks (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I noted the same essay is already included in The Holocaust article under the section, "Perpetrator Motivation", as well. Kierzek (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Move was completed. May need to copy this talk page discussion over as well. I'll leave that up to others. -OberRanks (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I made some of the needed edits for concision and tidy of cites; and took out some of the POV of the author. See what you think, OberRanks. It could use more work. Kierzek (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg Nominated for Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
An image used in this article, File:Totenkopf.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
In the summary of this article it states:
"It began at the end of 1920 as a small permanent guard unit known as the "Saal-Schutz" (Hall-Protection)[1] made up of NSDAP volunteers to provide security for Nazi Party meetings in Munich."
Whereas, in the Heinrich Himmler article it states:
"The SS, initially part of the much larger SA, was formed in 1923 for Hitler's personal protection, and was re-formed in 1925 as an elite unit of the SA."
Please could somebody [appropriately knowledgeable] resolve this conflict?
Alexandrews (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. I checked the cited books and it was really the presentation of the facts which were a little off. The original group (not known then as the Schutzstaffel or SS) formed in 1920 was disbanded and later re-formed in 1923. Then, the Nazi Party was banned after the Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923. The party officially re-formed in February 1925. The SS, initially a small section of the much larger SA, was for Hitler's personal protection; it was re-formed in 1925, as well. Himmler joined the SS that same year. Kierzek (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Why does SS redirect to here?
There are many SS meanings, why this? 202.123.130.53 (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Consensus about ten years ago, actually. There's a whole mess of discussions about the redirect for SS in the talk page archives. -OberRanks (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Common meaning use. Kierzek (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You can search:what is ss on google, and the only result of Schutzstaffel in the first page is Wikipedia, the first result. 202.123.130.53 (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 5 June 2015
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Schutzstaffel → SS (Nazi Germany) – Per WP:COMMONNAME, our articles should be located at a common English-language name for the subject, if one is available, rather than at a foreign-language name. In addition, the current name of this article is not widely known to the general public, who are our audience, so this move is suggested. --Relisted.Cúchullaint/c 18:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)BMK (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Support as nom. Articles should not be located at names known primarily to academics or aficionados of the subject. BMK (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
BMK, I would suggest merging the text of this vote into your original nomination so it doesn't appear as if you're voting for yourself. Its generally good form for the nominator of an issue to state their support or opposition in the nomination itself and avoid then repeating the same information in a vote line. if you choose to merge the above comment, feel free to remove my comment here as well. -OberRanks (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"Support as nom" is a standard forumulation for discussions. Any closing admin is going to understand not to count my vote twice. BMK (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Support move to SS. SS is the common name and the page already redirects here, so the disambiguation isn't needed. CalidumT|C 12:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Since "SS" would redirect to "SS (nazi Germany)"., I see no harm, and some benefit to the reader, in the disambiguastor, however, I do not object to moving the article to "SS". Perhaps other commenters here can express their opinions about that. BMK (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose mainly for the reasons outlined in this thread as well as previous discussions here and here. Also this is the proper name of a Nazi Party paramilitary organization and is cited as such in thousands of sources. Google alone has nearly half a million hits [1]. My main worry here is this will start a snowball-forest fire with the translation of Nazi Party organizational titles, in particular that the same argument here could be applied to so many others. Best to just leave this alone. -OberRanks (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as the historians, scholars and academic sources refer to the SS by its actual German name. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Academic usage is not the controlling standard for Wikipedia, our policy of WP:COMMONNAME is. BMK (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and reliable third-party independent sources also refer to it as the "SS", many more times, so neither has an edge in that respoect. However, one is in German, and the other is just two English letters, so WP:COMMONNAME is controliing. BMK (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I won't support this move until you ... somehow ... can prove "SS" is a more common reference than "Schutzstaffel". I can only speak for myself and say that all the book sources I've used to cite SS-related articles have always first referred to it as "Schutzstaffel". Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Here goes nothing:
Michael Burleigh's first reference to the organization on page 161 of The Third Reich: A New History (2000) is to "the Gestapo and SS", and the organization is indexed uder "SS (Schutzstaffel)"
Shirer's first mention on page 145 is to the "S.S.", and, again, it's indexed under "SS (Schutzstaffel)". The index entry on "Schutzstaffel" says "see SS"
Kershaw's biography of Hitler, volume 1, indexes as "SS (Schutzstaffel, Protection Squad)" and the first mention on page xxvii is to "Himmler and the SS"
Fest's biography of Hitler has one of the worst indices I've ever seen: it contains only people's names, so I can't determine when he first mentions the SS without a time-consuming re-read
Padfield's biography of Himmer indexes the under "SS, Schutzstaffel". The first mention on pahe 9 is to "Himmler's black order of the SS"
Reitlinger's The SS: Alibi of A Nation 1922-1945 mentions them first of page as "the SS". The index entry for "Schutzstaffeln" says "see SS:
Cranksaw's The Gestapo: Instrument of Tyranny has an index entry for "Schutz Staffel" which says "see SS". That entry says "S.S. (Schutz Staffel)". The first mention of the organization is the text is on page 16, "the S.A. and the S.S."
Hitler's Willing Executioners mentions it first of page 10 "overwhelmingly SS men". The index entry is for "SS"
Kershaw's The Hitler Myth mentions them on page 30 "the cordon of SS men"
Rosenbaum's Explaininng Hitler: index "SS (Schutzstaffel)", first mention page 39 "the SS"
Fest's The Face of the Third Reich: index "SS", first mention page 11 "the SS state"
Overy's biography of Goering: index "SS (Schutzstaffel)", first mention page 4 "the SS"
So I imagine your objection is going to be hat these are popular works, not academic studies, and yes, that is correct, and let me say once again, we are a popular encyclopedia and not intended for academics. Any academics citing Wikipedia ought to be failed on the spot, we're here to give the general public the information they need on whatever subject that comes up, and when it comes us, they want to know about "the SS", not about the "Schutzstaffel" which very very few of them have ever heard of. That is why our article should be located there, because that is where they will expect to find it. Academics don't need us, they have access to libraries and other resources, it is the general public we serve here. BMK (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. This one is a harder call (as I can see both sides) than the other two I recently agreed with re-naming (SA and RSHA). As I said on those two discussion boards, re-naming of Nazi Germany and Nazi Party related articles should be looked at one-by-one (when it comes up) with a critical eye and with discussion, accordingly. Thereby allowing consensus be reached. This one I believe should remain as is with the current full German name being well known enough and given the re-directs point to the article when people type in other variations when wanting to read about the subject matter of this article. However, it is true that many English language books refer to the organization as "The SS". Kierzek (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferred to unnatural parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment I can't believe anyone would seriously claim that Schutzstaffel is as common in English language sources as SS for the Protection Squadron. On the other had, the disambiguator does seem a little strained and SS runs afoul of all those steamships. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment I'm not all that keen on what appears to be a campaign of translating German article titles. This article should definitely NOT be at Protection Squadron, as that is as uncommon as hen's teeth. Next, people will be wanting to translate German rank articles and confusing the crap out of everyone. On the basis that this is a specific case, I'm willing to offer my weak support. SS is used far more than Schutzstaffel in English sources. For example, the titles of almost all English books on the SS use "SS", not the German word. Turning to look at my bookcase I see McNab, Lumsden, Weale and Koehl, for example. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Support moving to plain SS. The only competitor as the primary topic is the ship designator, which we don't have a specific article on, instead covering in several articles. The proper name will still redirect here, and should appear in the lead sentence, so there will be no difficulty for readers to find it if they only know the formal German name - though in fact "SS" is the most common term in German as well. It definitely shouldn't be at "Protection squadron"; that's an invented translation. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I can support a move to SS, as this is clearly the primary topic of that desgination. As I said above, I cannot support the above proposed title, as it replaces the preferred WP:NATURAL disambiguation with parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 01:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Isn't it kind of odd to have an article taking place at an abbreviation? We have articles at National Basketball Association and World Trade Organization, not NBA and WTO. Sure, Schutzstaffel isn't English per se, but I'm not too sure about using the initials either. It feels out of place with everything else. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Those names are already in English. Our article on the Fédération Internationale de Football Association is at FIFA, because that is the common English-language name of the organization. BMK (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
tough call, I am guided by what seems most common in English. I am giving my very weak SupportMisterBee1966 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Use the proper name of the organisation. People looking for SS will find it via the redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Not convinced there's a pressing reason for the rename, especially when a redirect will work. Intothatdarkness 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. This is the organisation's official name. JIP | Talk 21:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Support move to SS per WP:COMMONNAME. By far the most common name of this organisation, to the extent that most people probably don't know what the full name is. And it already redirects here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. This move won't aid anybody's navigation and one of the first things you should learn about the SS is what the initials stood for. Srnec (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Support per wp:commonname. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
SupportSS only, per RGloucester. If that's too ambiguous, take it to WP:RFD. SS (Nazi Germany) would be unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we should leave it where it is. This is the organisation's official name. If the page is moved, it should be to SS, which currently redirects here anyway, rather than the awkward and unnecessarily disambiguated SS (Nazi Germany). -- Diannaa (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Support per nom, WP:UE and WP:NC. This current title fails recognizability, naturalness, and consistency (with FIFA, with the FBI, CIA, KGB, etc.). 40% is not a passing grade at any school I know of. Red Slash 19:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
What consistency? FIFA and KGB are article titles but FBI and CIA are redirects. — AjaxSmack 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. It's an abbreviation and thus used more often than the actual name. The organization was named Schutzstaffel in 1925, which is well before the Nazi's seizure of power. Besides, SS is already redirecting to Schutzstaffel, so I cannot see, why the latter article should be moved to SS (Nazi Germany).--Assayer (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Support per nom, clear common name. Agree with Red Slash above, "this current title fails recognizability, naturalness, and consistency (with FIFA, with the FBI, CIA, KGB, etc.)". Cavarrone 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, per OberRanks above. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Although I haven't been commenting, I have been periodically monitoring the !voting here, and it's consistently been very close, with no clear consensus emerging either way - at least numerically. That is why I haven't withdrawn this RM as I did the one at Talk:Sturmabteilung. Considering the situation, my preference is for it to be closed by an admin who would not only count votes, but also evaluate the quality of the arguments in terms of policy, much as an AfD is closed. BMK (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think its a huge deal but full names are more encyclopedic. That and the fact that the proposed title has a supefluous a disambiguator (SS already redirects to Schutzstaffel) are enough to make me oppose a move per WP:TITLECHANGES ("If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.") — AjaxSmack 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Time for a revamp!
This article's structure and sections is not only a mess, but an unsourced mess. I propose these somewhat new and different sections in the following order. If enough people are in favor of seeing this rather than the current version, I'll compile body text for each section plus citations to sources. Let me know!
Background
Origins (describing the birth of the SS)
Uniforms (describing how SS uniforms and what whatnot differed from the SA in the early days)
Ideology (describing the ideological difference between the SS and SA)
Expansion
Early commanders (describing how Shreck, Berchtold and Heiden was unable to expand and properly lead the SS)
Control by Himmler (describing how Himmler expanded and improved the SS compared to his incompetent predecessors)
Status within the Nazi Party (describing how the SS became the dominant paramilitary group of the Nazi Party and how the SA lost its status and power after the Night of the Long Knives)
Seizure of power
Police forces and Internal security (describing how the SS took control of the police and security forces)
Public image (describing how Nazi propaganda portrayed the SS after coming to power)
Organizational structure
SS branches (naming and talking a little bit about all, or at least the most standard and notable, branches of the SS including foreign departments sister groups)
Women and civilian workers (talking mainly about SS-Helferinnenkorps and civilian workers employed or working for the SS)
World War II
Waffen-SS (talking about the birth and existence of the Waffen-SS and, importantly, how it differed from the Allgemeine-SS)
Battles (talking about famous battles/victories the Waffen-SS participated/contributed to)
War crimes (talking about war crimes committed in the name of the SS including its role in running/guarding the concentration camps)
Post-war
War crimes trials (talking about how only about 1,650 to 1,700 of the 70,000 members of the SS involved in crimes were put on trail and that the organization was declared criminal)
ODESSA (little about ODESSA)
In popular culture (about the SS in theater, films, poems, etc.)
Looks pretty solid. My assumption is the SD and the Einsatzgruppen will be under * Organizational Structure. Don't forget their role early during the war in the section under World War II. About ODESSA - remember, the existence of this organization is disputed by historians so certainly don't expand on it much. Consider dropping the extant "Early SS disunity" segment altogether or substantiate it otherwise. Not sure it adds much to the article anyway. Try to add a little something from Nikolaus Wachsmann's new work KL when you get on the concentration camp system. If you don't - at some point early on, I will. It's full of the latest scholarship. Overall, I like your schema for organizational continuity here. Surely our illustrious group has some additional ideas. Don't feel alone on this Jonas - we'll all get a little piece of it once you've got the basic structure in coherent order. May the Force be with you. --Obenritter (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Obenritter. Your were right in assuming that the SD and the Einsatzgruppen would fall under the SS branches section. Regarding ODESSA, I was planning writing about it as a WP:FRINGE per the historical consensus among historians, as you mentioned. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
You don't even really need permission to do what you are saying since it falls under WP:BOLD to some extent and the format looks good. The one comment on the other side I would make is try not to characterize any of the sections as "messes" or anything like that. This article actually has years of collaboration behind it and a lot of good people worked very hard to form the current structure. But, yes, change would be good. -O.R.Comms 01:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
When I said "mess" I meant in terms of structure and organization, no disrespect to the articles editors was intended. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
We all know what you meant, let's just say, it is organizationally suspect.--Obenritter (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree a reorganization is in order. Some ideas:
I. Origins of the SS
a. The SA and forerunners of the SS
b. Early commanders
c. Himmler takes over
II. Ideology
a. culture
b. uniforms
III. Expansion
a. Consolidating the police and security forces
b. Blood Purge and independence
IV. Organization and command structure
a Allgemeine-SS & SS-Amt
b. SS-TV and concentration camps
c. SS-VT & LSSAH
V. World War II
a. Waffen-SS
(including the foreign SS)
b. Einsatzgruppen and racial war
c. Major battles
d. War crimes
VI. Aftermath & legacy
Anyway, some food for thought. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This looks great. EyeTruth (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Section break
Okay guys, here is a suggested wording for the first section with three subsections:
Origins
Forerunner of the SS
When 29-year-old Adolf Hitler returned to Munich after Germany's defeat in World War I, he joined a small, political extremist group on the radical-right called the German Workers' Party (DAP). By 1921, he had imposed himself as chairman of the group and changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). The party rejected the Treaty of Versailles and advocated anti-Semitism as well as anti-Bolshevism. To police Nazi meetings and protect its speakers at rallies, a paramilitary force were formed. This became known as the Sturmabteilung ("Storm Section"; SA) and consisted of young party members who volunteered to provide muscle for security tasks. In 1925, as the parties membership began to grow, a special unit was formed to protect Hitler himself. This was the Schutzstaffel ("Protection Squad"; SS) which, at the time, was considered a mere sub-section of the much larger SA. Men of the SS had different uniforms than the SA, maintained tighter discipline and had higher entry requirements. Although officially subordinate to the SA, the groups members acted like the parties elite.
Early commanders
Julius Schreck was a co-founder of the SA and became the first SS chief upon its creation. Schreck was a close confidant of Hitler and had previously served in a Freikorps unit. He was succeeded as leader of the SS in 1926 by Joseph Berchtold, another SA co-founder. Berchtold was considered more dynamic than his predecessor, but became increasingly frustrated by the authority the SA had over the SS. In 1927, he handed the leadership over to his deputy Erhard Heiden. Much Like Berchtold, Heiden found it difficult to properly run the SS under the watch of the rapidly-growing SA. Membership of the SS declined from 1000 to just 280 under Heiden's rule. His dismissal was ensured when reports of him being a police spy emerged and he was succeeded by his deputy.
Himmler takes charge
With Hitler's approval, former chicken farmer Heinrich Himmler assumed control of the SS in 1929. The party officially stated Himmler's appointed was for "family reasons". Himmler displayed great enthusiasm and vision for the SS and was known to have good organizational skills. He became the official face of Hitler's bodyguard squad and over the year expanded the SS to 3,000 members. Himmler's aim was to turn the SS in the most influential branch of the party and most powerful organization in Germany. In 1930, Hitler allowed Himmler to run the SS as an independent organization, but still officially remained subordinate to the SA, which now numbered more than a million men.
Both, which we are going to put into one section, with sub-parts, I thought. Kierzek (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, it would be much easier for me to comment on such a wording if you could compile something together maybe? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
What we really need to do is re-organize the article, not re-write it (although it can use ce work); so using what is there (with some addition with cites) is the way to go. As we say at the office, "no reason to re-invent the wheel". Input from others would be good, I agree. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's very optimistic to think we could get this article to GA-status by re-organizing the article. I think writing each of the sections you mentioned above would make this process easier given the amount of heavy copyediting we would have to do regardless. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I was not talking about getting it to GA status at this time, just getting it organized better; I did not know that was what you were thinking about. But even if you are thinking about that, a total re-write is not needed. Kierzek (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Rewriting all of it is certainly not necessary. Large portions of it are solid. You could consider changing the citation style to 'harv' but for the most part, it just needs reorganized. Part of it needs some ce attention to be sure, but do not overload yourself by starting from scratch. Add substantiated content where the article is lacking in the process of reorganizing. That's sort of what I think many of us are expecting vice some major re-write. From what I've seen of the structure, the ideas thus presented look sound. Rest assured, some of us will add content and others will clean up the text. Joint effort brother. Machs' gut. --Obenritter (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding more content (if necessary) with citation, getting the verifiability in very good shape, and reorganizing what is already there will get the article to any status. No need for a page-one rewrite. EyeTruth (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
That also generally draws a lot of fire if someone blanks an article and starts over. I've seen it happen on other Wikis, not so much here, but it does still happen. -O.R.Comms 17:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I get what you guys are saying. We're not rewriting this article. In any case, would someone like to compile a body text, like I did, but with using information that is already in the article and share it on this talk page? Would make it a whole lot easier to copyedit and reach consensus. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
After reading the "Background" and "History" sections, I get the feeling that some sections or subsections of this article might as well be re-written - while perfectly understanding we're not re-written the whole article. The "Background" section has only a few citations and makes weird time/subject jumps. Same problems are seen in the "History" section. I think combining sentences from both sections would produce a confusion and unnecessary long section. And as it became clear above, I'm looking at this totally with the eyes of a man who wants to see this article reach GA-status. I mean, why go through the trouble of reorganizing this article without getting it to GA-status given its historical importance? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
What you'll need to do is extract the information into a word doc - and then chronologically reorder the relevant information accordingly. It will be a bit painstaking (I've done this to a couple articles myself) and then fit it into the places where it best belongs within the construct(s) that have been thus far proposed. In some cases, you may need to edit the content for flow (moving it elsewhere) and in other places, you will literally cut and paste. Your observances about it "jumping around" is why we all reached consensus that it needs reorganized - so it does not "jump around" any longer. Somehow, I get the impression you may be overthinking this. It needs reorganized for chronological reasons and for the sake of subject matter continuity. Getting the content orderly and the citations consistent is a job unto itself. We can all begin copy-editing for quality once its basic structure is reworked.--Obenritter (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Been kinda busy lately with real life stuff, but will work on a wording tonight and share it with you all tomorrow, this time using info that is already used in the article. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have started working on it in my sub-page "sandbox". Kierzek (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"Before 1933"
Guys, what is the greater purpose with this section? The title itself does not give in real clue to what the section is about. Moreover, the text describes SS Gau's, reorganization, membership, SS subordination to the SA, and department structures. I think we should come up with a new, more clear section title and also agree exactly what the section is supposed to detail. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed but not sure how to label this as I had no part in its creation. GAB or Kierzek might have more insight.--Obenritter (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel that some parts of the info could be placed elsewhere in the article and the remaining sentences could be deleted along with the section altogether? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
My idea was always to pull the info. from this section and the subsequent section of "Nazi Germany" and incorporate them into other sections or as you state Jonas, "elsewhere" in the article so it flows in a more chronological presentation. I just have not really had the time and that is why I turned it over to you, Jonas. Other sections under "World War II' can be better sorted, as well. I do think there should be a separate section for "SS Units and branches" and "Other SS groups" under: "Organization and command structure" & "World War II"; following my outline of sections listed above under the "Time for a revamp!" discussion or something similar. Kierzek (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely that with all the different paramilitary and military units of the SS, there should be a section on the command structure and such, as you indicated Kierzek. I'll come up with a proposed section, combining info already in the article and get back to you for some feedback and thoughts soon (as in, later today). Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Guys, I also found the time to work on "Status within Nazi Germany" (formerly "Nazi Germany"). Please take a look at that section as well. Cya tomorrow. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"Role in World War II"
The "Concentration camps" subsection in "Status within Germany" obviously need some expanding, but I think we can safely move on to the next section, namely the SS during World War II. I think that the first paragraph (or even subsection) should be about all the different SS divisions and major departments that were in existence at the start of the war. Consider these subsections:
I will look at it in more detail later when I have time; but for now, I believe that the: "Concentration and death camps" subsection in "Status within Germany" should be merged with the latter section: Concentration camps (and the title used should be: Concentration and death camps" with the SS-TV being discussed therein, as well). Kierzek (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay guys, I've written three our four subsections in the "Role in World War II" section (unsourced for now). Pleas take a look and let me know what you think. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Jonas, have a look at the Waffen-SS and LSSAH articles for some material of SS-VT and Waffen-SS combat/actions and you can pick up some cites from there, as well. Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The actual structure could still use some refinement. For now, the years move back and forth, from one section to the next. The "Ideology" however, was one overall constant, it could therefore be removed from the timeline and placed as first, followed by a timeline of events in their order of occurrence (including new SS branches) beginning in early years and ending in Germany's surrender. Invasion of the Soviet Union could be renamed as Barbarossa because when Operation Barbarossa began, the Soviet Union proper was a great distance away. Beyond the German-Soviet Frontier were the Soviet-occupied territories of the Second Polish Republic, i.e. prewar sovereign Poland, not the USSR. (This reference could also be utilized: N.M.T. (1945). Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals(PDF). Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. 542-543 in PDF (518-519 in original document). Retrieved 1 March 2015 – via direct download. With N.M.T. commentary to testimony of Erwin Schulz (p. 543 in PDF).{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)) Poeticbenttalk 17:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The reference in question is deliberately structured that way to make them more visually similar to Harv refs. This is also done with all the other online sources. Not exactly an error. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay people, I've added some images to the new subsections and also borrowed some cites (as Kierzek suggested) from other related articles. I'm going to work on the section for invasion of the Soviet Union later today or perhaps tomorrow, not quite sure. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay guys, I've added two more subsections: one of the war in the East and one about the Normandy landings. Will write one more about the Waffen-SS-related events during 1945. Before I do so, please copyedit and tweak the two said subsections. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Way to go Jonas Vinther. First you completely ignored my remark about the historical facts regarding the German-Soviet Frontier Treaty, and now you just removed reference to Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals which clarified these facts. — I am outta here because I don't need the grief that is sure to follow. Our policy guidelines call it the WP:Ownership of content. Poeticbenttalk 16:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Foreign Recruits
Footnote 100 or thereabout (depending upon ongoing editorial work) from Chris Bishop remarks that, "Some French sources suggest that the division had Swedish, Swiss, Laotian, Vietnamese, and Japanese members." OK -- which sources and how credible is this statement. I've heard mention of Swedes and even Swiss (Germanic peoples) but these Asian references as SS members needs to be cross-referenced somewhere. I've even seen reference to an Indian regiment in the Stein book if I recall. While it is not impossible, I do not find this credible and recommend striking that from the footnote comments. These are some pretty sweeping statements from a lay-historian and not from any of the noted authorities. His book lacks citations to even verify this assetion. It would be nice to find sound scholarly works cited in the places where he is referenced.--Obenritter (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
As you know it is still a work in progress. I do believe we need to try and keep the Waffen-SS sub-sections tight, giving the reader an overview; much greater detail (with cites) can be added to the separate sub-articles, such as: Waffen-SS and separate unit articles, such as the LSSAH, etc. With that said, the western front from August 1944 to the end, including "Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein", needs added. The article Battle of the Bulge should help, along with the LSSAH article, for details, references and cites. Also need to add in something as to the last battles, including Battle of Berlin. Further, Obenritter as you point out the foreign recruits and divisions section needs work. Kierzek (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I tweaked the "Bishop" sentence you mention, Obenritter and I can add the cite tonight after I get home. Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Role in World War II - subsections
Friends, we're making real process. The "Role in World War II" subsections are coming along nicely. I've not been so active these past few days and for that I apologize. I will spend time today finding the remaining cites for the new subsections. Once that is done, I will create a subsection about 1945 events involving the Waffen-SS. Regarding the Footnote 100, I think we should deal with the problem(s) once we get to it (what I mean is, let's copyedit and rearrange the article from A to B or downwards, you feel me?). Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Kierzek and Obenritter, I'm almost done finding the remaining sources for the newly created sections. Take a look at this super interesting and very useful table I found during the process. Think we should include that in the article later on when we reach foreign legions or wanna sum up the amount of non-Germans soldiers in the Waffen-SS. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
What specific page? Kierzek (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Guys, I think we need to discuss whether war crimes committed by the Waffen-SS should be mentioned in the individual sections as we go along or whether it should have a section for itself. It clearly can't have both. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If you'll notice, Ive touched on this with my recent edits. Personally - I think that is unnecessary and such an exposition belongs on the Waffen-SS page. The overall complicity of the SS for war crimes is being communicated throughout the article - the sections on concentration camps sufficiently exposes their role in whatever manifestation. --Obenritter (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Obenritter; they should be mentioned in the sections where appropriate as has been the way, thus far. Kierzek (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the last subsection for the SS in World War II. Please take a look and do some copyedits wherever you feel the need before we start citing. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Gents - I added some additional material of note and citations to the work Jonas posted a couple days ago. It may need some chronological work and sentence editing since it was/is 0200AM and I have been awake now for 22 hours. Feel free to hack away. Slowly but surely we'll get this up to speed. Mach's gut, ich plumpse mich von Erschöpfung ins Bett.--Obenritter (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
As I posted on your talk page, you've done a fantastic cite job brother, truly wonderful to see I don't have to continue spam cite Gladiators of World War II source. :) I will look for some matching Bundes images we can place in the section. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Love the images you guys have posted, they add some visual depth. As you will note, I really got after it today - adding some significant content with quality academic sources. Similarly, I cleaned up a lot of the citation inconsistencies throughout the article so the Sources section appears much cleaner. A little more effort and we'll soon have a nicely re-crafted article. --Obenritter (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Gentlemen - not sure why the section exists about ♦Contract workers♦ as it is entirely unsourced and is tangential information at best. Not sure it belongs. My vote it to DELETE that segment.
Agreed; BTW-does anyone have a good RS source for total number (estimate) of SS members in 1945? Kierzek (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed the sub-section. Kierzek (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if I have ever seen a definitive number anywhere as it would be an estimation at best. BTW - I found a good historical outline here (not that we need to change much - just FYI):Paul Hoser, "Schutzstaffel (SS), 1925-1945", in: Historisches Lexikon Bayerns, URL: <http://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/artikel/artikel_44600>
My Source in this case is: Laqueur, Walter and Judith Tydor Baumel, eds. The Holocaust Encyclopedia. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001. (pages 608-609) Peter Longerich wrote the segment on the SS and provided these numbers for the encyclopedia. According to Longerich, there were 900,000 men in the Waffen-SS as of 1942. Collectively - in 1940 there were 245,000 members of the SS/Police complex. The Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Security Main Office, RSHA) and its subordinated units made up this number – which included the SD, the Gestapo, and the criminal police (Kripo). By 1944, there were 3.5 million persons in this category, including members of all the additional ancillary units (such as the fire department, air raid protection, and auxiliary foreign units). That seems unbelievable until you consider the number of foreign participants as well. Still this does not help us narrow down the total of the SS as we won’t know what percent among these identified bodies were actually SS. If we assume that just 1/4 of those 3.5 million [the SD, the Gestapo, and the police units] were SS (which equals 875,000) – that puts the total when added with the Waffen SS at just about 1.7 — 1.8 million. If I ever encounter an authoritative source with a defined aggregate figure, I will add it.--Obenritter (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Obenritter: first in the 1939 Poland section, I recall one time reading something about the LSSAH torching some villages during the campaign; do you have some detail and a cite for that? Also, as to "total" number of members in 1945; I have not been able to find anything which either gives a total estimate as a whole or gives estimates for all branches that year, which one could then add up; I am not comfortable with the number given or cite for 1945 which is presently up. Kierzek (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Obenritter, I see you added the Butler cite, thanks; although the sentence states it was the SS-VT and I recall it was the LSSAH who did the "torching" in Poland. Kierzek (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
OK so the sentence reads better now. Regarding the total figures - I am still having no luck. Now I am determined to find something somewhere.--Obenritter (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
OK - so after perusing my sources in English and German, as well as the internet - it appears there is scholarly disagreement in general with ranges from 650,000 to upwards of 1 million. Given the fact that none of the other major WW2 and/or Nazi specialist historians give consistent nor definitive numbers, let's go with the Longerich number of 800K from the Laqueur & Baumel encyclopedia. That way, the figure is at least supported by scholarly literature. Opinions?--Obenritter (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem comes with discussion of the number of Waffen-SS in 1945; McNab, for example, lists 830,000 members in service for just the Waffen-SS, Foreign-SS, included. Kierzek (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Closing the article out
Kierzek et al. (meaning anyone with some subject matter expertise and sources) - Since the end of the article was a copy paste from the Ideology article we so earnestly worked on recently, I took the liberty of rewriting some of it, adding what I thought were appropriate subheadings (incorporating the input I read on this talk page from Poeticbent). That said, we need to expand the section on the IMT some as I think there are important things to add. Of course, the rest of the article needs a little ce work too but one thing at a time. Bin doch müde...meine selbst-auferlegten-Aufgaben für heute sind abgeschlossen...Jetzt reicht's...Bis dann.--Obenritter (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It continues to shape up and the additions you recently made are helpful for the general reader. With that said, I would not expand the IMT section too much but certainly it should make clear what the SS was found guilty of as far as war crimes. A link to the main article should be put in as well. Kierzek (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back Jonas. Glad to see your name among those editing here again. Good point Kierzek - linking it back is probably the most important addition yet remaining aside from general clean-up work.--Obenritter (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Friends, I suggest we curb the "Oath of the SS" subsection with a simple sentence that reads something like "All members of the SS had to swore an oath of allegiance to Hitler and identify as a believer in God" and then maybe have a footnote with the actual Himmler words. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You and Kierzek can make this call since I sort of like the presentation of the oath and its translation the way it looks now. It sort of provides an insight into what the members believed. Many people never look at the citations Jonas, just as few lay readers ever take the time to peruse the footnotes of prominent historians in their commercial publications - just keep that in mind. It's the geeks like us that enjoy such aspects as much as the books themselves and moreover, nerds like us who make some of these Wikipedia articles respectable submissions to the study of history. --Obenritter (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Another note: Jonas - we're having a hard time finding strong academic consistency and/or definitive numbers for the final membership totals of the SS. Can you look through some scholarly works in Danish that might have these statistics for us to cite? All the German and English sources I've searched so far, fail to give aggregate numbers or they are disputed. Worth a look at least in Danish---if you would be so kind Sir.--Obenritter (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Obenritter, I actually removed the oath of the SS subsection altogether, but given your latest comment and points you made, I re-added it. Regarding the total SS membership, I will check both the Danish and German I have at hand. Stay stuned! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 01:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, here are the two sources I could track down.
Claus Bundgård Christensen, Niels Bo Poulsen & Peter Scharff Smith (2015). Waffen-SS: Europas Nazistiske Soldater ("The Waffen-SS: Europe's Nazi Soldiers"). Gyldendal. ISBN 978-8702096484. This book claims that: Waffen-SS var en multietnisk og transnational massehær, som over en million mand passerede igennem ("The Waffen-SS was a multi-ethnic and transnational army, which over a million men passed through").
This source from Politiken claims: Hen ved en million mand i hærenheden Waffen-SS, som var Himmlers personlige svar på en stadigt mere opløst Wehrmacht ("The Waffen-SS, Himmler's personal Wehrmacht, had more than a million men").
The problem I face is that neither of these sources mention specific years, only that at some point a million men comprised the Waffen-SS. However, since we have two sources that says total SS membership peaked 800,000 in 1944, then the 1,000,000 mentions in these sources must refer to 1945. We could simply change the "1,250,000" in the article to "1,000,000+" or something. What yall think? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 01:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and implemented the Politiken source as the online version of the book doesn't have page numbers and changed "1,250,000" to "1,000,000". Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
"Auxiliary-SS"
Why is this subsection not under "SS units and branches"? Seems like it fits better there than in "SS offices". Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Kierzek (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen - you may want to pause the GA Review in lieu of the negative attention that has been thrown on the article. There are some editors and at least one admin who does not like the overall content as it stands. As you'll note, there is concern about the focus of the article being too weak on atrocities - despite the fact that these are mentioned throughout much of the article. Jonas - you mentioned having a segment on this specifically and both Kierzek and I disagreed with you as we wanted to avoid turning an article on the SS into another Holocaust-centric article. We were apparently wrong for taking the approach we took and a jaundiced eye has been the result. A thorough reading of this article makes it pretty clear that the crimes are mentioned a great number of times, but evidently by not highlighting them to a greater degree (the crimes and atrocities), people have construed this article as too positive concerning the SS. Nowhere did I get this feeling myself but I can appreciate how or why some people might feel this way. To that end, I want to formally apologize to you Jonas for discouraging the establishment of a segment dedicated to SS Genocide. Don't be surprised to see significant editing in the immediate future and it is my recommendation that we delay the GA Review until things are reconciled in the aggregate. That means more on the Holocaust, less on the Waffen-SS and more on the post war judgments. I know, I know, we were getting to the latter of these - but the other elements have elicited unpleasant attention and will require corrections. --Obenritter (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
One more thing -- I am done with this article -- and maybe more. Sorry all - I have been through more than my fair share of academic stress. What do I have to gain here by debating the structure and content of this article? My wife thinks it is strange that somebody with my credentials would even bother. Maybe she's right. --Obenritter (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I went to bed last night and wake up to all this? First off the article is NOT ready for GA review. Second, I thought it was better to include and discuss the war crimes in chronological order of events and time; and I added examples to the sub-sections accordingly. I thought the presentation would be better that way. I do believe that some of the edit summary and tone that has taken place is uncalled for; this is a joint project to improve an article that pulls in many readers. Lets put our heads together and do it right. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Recent edits and disagreements
Cleary ... a lot happened over night. I certainly didn't expect to see this when I logged in this morning. I can perfectly understand my friend Obenritter's frustration and stress. While I also, of course, appreciate anyone contributing with either edits or thoughts for improvement in the face of this articles GA-nomination and in general, I too must say I fail completely to understand many of the recent removals. I don't want to further ignite tension, but edits such as this, this and this did not improve the article one bit. More troubling, all of the content recently removed was sourced to published, reliable sources. I also find it pretty ironic that editors are being accused of writing a TRIBUTE TO THE SS, while all of Nick-D's edit summaries unmistakably shows a clear anti-Nazi attitude when editing this article. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is there a problem with having an "anti-Nazi attitude"? It's pretty much a universal attitude. Nick-D (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
True, but Nazism is nevertheless a political ideology and if you openly edit related content with an anti-Nazi attitude, you are violating WP:NPOV. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I can almost smell the GA icon...
Pals, this article is improving significantly everyday. I think it's time to call upon superhero supereditor Diannaa, who has agreed to copyedit the entire article before our GA-nomination. Giving the fact all of us has worked on such major projects before with success, I see no reason why this article wouldn't pass for GA-status. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
There's some Harvard citation errors that need to be resolved. I did as many as I could, but I need help with the following ones please:
There's no book for the citation Cook & Russell, 2000. There's one by Cook & Bender, but the year of publication doesn't match.
There's no book by Lumsden with a publication date of 1993. There's one from 2000 and another from 2002.
There's no book by Tomasevich dated 1975. There is one by this author dated 1969. Is that a match? Which edition was used to cite the material?
There's no book by Stein dated 1991. There is one by this author dated 1984. Is that a match? Which edition was used to cite the material?
Sorry Diannaa - it was like 2AM when I was editing some of this so this was my error. Corrected. --Obenritter (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
There's no book by Allen dated 1997. There is one by this author published 2002. Is that a match? Which edition was used to cite the material?
Another one of my 2AM errors -- sorry about that - corrected.--Obenritter (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
There's no book by Benz, Distel & Königseder dated 2005. The one in the bilbiography is dated 2003. Is that a match? Which edition was used to cite the material? -- Diannaa (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This was my fat fingering again...it has been corrected. The rest of the ones in question, I cannot speak to them. --Obenritter (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
From a quick skim, the article is overly positive towards the SS. I've made some example edits, and I'd note that the section on the post-war trials doesn't note that the SS was found to be a criminal organisation, which is in the lead. The article also doesn't seem to note the way the SS expanded over time as a result of power struggles and empire building, and the duplication and waste of resources which this caused. Nick-D (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The stuff on foreign volunteers is particularly terrible. I've removed the worst sentence (which was pure fiction), but by emphasising the relatively small number of western volunteers and giving relatively little attention to Eastern European volunteers and conscripts it misrepresents things considerably. The key feature of the attempts to recruit western volunteers was their miserable failure. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Concerning their attempts to recruit western volunteers...those observations came from the German historian, Heinz Höhne - so yes, he could be bias. Thanks for removing what you perceived to be a misrepresented statement. Pretty sure, that's the good part of Wikipedia - there are other sane intelligent people editing it accordingly.--Obenritter (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Overall, I concur with Nick-D that the tone is way too positive for an article about a criminal organization. What contributes to this perception is the table of contents and the way the article is structured. For example, we get some information on the SS atrocities in the Soviet Union, but it's included in a rather neutrally titled section "Role in WWII | Attack on the Soviet Union." And then the information is buried in the discussion of various battles and Waffen-SS fighting qualities. In an article on SS, I would expect "SS and genocide" to be prominently featured. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Gentlemen, this article is still under development. Feel free to contribute and edit where you feel there are weaknesses and/or omissions. It is certainly in much better shape than how it appeared in its previous manifestation. We are trying to improve the article. The section on the IMT is FAR from finished. Taking the time to point out errors or oversights and yet no time to correct or contribute seems a bit unproductive. Pretty sure there's no deliberate attempt to paint a pretty picture of the SS here. Saying that they fought tenaciously or that they upheld an oath unto death does not mean there is adulation being thrown upon them. Constructive criticism is great - so now put your editorial hat on and instead of passively criticizing the article under development, actively improve it by adding whatever needs added.--Obenritter (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Obenritter, you have a fair point. I'm definitely willing to contribute and edit. It sounded though that the article was being readied for a Good article nomination, so I wanted to voice my concerns.
I envision the following major section: "SS and genocide", with subsections: (a - existing) Concentration camps and death camps; (b - new ones) Role in the Final Solution (perhaps incorporate Death_squads there); Reprisals against civilian population - that's all I can think for now.
I also believe that the discussion of military campaigns needs to be reduced; right now it sort of overwhelms the information on crimes. The perfect place for these details (battles, distinctions, fighting spirit) is Waffen-SSK.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
K.e.coffman Your input is not unsound and perhaps you're right...we may have put too much into the section on the Waffen-SS and not enough effort on the crimes and atrocities. As a counter, we don't want to spend too much time focusing on crimes either as the Concentration Camps and the Holocaust have a lot of information dedicated to them already on Wikipedia. We were trying to balance this so that an article on the SS does not become just a component organization in the perpetration of the Holocaust. Even though we all know they're guilty - this is almost universal knowledge...I hope you understand what I am trying to convey. Feel free to get your hands dirty and add what you feel is appropriate nonetheless.--Obenritter (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Good points, Obenritter. Here's an example of what I'm talking about of there being too much detail. Current version:
The Waffen-SS proved itself during the bitter battles of the Russian winter in 1941 and 1942 through showing its "steadfastness in defence".[1] That spring three divisions, SS-Leibstandarte, SS-Totenkopf and SS-Das Reich, were withdrawn to the West to refit and be converted to Panzergrenadier divisions through the addition of assault guns, armoured personal carriers and tanks.[2] Formed into the SS-Panzer Corps, Himmler ensured that these units received the best equipment and were larger than the equivalent army divisions. The SS-Panzer Corps, commanded by Paul Hausser, returned to Russia in 1943 and won a resounding victory for its recapture of Kharkov that spring.[3][Did the SS-Panzer Corps won the battle alone? -K.e.coffman] Dietrich, in particular, distinguished himself; Hitler awarded him the Swords to his Knights Cross and gave him a gift of one million Reichsmarks.[4] By now the Waffen-SS had become a formidable fighting force, notorious for their willingness to fight to the death. Army commanders deployed it as their "fire brigade" by sending its divisions to the most critical points of the battlefield.[5] While unquestionable obedience remained the cornerstone of the Waffen-SS, relations between officers and privates were less formal then in the army, with much more emphasizes on mutual respect.[4][Too much detail on who got decorated and on what the relations within the Waffen-SS units were -K.e.coffman]
No Waffen-SS units were involved in the disaster at Stalingrad, in early 1943, where an entire German Army was surrounded and forced to surrender.[6] Following the disaster at Stalingrad, determined SS officers joined leaders of the Hitler Youth in an attempt to stiffen the defenses at home should the enemy push into German territory. Such an alliance between the SS and the Hitler Youth was no surprise since millions of emaciated boys were already digging trenches, setting up tank traps and manning anti-aircraft batteries across Germany.[7][This entire paragraph is not relevant to SS activity in the Soviet Union. -K.e.coffman]
In July 1943, the Germans launched a massive offensive designed to eliminate the Kursk salient.[8] The Waffen-SS had been expanded to 12 divisions and most of these took part in what was the largest tank battle in history.[9] By the evening of 12 July, Hitler was obliged to halt the attack due to the stiff Russian resistance and anti-tank obstacles.[8] Thereafter, the Germans were forced onto the defensive as the Red Army began the liberation of Western Russia. The Waffen-SS again became the cornerstone for the German defense; time and again, they counterattacked and broke out of encirclements as the Soviet offensives drove them and the Wehrmacht back, ever further West.[10] Meanwhile, the losses incurred by the Waffen-SS and the Wehrmacht during the Battle of Kursk occurred nearly in-tandem with the Allied assault into Italy, opening the two-front war Hitler dreaded.[11] By mid-1943 the exigencies of war against the Soviet Army and the Allies alike demanded an increase in the labor reserves of the Reich, a shortage that was supplemented through the use of workers for the production of arms from the among the populations in the east (Ostarbeiters) and concentration camp inmates.[12][How is the last sentence pertinent to Waffen-SS? Maybe it's relevant in the context of SS implementing forced labor and deporting ('evacuating') the population with the retreating army? -K.e.coffman]
Suggested version:
The Waffen-SS proved itself during the bitter battles of the Russian winter in 1941 and 1942 through showing its "steadfastness in defence".[1] By 1943 the Waffen-SS had become a formidable fighting force, notorious for their willingness to fight to the death. Army commanders deployed it as their "fire brigade" by sending its divisions to the most critical points of the battlefield.[5]
In July 1943, the Germans launched a massive offensive designed to eliminate the Kursk salient.[8] The Waffen-SS had been expanded to 12 divisions and most of these took part in what was the largest tank battle in history.[9] By the evening of 12 July, Hitler was obliged to halt the attack due to the stiff Russian resistance.[8] Thereafter, the Germans were forced onto the defensive as the Red Army began the liberation of Western Russia. The Waffen-SS again became the cornerstone for the German defense.[10]
Hope this makes sense! K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
K.e.coffman Personally, I have no heartburn with those deletions. The last part about the two-front war and the desperation caused by manpower shortages which pushed them to expand the use of slave-labor did not seem like a non-sequitur to me, since I added that - but I am not wedded to it. We were trying to find that "balance" of activity, organization, and crime that I was trying to get at with my previous comments. Segregating things completely in some categorical way does not always help the reader understand circumstances and timelines, at least from the techniques I've been taught. Hack away - but expect blow-back from the other editors should they disagree.--Obenritter (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This is just a rough edit; perhaps I've taken too much out (it's only on the Talk page for now). But it's much more streamlined and removes some of the info that I would consider not relevant, such as Hitler Youth.
I also see your point on the original statement: "Meanwhile, the losses incurred by the Waffen-SS and the Wehrmacht during the Battle of Kursk occurred nearly in-tandem with the Allied assault into Italy, opening the two-front war Hitler dreaded. By mid-1943 the exigencies of war against the Soviet Army and the Allies alike demanded an increase in the labor reserves of the Reich, a shortage that was supplemented through the use of workers for the production of arms from the among the populations in the east (Ostarbeiters) and concentration camp inmates."
It just seemed to come out of nowhere and did not really tie to SS activity, specifically in the Soviet Union (since it's in the "Attack on the Soviet Union" section). Perhap break it out as a separate paragraph, and provide a conclusion such as "...from the among the populations in the east (Ostarbeiters) and concentration camp inmates [causing SS functionaries to do X?].[12] K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
K.e.coffman - maybe a fresh set of eyes on this article and subject is required. No offense...this is starting to remind me of my dissertation committee. It is clear you mean well...so please do your due diligence - but you'll hear no more from me on this article as I am now walking away from it. Thanks all...it was fun while it lasted. --Obenritter (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, well :-) Then this is to the other editors. Now that Obenritter explained it, I can see that the editors were trying to provide a unified timeline, but that was not obvious by looking at the table of contents. Thus, I was reading this section as "Attack on the Soviet Union," which implies a specific location (Soviet Union only) and timeframe (1941, maybe 1942, with the drive to Stalingrad and the Caucasus).
So you can see where what caused my confusion. Perhaps, rename "Role in WWII | Attack on the Soviet Union" to "Role in WWII | 1941-1943: Attack on the Soviet Union; German military reversals" - that way, the Soviet Union section would make complete sense, including Hitler Youth and labor situation in the Reich. Same can be done for other locations on this list. Then the theme of the unified timeline would be obvious - and the timeline structure is a cool idea. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I strongly oppose those mass deletions proposed by K.e.coffman. One cannot explain the performance of the Waffen-SS in Russia in merely two paragraphs. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
As a general comment, the coverage of the Waffen SS is clearly excessive for this top-level article. While the Waffen SS may have ended up the largest part of the SS (especially in the last years of the war when large numbers of relatively low-quality SS divisions were raised), the SS had large activities across the German government and economy, and of course played the leading role in the Holocaust. From discussions above, there seems to have been a conscious decision to cover the Holocaust in relatively little detail here on the grounds that it's covered in other articles, which I don't think is sustainable. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The Waffen-SS section does need work and edits for concision, but again, I still believe that it is better to include and discuss the war crimes in chronological order of events and time. There has been no agreement to "cover the Holocaust" in a smaller degree to which I am aware. Please add to the article as you see fit. This article covers a lot of ground and there is no time limit to improving it accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
References
^ abLumsden 2000, p. 30. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLumsden2000 (help)
^Agte 2006, p. 15. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAgte2006 (help)
^Lumsden 2000, pp. 31, 32. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLumsden2000 (help)
^ abCite error: The named reference Gladiators was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abBessel 2006, p. 143. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBessel2006 (help)
^ abMcNab 2009, pp. 68, 70. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcNab2009 (help)
^Fritz 2011, p. 350. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFritz2011 (help)
^Fritz 2011, p. 334. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFritz2011 (help)
Title of the article
Title - I'm not sure that "Schutzstaffel" is the first thing that comes to non-German speakers when SS comes up. Have the titles Schutzstaffel (SS) or SS (Schutzstaffel) been discussed? --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
See above, there have been three separate times the moving of the article (changing the name has been discussed). It was agreed not to do so; and SS is a redirect to this page. Kierzek (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
