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 introduction is overly long and reads like a wall of text.
In the 1st para the two sentences starting with "The SS was considered a racially elite organization with its original members thoroughly screened..." can be relocated to Schutzstaffel#Ideology_and_culture and Gestapo etc can be moved to the 2nd para.
2nd paragraph does not flow well - it first discusses Allgemeine-SS, then Waffen-SS, then veers to ideology, and finally to SS-Totenkopfverbände and the Final Solution. Also, "is considered to be the organization most responsible" is unnecessarily long. I believe that it's an established fact that the SS was the organization most responsible for the Final Solution. The "blood & soil" statement & growth of Waffen-SS can be relocated to the main body of the article in their respective sections.
Original: The Schutzstaffel (SS; also stylized as Runic "ᛋᛋ" with Armanen runes; German pronunciation: [ˈʃʊtsˌʃtafəl] ( listen); literally "Protection Squadron") was a major paramilitary organization under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP). It began with a small, permanent guard unit known as the Saal-Schutz ("Hall-Protection") made up of NSDAP volunteers to provide security for Nazi Party meetings in Munich. Later, in 1925, Heinrich Himmler joined the unit, which had by then been reformed and given its final name. Under Himmler's leadership (1929–45), it grew from a small paramilitary formation to one of the largest and most powerful organizations in the Third Reich. From 1929 until Nazi Germany's collapse in 1945, the SS became one of the foremost agencies of surveillance and terror within Germany itself and the territories they occupied in Europe. The main two constituent groups were the Allgemeine-SS ("General-SS"), and Waffen-SS ("Armed SS"). The SS was considered a racially elite organization with its original members thoroughly screened according to Aryan/Nordic ideological precepts. The SS was known for their absolute loyalty to Hitler (to whom they swore an oath), for their obedience to authority in carrying out orders, and they became infamous for their ruthlessness towards any and all opponents of the Nazi regime. Additional subdivisions included the Gestapo and the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) organizations tasked with policing the German people for their commitment to Nazi ideology and with providing foreign and domestic intelligence for the regime's leadership.
The Allgemeine-SS concerned itself with police and racial matters within the German Reich, whereas the Waffen-SS consisted of combat units of troops within Nazi Germany's military. Over the course of the Second World War, the Waffen-SS grew significantly in size and absorbed other "Germanic" volunteers from among the European people as the Nazis fought their war across Europe for territory. Two words came to encapsulate the ideology of the SS, Blut und Boden, which translates to "blood and soil". "Blood" in this case meant the preservation and proliferation of Germanic/Aryan people and "soil" represented the Nazi quest for Lebensraum ("living space") to sustain and expand the Aryan race at all costs, especially at the expense of those the Nazis deemed racially inferior. One of the components of the SS, the SS-Totenkopfverbände, administered the concentration camps. Utterly committed to Nazi ideology, the SS is considered the organization most responsible for the implementation of the Final Solution and its members committed numerous crimes against humanity during World War II (1939–45). After Nazi Germany's defeat the organization's leader, Himmler, committed suicide and the whole SS corps along with the Nazi Party, were judged by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg to have been a criminal organization.
Suggested version (including other minor ce for flow and concision): The Schutzstaffel (SS; also stylized as Runic "ᛋᛋ" with Armanen runes; German pronunciation: [ˈʃʊtsˌʃtafəl] ( listen); literally "Protection Squadron") was a major paramilitary organization under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP). It began with a small, permanent guard unit known as the Saal-Schutz ("Hall-Protection") made up of NSDAP volunteers to provide security for Nazi Party meetings in Munich. In 1925, Heinrich Himmler joined the unit, which had by then been reformed and given its final name. Under Himmler's direction (1929–45), it grew into one of the largest and most powerful organizations in the Third Reich. From 1929 until Nazi Germany's collapse in 1945, the SS became the foremost agency of surveillance and terror within Germany itself and the occupied territories in Europe.
The main two constituent groups were the Allgemeine-SS ("General-SS"), and Waffen-SS ("Armed SS"). The Allgemeine-SS concerned itself with police and racial matters within the German Reich, whereas the Waffen-SS consisted of combat units of troops within Nazi Germany's military. Another component of the SS, the SS-Totenkopfverbände, administered the concentration camps. Additional subdivisions of the SS included the Gestapo and the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) organizations tasked with policing the German people for their commitment to Nazi ideology and with providing foreign and domestic intelligence for the regime's leadership.
The SS was the organization most responsible for the implementation of the Final Solution and members of all of its branches committed numerous crimes against humanity during World War II (1939–45). After Nazi Germany's defeat the whole SS corps, along with the Nazi Party, were judged by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg to have been a criminal organization.
I think this is more streamlined and flows better. Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with most of it; a little more detail overall is needed and a tweak added to the sentence "...administered the concentration camps and death camps." Kierzek (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: No one else has posted on the above, so you can re-worked it as suggested. Any tweaking can be later. Kierzek (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I made the edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
'Legacy' in the table of contents
Definition of legacy: anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor.
Since the section states that no successor organizations exist, I believe this use of 'legacy' is misplaced in this context. Can this be changed to "Links to modern Nazi movements" or similar?
Original content: In 2012, The Council of Europe’s Commission against Racism and Intolerance published its report on Latvia, in which it condemned Latvian Legion Day which commemorates persons who had fought in a Latvian unit of the Waffen-SS and takes place every year on 16 March. Within that report is the following statement which applies universally concerning the Waffen-SS, "All attempts to commemorate persons who fought in the Waffen-SS and collaborated with the Nazis, should be condemned. Any gathering or march legitimising Nazism in any way should be banned."
In the modern age, several neo-Nazi groups claim to be successor organizations to the SS. There is no single group, however, that is recognized as a continuation of the SS, and most such present-day organizations are loosely organized with separate agendas. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest that this section could best be focused on the way in which views of the SS have changed since 1945, and the efforts which have been made (and continue to be made) to bring SS war criminals to justice. For instance, it could be noted that while the SS was lumped with much of the blame for Germany's war crimes in the post-war decades, scholarship since the 1980s has noted that the German Army and other aspects of the German state also committed similar crimes. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I will rename (for now). I like your ideas...K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Section "Role in World War II"
Here are my thoughts on this section. I see a few issues that caused my confusion and resulted in some disagreements. I'm trying to formulate my concerns as best as I can:
The titles of the main section and following subsections read like a list of military campaigns in specific locations: Attack on the Soviet Union; Normandy Landing, Battle for Germany, etc. Therefore, the impression one gets it that one's about to read "military history."
However, the sections themselves speak of various aspects of SS activities. "Attack on the Soviet Union", for example, spans June 1941 to roughly 1943 and covers: Waffen SS participation in military operations in the East; crimes committed by other SS units in the occupied territories; cooperation with Hitler Youth; and economic and strategic situation in the Reich.
I understand that this is a very challenging task to put everything on the same timeline and cover everything comprehensively. Various viewpoints may exist. However, if the chronological narrative is attempted in these sections, then 1942 was the height of the implementation of the Final Solution, while Operation Reinhard is not mentioned under "Attack on the Soviet Union"; (it's mentioned under Auxiliary-SS.)
So if an attempt at chronological narrative is made, then I believe it should be a true chronology, rather than a selective one (and not really tied to the localities in question). It may require mentioning several events to provide a full picture. Very rough version of what I have in mind for what would appear under the table of contents. This is obviously long, but provides a fuller picture of the content included:
SS activities during World War II
1939 - Occupation of Poland
1940 - Occupation of France; Ghettoization of the Jewish population of Poland
1941 - Attack on the Soviet Union; Mass shootings of civilians
1942 - Continued struggle on the Eastern Front; Wannsee Conference; Operation Reinhard
1943 - German military reversals; Deteriorating situation in the Reich; Expansion of the Final Solution to the Western Europe
1944 - Escalation of 'anti-partisan warfare' in the East; Normandy Landing; Collapse of Army Group Center on the Eastern Front; Mass deportations of Hungarian Jews
1945 - German defeat; Beginning of IMT proceedings
That section is mainly about the Waffen-SS. Their war crimes are included there but more so in other sections: "Concentration camps and death camps", "Death squads" and "Special action units". The layout is STILL a problem overall. We do need to add Wannsee Conference and Operation Reinhard, I agree. I am not sure like to fit all these in chronologically; maybe section under WW II by year only? And then have the sub-sections under WW II for all SS activities and war-crimes during that year, and so on; going year by year? Kierzek (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm more confused. The main section is "Role in World War II" - since this is an article about SS in its entirety, then a general reader would assume that this is "Role of SS in World War II". If this indeed about Waffen SS then it should be named accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is true but now you have me thinking we should ce the WW II section more as it mainly is covering the Waffen-SS and add in what was going on with the entire branch year by year during the war; either that or the Wannsee Conference and Operation Reinhard parts to add need to be put somewhere else like under the section: "Concentration camps and death camps". What do you think? Kierzek (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I like the idea of "what was going on with the entire branch year by year during the war" K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
So do we do away with the "SS units and branches" section then and move that information into the during WW II section-year by year? What a big job at any rate. I would like to hear from some others before starting a BIG reshuffle. Kierzek (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to hear what others say. I was thinking more along the lines of "Timeline of key events during WWII" as a new section (possibly earlier on in the page). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well I need to stop for the night. As we await further input as to the above, maybe you have time to work on this section: "Campaign in the Balkans" and improve it. Kierzek (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I will need to know first whether this is "Role of SS in World War II" or "Role of Waffen-SS in World War II." By the way, I have some problem with the word "role." I.e. consider "Himmler's role in the Final Solution" - Himmler 'directed' the final solution, while Waffen-SS (or SS) did not direct WWII. I prefer "Activities during..." Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, Campaign in the Balkans needs ... hm... some work. Why does a top-level article on SS contain a story of one person's bravery, and their picture as well? This story is literally 80% of the section. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest keeping the article structured around the evolution of the SS as an organisation. The current split into broad areas works better than an across the board chronological approach IMO. One strategy to simplify the "Role in World War II" section would be to focus it on the expansion of the Waffen SS over time and the broad roles these units undertook rather than summarising the campaigns the Waffen SS was involved in as is the case at present. The name of this section could also be changed given that all aspects of the SS were heavily involved in the war in one way or another. Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Nick-D on the structure. Specific to Waffen-SS, I like Nick-D's thoughts of needing to provide a high-level view of its evolution. Right now "Role in WWII" is like wading in the weeds, which "Campaign in the Balkans" section illustrates perfectly. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I agree but a base outline would be good to work off of; btw-I tweaked the "Campaign in the Balkans" section. Kierzek (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Quick question - do you mean the base outline for "Campaign in the Balkans" or "Role in WWII"? Further, the purpose of the "Role in WWII" sections is still unclear to me. Is this section about "Role of Waffen-SS in WWII" or "Role of SS in WWII"?
From the intro paragraph, it appears that it's the latter: "By the outbreak of World War II, the SS had solidified into its final form. Correspondingly, the term "SS" could be applied to three separate organizations, mainly the Allgemeine-SS, SS-Totenkopfverbände and the Waffen-SS, which until July 1940 was officially known as the SS-Verfügungstruppe (SS-VT). When the war first began, the vast majority of SS members belonged to the Allgemeine-SS, but this statistic changed during the later stages of the war when the Waffen-SS opened up membership for non-Germans."
However, on this thread I've been told that it's "mostly Waffen-SS." I would appreciate a clarification.K.e.coffman (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
K.e., I mean a base outline for the article layout (overall). And, the "Role in WW II currently is mainly about the Waffen-SS at this point. Kierzek (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Continuing the discussion - don't know how to do the connecting line...
In any case, if this section is "mostly about Waffen-SS", then should it be renamed to "Role of Waffen-SS in WWII" or "Military role of SS in WWII" and copy-edited accordingly?
But even if it's renamed, then it does not solve the problem for the article overall in terms of content balance:
If we include ""Military role of SS", then we'd also need "Economic role of SS in WWII" and "Political role of SS in WWII" and "Role of SS in the Genocide during WWII"
In case of "Role of Waffen-SS in WWII", then there will be a need for "Role of SD in WWII", "Role of Allgemeine-SS in WWII" etc.
This will create a monster of an article and is perhaps unnecessary, as the activities of these various branches are covered in their respective articles. For example, history of Waffen-SS activities is covered quite satisfactorily in the Waffen-SS article.
Perhaps - gasp - remove "Role" section entirely? Right now the content is sort of directionless (as illustrated by my original long-term confusion about it).
Re: the outline of the article, I'd like to defer to Nick-D @Nick-D: as it appears Nick has been involved with the article much longer than I have. Alternatively, is there a seminal work on SS, which can be consulted for a suitable outline? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestion of changing the title to "Role of Waffen-SS in WWII" or "Military role of SS in WWII" looks good to me, though this could also be simplified to just 'Waffen-SS'. I don't think that I've actually had much prior involvement in this article. I'd be happy to help with drafting a replacement section here. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe K.e. we should remove the entire section on the Waffen-SS but it can be condensed and re-worked. Nick-D, if you want to take a swing at it, by all means, have at it. BTW-please remove all italics for Waffen-SS, per discussion above. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I can roll with the "Waffen-SS" title, but then the section would need to be simplified. I.e. instead of the chronological narrative, it should focus on the evolution of the force and be essentially a summary of the Waffen-SS article, rather than an expansion on that article. For example, the Dietrich commendation of the Swords & 1 mil RM is not included in Waffen-SS, but appeared here (I removed it from "Attack on the Soviet Union"). The text that I removed: Dietrich, in particular, distinguished himself; Hitler awarded him the Swords to his Knights Cross and gave him a gift of one million Reichsmarks.
Thoughts?
PS - this was a response to Nick-D, but I see that Kierzek is in general agreement. What about doing away with the chronological timeline and associated table of contents? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Gentlemen: I renamed the section for now; but for tweaks thereto, I will let the two of you start the re-work of this section. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Following @Nick-D:'s thought above which is a viable plan for this article: "Article structured around the evolution of the SS as an organisation. The current split into broad areas works better than an across the board chronological approach IMO. One strategy to simplify the "Role in World War II" section would be to focus it on the expansion of the Waffen SS over time and the broad roles these units undertook..."
We need to work on a re-working of the article along these lines. Outline/structure ideas or comments are welcome herein. Kierzek (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a seminal work on the SS as an organization that can be consulted? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, there is the older work of:
Höhne, Heinz (2001) [1969]. The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler’s SS. Penguin. ISBN978-0-14139-012-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
And this newer one which you could review of ideas as to structure, so to speak.
I know @Nick-D: has some ideas and offered to do some re-work, so I am pinging him as to your query. Kierzek (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is a definitive work on the SS. The Order of the Death's Head often comes up, but must be pretty dated now if it was first published in 1969. For the section on the Waffen SS, I'm planning on drawing mainly on Richard Evans' history of Nazi Germany and the Oxford Companion to the Second World War (I'll have a go at this on the weekend). Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The most respected work on the Waffen-SS in the English language among academic historians is that of George H. Stein, which is cited throughout the article. Using Evans as one of your sources is fine to be sure but his coverage of this aspect is more general and not nearly as nuanced as Stein's. This notion of works being inferior based on publication date is utterly absurd. Very few historians can come close to equaling Heinz Höhne's knowledge of the SS and his actual proximity to surviving figures there-within while he lived. To imply that some work might be superior because of its currency is ludicrous, particularly when, most of them are academically inferior by comparison. A large number of the penetrating insights being drawn today are often to a significant degree, mere regurgitations of their predecessors - repackaged for a hungry reading market.--Obenritter (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The historiography on Nazi Germany has come a long way over the 50 years since the 1960s, so I don't see why you'd regard that as absurd. The evidence base has become much larger, and much more complex, as historians have conducted research. In addition, attitudes have changed as the centraol role of the German Army and various other instruments of the German state in the crimes of the Nazi regime has been recognised since the 1980s or so. For instance, before then the Waffen SS was seen as being uniquely awful, when it's now widely accepted that the Army was also frequently involved in war crimes and the Holocaust. That said, I do take your broader point, and the reason I'm planning on using those sources is that they provide the most in-depth analysis of this topic of the books I own, and are of very high quality. Other references are good! Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Having read, owned and vetted many books on the subject of Nazi Germany and World War II in general, I would agree that some stand the test of time very well, such as Höhne's work overall, while others such as Reitlinger's 1957 work, "The SS – Alibi of a Nation 1922–1945" have not. Kierzek (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Great point Kierzek. Imagine somebody intimating or even uttering that Karl Dietrich Bracher's seminal work from 1969, The German Dictatorship was somehow inferior because it was "dated" in a room of academic historians with expertise on Nazi Germany - and that person would be laughed out of the room entirely. In fact, I am sure I can find several places in this article to incorporate some of his observations.--Obenritter (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Section - Ideology and culture
I find this section suffers from being overly long and having poor readability - especially given the fact that the article "Ideology of the SS" exists and is linked to in this section. Would you guys be open to streamlining this section? Take, for example, this paragraph:
Original text:
A main ideology of the SS was to fight against the so-called Untermenschen ("sub-humans"). [Btw, is 'ideology was to fight' is the right way to convey this idea?] As illustrated in the pamphlet The SS as an Anti-Bolshevist Fighting Organization of 1936, Himmler wrote, "We shall take care that never again in Germany, the heart of Europe, will the Jewish-Bolshevistic revolution of subhumans be able to be kindled either from within or through emissaries from without." [32] Once SS candidates successfully passed the racial criteria demanded of them, next came tests much like the Jesuits who underwent two years of intense probing before taking vows of poverty, chastity and obedience; SS men were likewise educated before they were allowed to swear the oath of "kith and kin" (known in German as the Sippeneid), and be counted as members of the SS.[33] Thereafter, the SS member had to complete a term with the Wehrmacht and the Labour Service, swearing yet another oath to honour the marriage law (made effective 31 December 1931) outlined by the Reichsführer-SS, an oath which prescribed that SS men only marry women of suitable racial makeup and only after approved by both the RuSHA and Himmler.[34] Commitment to SS ideology is evidenced throughout the entire recruitment and membership continuum and the related esprit de corps.[35] Suffusing SS members even further with the Nazi covenant were esoteric rituals as well as the awarding of regalia and insignia for key milestones in the SS man's career.[36] Designed to be the vanguards of National Socialism, members of the SS were fed a constant ideological diet which touted the supremacy of Germanic people, the necessity to cleanse the German race of impure genetic material and foreign ideals, obedience to the Führer, and a commitment to the German people and nation.[37]
Suggested version:
The thrust of the SS ideology was aimed at annihilating the so-called Untermenschen ("sub-humans") and Judeo-Bolsheviks [[add link to Jewish Bolshevism]]. As Himmler wrote in the 1936 pamphlet The SS as an Anti-Bolshevist Fighting Organization, "We shall take care that never again in Germany, the heart of Europe, will the Jewish-Bolshevistic revolution of subhumans be able to be kindled either from within or through emissaries from without." [32]
Commitment to SS ideology is evidenced throughout the entire recruitment and membership continuum and the related esprit de corps.[35] Acting as the vanguards of National Socialism, members of the SS were indoctrinated in the idea of the supremacy of Germanic people, the necessity to cleanse the German race of impure genetic material and foreign ideals, obedience to the Führer, and a commitment to the German people (Herrenvolk) [[linked to Master race, unless already linked in the article]] and nation.[37]
The comparisons to Jesuits and esoteric rituals are included in the main SS ideology article and can be skipped here for better readability.
Further suggestion: put the lead para ("Two words came to encapsulate the ideology of the SS, Blut und Boden, which translates to "blood and soil". "Blood" in this case meant the preservation and proliferation of Germanic/Aryan people and "soil" represented the Nazi quest for Lebensraum ("living space") to sustain and expand the Aryan race at all costs, especially at the expense of those the Nazis deemed racially inferior.[29] Historian Doris Bergen aptly reduced this Nazi concept to the expression "race and space."[30]") following the above, as the references to the commitment to the German people provides a good lead into the concept of "blood and soil."
PS - Same applies to "Special ranks and uniforms". As the article dedicated to this topic exists, this section can also be streamlined. I think the main thrust of this section should be not to describe the topic, but provide insights on how the special ranks & uniforms contributed to the culture of the SS as an elite, 'state within a state' organisation; as well as why and how it changed during WWII.--K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I assume that that lack of response equals consensus. I will go ahead and make the edits to the long paragraph I discussed above. Further, I see that 'blood & soil' is perhaps given too much prominence in this high level article. In the main article Ideology of the SS it receives exactly one sentence: "Special high schools were created under SS control to form a Nazi agrarian elite that was trained according to the principle of "blood and soil".[45]" -- and discusses it in the concept of an 'agrarian elite'. So I will go ahead and cut this altogether; if 'blood & soil' concept is expanded upon in the linked article, then any new content can be reflected in the top level article. I don't believe this top level article should contain content not discussed in the linked article. Otherwise, the two articles begin to diverge, which is unnecessary and confusing.
I will propose changes to 'ranks & uniforms' at a later time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Lack of a response can also mean, many of us have real world considerations which impact our time to look at the proposed changes or to edit the article. Most of the changes you've implemented are acceptable. Not sure I agree with completely deleting the few sentences related to rituals as this constitutes an important part of the indoctrination process and the way in which they confirmed to one another their "elite" sense of belonging.Obenritter (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't have time to really look it over at the moment, but it can always be tweaked. Kierzek (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and restored the Höhne reference to esoteric rituals. In general, since my edits often reflect a copy-editing perspective, please feel free to restore relevant parts if my cuts are too deep. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Further cleanups to Ideology and culture
As I contrast this section with the main article - Ideology of the SS - I'm coming up with more examples of the content and language not included in the main Ideology article (contrast with the Imperial tradition, "Praetorian Guard"), plus content that does not fall under ideology and culture, such as "According to the Nuremberg trials, as well as many war crimes investigations and trials conducted since then, the SS was responsible for the majority of Nazi war crimes. In particular, it was the primary organisation which carried out the Holocaust." I propose further cleanups to align this section better with the Ideology main article, as well as some condensing to remove info covered elsewhere in the SS article. Please let me know if you'd like to see my suggested changes here first. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Some of the key concepts and ideas related to SS ideology were synopsized in its original format. Just because you are not seeing verbatim statements or duplicate references does not mean the general content is profoundly differentiated in any way, as you seem to be implying here. To prove my point, I will refer to the item that seemed to stick out in your mind.
From the original wording you are citing in the SS main article" "According to the Nuremberg trials, as well as many war crimes investigations and trials conducted since then, the SS was responsible for the majority of Nazi war crimes. In particular, it was the primary organisation which carried out the Holocaust."
From Ideology of the SS
"led to the SS playing the main role in political violence and eventually crimes against humanity, including the Holocaust and Action T4."
"It was SS principles and thinking which provided the scientific impetus for the devaluation of humanity and their actions as ideological enforcers that propelled the Nazis forward into an ultimate paroxysm of destruction and genocide"
"large-scale extermination and genocide of Jews, gypsies, Asians, and communists"
"Himmler was a main architect of the Holocaust and the SS was the main branch of the Nazi Party that implemented it"
Would you please elaborate exactly how you came to the conclusion that the SS and the Holocaust are not corresponding to one another in the two articles? I need some additional clarification because the evidence I am looking at says QUITE the opposite of your claims.--Obenritter (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I did not make myself clear. There were two separate points I was trying to make.
(1) For the Holocaust/SS connection ("According to the Nuremberg trials, as well as many war crimes investigations and trials conducted since then, the SS was responsible for the majority of Nazi war crimes. In particular, it was the primary organisation which carried out the Holocaust."), I just meant that two sentences were perhaps unnecessary, since the lead to the SS article already states a very similar thing: "The SS was the organization most responsible for the implementation of the Final Solution and members of all of its branches committed numerous crimes against humanity during World War II (1939–45). After Nazi Germany's defeat, the whole SS corps, along with the Nazi Party, were judged by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg to have been a criminal organization." Further down, there's the post-War section that also deals with IMT in more detail. So, strictly as part of "Ideology and culture" subsection, these two sentences were perhaps redundant. But I don't feel strongly on this point -- this was more for flow of the article and to avoid being repetitive.
(2) On the other point (contrast to the Imperial tradition, references to Praetorian Guard) - these are the parts I'm more concerned about from the standpoint of consistency, since these references are not included in the main Ideology of the SS article. If these statements are made, would they be more appropriately made in the Ideology article, and then be reflected in this top level article (The SS)? This goes to my point of avoiding the two article -- The SS & The ideology of SS -- presenting diverging information.
Does this make sense? I can provide suggested edits to the remainder of this section, so it's clearer what I'm driving at. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you could add the necessary references and information about the Praetorian guard into the Ideology of the SS article (in an appropriately selected place) instead of deleting it here. Concerning the imperial traditions, that seems like an observation that strikes at Germany's longer historical continuum and could also stand to be added to the Ideology page OR deleted from this page altogether. Most of your editorial ideas have been great in terms of concision, just make sure you're not deleting important points like the esoteric ritual references I mentioned earlier. That was more than just a little thing since Himmler was very involved in what we'd deem to be "occultism" these days. It is expounded upon quite a bit on the ideology page but you've all but removed these observations in their entirety from the main SS page for some reason. Happy editing in the interim.--Obenritter (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Also K. e. remember that the WP:Lead is to be a summary of the important main text of the body and when something is stated in the lead, it must also be stated in the body; and when stated in the body, the point(s) should have greater detail and RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Waffen-SS or Waffen-SS
I have been thinking about this for sometime and want to hear other edtors thoughts herein. As many of you know, on Wikipedia the use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not currently used in English, per WP:MOS, is to be used. However, I believe Waffen-SS should be seen at this point in time like Luftwaffe and does not, anymore, need to be placed in italics. It is used often in English WP:RS works these days and I believe it is commonly used enough in English. With that said, what do you others think as to this query? Kierzek (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that italics are needed given that this is the common English-language term for the force. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Concur with you Kierzek as well. The Waffen-SS is a commonly known term among speakers of English. --Obenritter (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. Kierzek (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hitler's Personal Bodyguard --- Redundancy
Folks -- not sure I understand why we have two segments on Hitler's personal protection. As it stands now, there is the section 3.2 Hitler's personal bodyguards and a section 8.6 Special protection units which is just more information on their roles as security to Hitler. Somebody who has the cited works on these two sections needs to consolidate them. Otherwise, we may want to consider a rewrite using better recognized academic sources altogether.--Obenritter (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I wrote the sections 3.2 and 8.6 for the most part; and even though there is some redundancy; they are not overall the same; the fact is the way the article is laid out has other sections with redundancy: when presented - the first is more chronological and the second is a listing of the different SS units and branches. For example: 3.1 "Merger with police and independent status" has redundancy with 8.1 "Security services"; one could argue that section 6. "Concentration camps and death camps" should be in the same section as 8.2 "Death squads" and 8.3 "Special action units". So we could do some re-grouping but there is a reason it was presented the way it is. Lastly, there is nothing wrong with the sources I used for the 3.2 and 8.6 sections. If you have not read the books, I recommend them on the subject. Kierzek (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just see those two sections as very much interrelated. Since you discussed facilities and such, perhaps I was hasty to mark them as equivalent. If the sources are solid, then I stand corrected on that matter.--Obenritter (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
If you were only going to buy one book on security, I would recommend: Hoffmann, Peter (2000). Hitler's Personal Security: Protecting the Führer 1921–1945. New York: Da Capo. ISBN978-0-30680-947-7. as the best on that subject. Kierzek (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I certainly was not eyeing Hoffmann sideways as his work on the German resistance is one of the staples and he's well-respected. Thanks for the recommendation, as I do not own this one (yet).--Obenritter (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Article layout
@Kierzek, Obenritter, and K.e.coffman: I think you guys did a great job at bringing this article closer to encyclopaedic standards. I'm surprised how much effort this took. My only comment right now is that the section "Concentration camps and death camps" needs to be higher up in the layout for chronology, and perhaps even split in two, because of their strikingly differing design and purpose. The invasion of Poland was the beginning of, not only the world war, but also the new type of camps, redesigned to exploit the labour of foreign captives for the German war economy. All this took shape as part of support base for "War in the east" coinciding with declaration of war against the United States. The same with Aktion Reinhardt outlined at Wannsee in January 1942. It took shape before the first German defeat at the Battle of Kursk. The Soviet counter-offensive happened long after the camp universe was build from the ground up by the SS as source of labour supply. Here's a quote from German camps in occupied Poland during World War II (the WP:RS can be found there):
Millions of camp inmates were used virtually for free by major German corporations such as Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, Bosch, Blaupunkt, Daimler-Benz, Demag, Henschel, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Philips, Siemens, and even Volkswagen,[27] not to mention the German subsidiaries of foreign firms, such as Fordwerke (Ford Motor Company) and Adam Opel AG (a subsidiary of General Motors) among others.[28] The SS made it all possible in spite of manpower shortages; and that's why dogs at the camps were introduced. Poeticbenttalk 14:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, it has shown to be one of the more difficult subjects to layout and I encourage you to add/improve the layout and information presented. The "War in the east" section is more of an overview, with the detailed section further down; but that certainly can be moved up; why don't you have a go at it. And K.e., I think something about the HIAG should be added; besides just a "See also". Can you see to that? Kierzek (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Ditto on the thanks @Poeticbent:. As Kierzek remarked -- there was some difficulty with laying this out. He actually did a lot of that but we tried to compartmentalize things perhaps too much at the expense of chronology. Since you smelt it, you dealt it (strangely that statement was one of the funniest things I ever heard in English when I was a kid). By all means, make the corrections and additions which you are suggesting. Another set of fresh eyes (smart ones) would be great at this point.--Obenritter (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You've worked on this long enough for me to have total confidence that you'll be able to do it now. You Kierzek and Obenritter have a great deal more familiarity with this particular subject and its multitude of sources which I have not yet studied. Poeticbenttalk 01:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but it does need further work; for example, I am now thinking that there does not need to be two separate sections for Personal Protection units, nor two that discuss Security Services. Kierzek (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
You're correct about this. As it stands, we have two sections, miles apart in the layout:
This definitely needs to be fixed. Poeticbenttalk 22:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Once we start combining loosely scattered material according to subject, we can see how much of it is repeated. Sorry about bringing it up, but the whole article is going to have to be checked for tautologies. I tried not to remove anything, so you can see what I mean. Poeticbenttalk 22:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@Poeticbent: Thanks for the efforts in reorganizing much of this. It makes more sense in this new structure. --Obenritter (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @Obenritter: but the new section about the SS contribution to Economy of Nazi Germany – per my initial comment – still needs to be added somewhere, possibly before or after Death camps. Poeticbenttalk 03:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is better; less compartmentalized; I also had asked, yesterday, if @Diannaa: would look it over and she stated she would. Kierzek (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I started copy edits yesterday and will resume tomorrow if things are settled down by then. — Diannaa (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Special ranks and uniforms
What do you guys think about condensing this section to the discussion on special ranks (i.e. distinct from the Werhmacht, focus on combining police & military functions, etc), and relegating the uniforms to "see also" status? Otherwise, it currently looks like too much "militaria" to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I would not take out much, as the uniform and ranks were an important aspect of setting the SS apart and making the men feel as if they belonged to a special fraternity (which was a goal of Himmler's). Kierzek (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
There isn't much on the "specialness" of the SS as the section currently stands. Perhaps it should be added? Here's my suggested condensing:
The SS had its own rank structure, unit insignia, and uniforms, which distinguished it from other branches of the German military, German state officials, and the Nazi Party. Before 1929, the SS wore the same brown uniform as the SA, with the exception of a black tie and a black cap with a Totenkopf ("death's head") skull and bones symbol on it. In 1932 the SS adopted the all-black uniform.[1] These uniforms were rarely worn after the war began, as Himmler ordered that the all-black uniforms be turned over to other units, such as auxiliary police and Germanic-SS units in the Netherlands and Denmark.[2]
In 1935, the military SS formations (the Leibstandarte and the SS-Verfügungstruppe) adopted a service uniform in what was termed erdgrau (earth-grey). In 1938, the Allgemeine SS followed suit in adopting a pale-grey uniform.[2] During the war, Waffen-SS units wore a wide range of items printed with camouflage patterns, while their feldgrau uniforms were similar to those of the Heer, save for the insignia.[3][4] In 1944 the Waffen-SS began using a universal camouflage uniform.[4] The uniforms for the SS were made by hundreds of clothing factories licensed by the RZM, including Hugo Boss, with some workers being prisoners of war. Many were made in concentration camps.[5]
What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The edit above is not bad, but would like to have more time to think about it and frankly I am retiring to bed for the night. Also, I would like to give Diannaa a chance to have a go at ce on the article (a subject she knows well). Kierzek (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
PS -- What are the "Germanic-SS units"? Are these the local SS used for occupational/police duties? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The collective name given to Nordic SS groups which arose in Europe, mainly after Nazi occupation; and yes they were used for police and security duties (boy, does that article need work). Kierzek (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we could trim it a bit, particularly as I think we should add a sentence or two on the runes and symbolism. The book I would use for this is Hitler's Master of the Dark Arts By Bill Yenne, but someone has it checked out right now. I could get it by March 1, assuming it's returned on time. If someone has good source material and wants to add a bit in the meantime, that would be okay too. — Diannaa (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa: You may want to also consider The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke and/or Unholy Alliance: A History of Nazi Involvement with the Occult by Peter Levenda. Heather Pringle's The Master Plan: Himmler’s Scholars and the Holocaust also touches on some of this.--Obenritter (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I would have to bring those in on inter-library loan, and am not looking for in-depth content, just a general statement that Himmler was into mysticism and runes, and incorporated some of his ideas into the practices and insignia of the SS. Yenne's book is probably adequate for the purpose, if I recall correctly.— Diannaa (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I tweaked the copy edits made. Kierzek (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Since I am not sure where you intend on incorporating these things -- I will post some things for your use out of the book - Yenne, Bill. Hitler’s Master of the Dark Arts: Himmler’s Black Knights and the Occult Origins of the SS. Minneapolis: Zenith Press, 2010.
List (Guido von List) and others attached special significance to these old alphabets, believing them to embody magical powers. (Yenne, pg. 24)
Himmler, as we shall see, was quite enthralled with Guido von List's idea of the Armanen Orden and the notion of perpetuating a select brotherhood. (Yenne, pg. 28)
The study of ancient Nordic runes had be en an integral part of Völkisch New Age literature. (Yenne, pg. 63)
From a runîc perspective, the Hakenkreuz (swastika) can be seen as two Sig, or Sigel, runes superimposed on one another at a ninety-degree angle.(Yenne, pg. 64)
Adopted in 1932, the logo of Heinrich Himmler's SS was actually a pair of Sig runes from the Armanen Futhart <h of Guido von List. The corresponding runes in earlier runlc systems mean •sun,' but List's Sig rune means 'victory: The Sig rune ls a Iso the rune for the letter s. Therefore, by using a pair of Sigs, the SS logo literally reads 'SS," and 1t screams ' Victory. Victory!" (Yenne, pg. 68)
The person specifically responsible for turning the rune Sig into the SS logo was SS-Sturmführer (sergeant) Walther Heck, a graphic designer who worked for the firm of Ferdinand Hoffstatter, a manufacturer of emblems and insignias, in Bonn. (Yenne, pg. 70)
The use of the runes as an SS symbol was preceded by Julius Schreck's adoption of the Totenkopf, or death's head, as an SS insignia.(Yenne, pg. 71)
While neither the swastika nor the Totenkopf was unique to the Nazis, Walther Heck's lightning-bolt double runic logo was. The paired Sig runes of the SS became an emblem that, more even than the swastika itself, embodied the malice and brutality that would emanate from Germany to engulf Europe. (Yenne, pg. 72)
In the book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (2004), The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology, Himmler's wacky occultist beliefs are discussed on pages 177 - 191, which comprise the book chapter "Karl Maria Wiligut: The Private Magus of Heinrich Himmler". By the way, Wiligut was the "so-called Rasputin of Himmler" (pg. 177). You could reference that entire chapter about his general beliefs and use something from the Yenne book regarding the utilization of runes.
Hopefully these will assist you. If not, I tried.--Obenritter (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Intro, such as: When joining the SS, the member became part of a branch of the Nazi Party which incorporated its own symbolism, rituals, customs, ranks and uniforms to set itself apart from other organisations. Himmler wanted to create a unique fraternity for the men, bah, bah, bah. Kierzek (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
You're cracking me up here.--Obenritter (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
That's good stuff Kierzek, just the thing. (but shouldn't it be blah, blah, blah? or yada, yada, yada?) No rush; I will be doing the copy edits slowly so that interested editors have a chance to review and correct the work, so I am not concerned if this bit on symbolism doesn't get inserted immediately. — Diannaa (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Diannaa and yes, I should have proof read the above end note to my thought. Kierzek (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Problematic sources
The article, in my opinion, suffers from reliance on potentially non WP:RS sources, such as:
Cook, Stan; Bender, R. James (1994). Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler: Uniforms, Organization, & History. San Jose, CA: R. James Bender.: is this a vanity press? -- 8 citations, incl. below
Also, same publisher: Miller, Michael (2006). Leaders of the SS and German Police, Vol. 1. San Jose, CA: R. James Bender.: this is Michael Miller of Axishistory.com, I believe
Bob Carruthers, (2014). The Waffen SS on the Eastern Front: A Photographic Record of the Waffen SS in the East. Barnsley: Pen and Sword.: appears to be a picture book -- 1 citation, wp:peacock about ""fire brigades" [being sent to] to critical points of the battlefield"
Goldsworthy, Terry (2010). Valhalla's Warriors: A History of the Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front 1941–1945. Indianapolis: Dog Ear Publishing.: self-published source -- 1 citation
Heinz Höhne, appears to a be revisionist author -- 7 citations, incl. about "developing esprit de corps"
Chris McNab is an acceptable RS source, for at least the second time; and Bender Publishing is not a vanity press. Some of the books you criticize you clearly have not read or personally cross-referenced for content. Other books such as Agte, that is one is easy and has already been discussed and should go; and Goldsworthy, too. Höhne's is actually considered a classic work by many. And Mollo is considered a uniform and insignia expert. Kierzek (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The content sourced to Agte is in Reynolds. I am fixing that one now. — Diannaa (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the content sourced to Tumblr. — Diannaa (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
My point is that the SS organisation has been studied from every possible angle, and better sources exist, so that we don't need to rely on potentially dodgy references. If Mollo is an expert, then he should be used in the pertinent article on the uniforms. I don't believe the extensive militaria content is needed in this high-level article.
Specific to McNab, let's take this passage:
A few months later, the SS-Kavallerie units were operating in the Soviet Union where they conducted mop-up operations, including the infamous Pripyat swamps operation designed to round up and exterminate Jews, partisans, and civilians.[1]
References
^McNab 2013, pp. 225–226. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcNab2013 (help)
There are several issues in the sentence:
"Jews" and "civilians" were not separate categories; Jews were indeed civilians
There were no "partisans" (guerillas) behind German lines at that time (summer of 1941). There were plenty of Red Army soldiers who were bypassed by the Wehrmacht in their drive east, per the Barbarossa doctrine. To the surprise of the Germans, they continued to offer resistance, including employing artillery and holding onto strong points and towns. The Werhmacht, not expecting this from their experience in the west, saw this as "treachery" and employed utmost ruthlessness in suppressing the resistance behind the front lines, including destroying villages and indiscriminately killing civilians when they took the strong points (cited via Marching Into Darkness and Soldaten)
Lastly, the term "partisans" ("bandits") was applied to any form of resistance, real or imagined. Jews were labeled "partisans"; one commanded said "Where there are Jews, there are partisans" (or something to this effect). (Cited via Hitler's Bandit Hunters)
So in summary, by creating the neat compartments of "Jews", "partisan" and "civilians", McNab is not reflecting the latest scholarship on the SS Cavalry Brigades. Then it's repeated in Wikipedia's voice, resulting in a dodgy statement. Also note the German rendition as SS-Kavallerie, while the suitably named SS Cavalry Brigade article exists. Again, this can be construed as POV. Hence my objections to the use of McNab. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
It a summary only; this is a main overview article; linked to a detailed sub-article I helped edit; tweak it if need be and as for German names of units, they are commonly used; it does not mean anything; but it can be replaced with the English name. Kierzek (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that McNab's 2013 book is an OK source: I leafed through it in a bookshop recently, and it seemed balanced. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
If McNab is an okay source, then it must be the issue of editing. In addition to the problematic statement above on "Jews, partisans and civilians", here's another exalted passage typical of what I term the "WWII fanboy literature passing as Wikipedia content"; also cited to McNab:
When the Allies did land in Normandy on D-Day 6 June, only one panzer division was close to the beaches, but its units were too scattered for it to assist in repelling the landings. Hitler had refused to allow the bulk of the panzer divisions to moved without his permission. It was not until the afternoon that the SS-Hitlerjugend began to deploy, with its units going into action on 7 June. But rather than being able to mount a decisive counteroffensive to contain the Allies' beachhead, the SS-Hitlerjugendfound themselves fighting a defensive battle. They were, however, notable during the Battle of Caen where, in spite of their declining strength, they repeatedly frustrated British and Canadian efforts to break through.[1]However, by 17 June, twenty Canadian prisoners had been murdered by soldiers of the SS-Hitlerjugend in what became known as the Ardenne Abbey massacre.[2]
References
^McNab 2013, p. 297. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcNab2013 (help)
^McNab 2009, p. 73. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcNab2009 (help)
That is why Diannaa is going through it; it is the way it was written; this article needs work; we all know that. Kierzek (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I have Flaherty here, and it looks okay, it's neutrally-worded throughout. The material about Belgrade is on page 163. There's nothing about a flag or about Klingenberg's Knight's Cross. Here is what it says: "Far to the north, the SS division Reich, advancing with General Georg-Hans Reinhardt's XLI Panzer Corps, struck across the Rumanian border toward the Yugoslav capital of Belgrade, which had already been pounded into rubble by the Luftwaffe. Arriving there on April 2, an advance party of the SS division accepted the city's capitulation. A few days later, the Yugoslav army surrendered." Looking at the passage in the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich article, it looks like that the only passage in Flaherty that's similar in any way is "A few days later, the Yugoslav army surrendered." The rest of the content came from the article by Heaton. — Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I have removed / re-sourced all the Lumsden material. I have removed Goldsworthy and Carruthers. Bender is not a vanity press; I don't see the problem with using Cook and Miller. — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the work, Diannaa, I know it can be thankless at times. Flaherty is not the problem as you have shown, it was Heaton, which I have now removed from the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich article. BTW, Diannaa if you have Stein, George (1984) [1966]. The Waffen-SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War 1939–1945. Cornell University Press. ISBN0-8014-9275-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) available, it is a classic, objective work on the Waffen-SS; which I recommend. Kierzek (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I will be on the lookout for Heaton. The "act of humanity" and "unfurling of swastika" were giving me pause. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Post-World War II
The post-World War II sections seem to require some work. The "ODESSA and surviving members" only deals with the fates of about 3 named former SS former and those who allegedly fled to Latin America. The article states that there were 1,000,000 members by the late stages of World War II, including the non-German ones. This would likely mean that there was a considerable number of SS veterans in the post-war world, and nothing is really mentioned about the fates of those who stayed in Europe and/or returned to their countries of origin. Also it is unclear if there are still survivors of the organization in the 21st century. The articles mentions a number of teenaged recruits at the end of the War, meaning that they were born in the late 1920s and early 1930s. They would be in their 90s by now.
The scope of the "links to contemporary movements" section is unclear. There is a rather brief mention of Neo-Nazism and Neo-fascism in Germany and wider Europe, but it is left unclear if there is any specific connection with the SS as opposed to post-war Nazism and fascism in general.
Also, there is a statement in Wikipedia's voice that may be factual but is not referenced. "Despite the declarations of radicalized fringe neo-Nazi movements who claim to be successors of the SS, there is no single group recognized as a continuation of the organization." While I doubt there has been an actual SS revival, aren't there published works on the subject to consult? Dimadick (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Related to that, the article still suffers from over-representing the military role of the SS, IMO -- via the battlefield images and chronology of battles. I still think this needs to be addressed.
A good source on the political role of the Waffen-SS, and what Hitler & Himmler intended for it to be, is Wegner, Bernd (1990). The Waffen-SS: Organization, Ideology and Function. New York: Blackwell Publishers. ISBN978-0-631-14073-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help). I returned it to the library, but it someone has an interest in the topic, that's a good source to have. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The "SS in World War II" sections are well-written and balanced. However, the images tend to show Allied and not SS forces, such as the Normandy invasion photograph. What do you think is problematic in this area? Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Good point Poeticbent, that part is needed, the SS had a whole industry of slave labor and even some German companies were involved in "setting up shop" in and around camps. As for the military role of the SS section; Diannaa has worked hard on it of late and it is done well; but I would suggest maybe some edits for concision and some detail with cites could be moved over to the Waffen-SS article? What do you guys think? Kierzek (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't see any reason to move anything to Waffen-SS. Weight is fine, well-written, comprehensive. Coretheapple (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I withdraw my objection then. As we removed the excessive "military men on parade/on the battlefield" images, it has become less of an issue for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, those parade-ground photos were a serious issue and I'm glad you raised it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
As for the original point above, yes, for sure, the whole economic apparatus of the SS needs to be treated in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The SS was regarded the as the NSDAP's elite unit, their "Praetorian Guard". Initially all SS personnel were selected for their racial purity as well as loyalty to the NSDAP and Germany.[1] In the early days of the SS, all officer candidates had to provide proof of pure Aryan ancestry back to 1750 and for other ranks to 1800.[2]
Spick-n-span "Aryan" imagery, including pictures of uniforms
Acting as the vanguards of National Socialism, members of the SS were indoctrinated in the idea of the supremacy of Germanic people, the necessity to cleanse the German race of impure genetic material and foreign ideals, obedience to the Führer, and a commitment to the German people (Herrenvolk) and nation.[3]
^Weale 2010, pp. 62–67. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeale2010 (help)
Italics mine for problematic statements presented in Wikipedia's voice. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I have done some amendments to the prose. The photos will take longer, as there's a limited selection, and they are not well organized, and it's hard to determine in some images whether the troops are Wehrmacht or SS (see for example File:Ciepielów 3-POW departing to execution place.jpg, which could replace File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S55480, Polen, Parade vor Adolf Hitler.jpg. But are the soldiers SS?). I agree the images of the uniforms could be removed, but want to see other people's opinions first. — Diannaa (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The imagery is problematic throughout the entire article. For example, the images in the first half of the article contain:
Adolf Hitler inspects the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler upon arrival at Klagenfurt, 1938
Nazi supporters and stormtroopers in Munich during the Beer Hall Putsch, 1923
Soldiers of the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler standing at attention, 1935
The standard all-black uniform for Allgemeine SS members (+1 more)
Troop inspection in Berlin of Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, 1938
Hitler saluting German soldiers marching into Poland, 1939 (not relevant)
Two studio portraits: Himmler, Heydrich
Generalmajor Erwin Rommel with several Wehrmacht tank commanders during the battle for the Meuse river, 1940 (not sure what this is even doing here, this was Wehrmacht)
The overall thrust of these images is the "SS mythology" / "military men on parade" / "military men going into battle" and/or on "military men on the battlefield".
IMO, the imagery should try to convey the following:
SS was a huge bureaucracy -- "a state within a state", that intertwined itself with Germany's military, state and economic institutions
SS was an instrument of terror, both domestically and in the occupied territories
It was destroyed (thankfully)
For example, the included image of the bombed out Gestapo building could be the appropriate one for the infobox, not the proudly parading Arian soldiers. More images could be found at Topography of Terror.
Some photos need to be kept to illustrate the text and the times conveyed; Just like any RS book on the subject does. The addition of the "Topography of Terror" photo is a good idea. Remember Wikipedia is not censored and historical articles need to be presented objectively and NPOV with RS cites. K. e., we have discussed this before, discernment needs to be used. The Rommel photo should be removed now, as not correct; it shows Panzer troops in their black uniforms; not Waffen-SS troops. When writing about the SS, for example, photos of Himmler and Heydrich have to be there in some way. I await Diannaa's ce edits which have been going well and input as to what photos are being presented for deletion or replacement. Let's do this the right way. Kierzek (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Kierzek, how do you feel about removing the image of the SS uniforms? — Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe they should be kept for illustration of the text, but I defer on that in the end. Kierzek (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I will make the section less prominent by moving it down, and will decrease the size of the images. Then we can decide. — Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The copyright status on both these images is sketchy, as the source information is inadequate to prove that they are siezed Nazi property as claimed. They look more like modern sketches than Nazi-era artwork to be honest. I think we should take them out. — Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, do it. Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree; by the way; if copyright is "sketchy", please check the uniforms article and if there please remove the uniform images. Kierzek (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Re the infobox image, how about this one for the infobox? It conveys two of the messages above ("bureaucracy" and "instrument of terror"). IMO, this is more neutral vs the parading SS men. The article is about the organisation, so one of the HQ buildings would be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
How about this one?
Himmler inspects a prisoner of war camp in Russia, circa 1941
I would not use it in the infobox on the SS org as "state within a state" -- limited scope. It could also be construed as POV: neatly turned out SS men vs half naked prisoners behind barbed wire. I'm sure it was a propaganda photo. Note the caption: "inspecting"? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
To me it conveys harsh reality of what Himmler and the SS were about; but it was just a thought. Diannaa, what photo do you think? The Gestapo HQ is okay, but maybe there is something better? Kierzek (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
While we are on the topic of images, the one in the infobox in Einsatzkommando is also problematic -- smiling, smarmy SS men as a lead image for the article discussing the topic of extermination. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Done, see what you think; now off to work for me. Kierzek (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I fully support your discussion about the need for swiching the photographs for something more reflective of the SS history. Incidentally, the SS early existence is not as significant internationally as its wartime activities, and yet that's where most images used to come from. I think, each section should be illustrated. This is how the Waffen-SS looked like in action. Less "parade", more content. Poeticbenttalk 20:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
These photographs are all very good. I just added File:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg,, an iconic photographic. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
BTW, the bombed out Gestapo HQ building can be cropped out to look like a historical photograph -- the copyright notice states "Adam Carr grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." I think that would be appropriate for the infobox, as it would convey all three of the main messages: "bureaucracy", "instrument of terror" and "destroyed". What do others think? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I added Himmler's suicide photo; I think it would be appropriate to use in the section "Post-war activity and aftermath". Goes along with the theme of "destruction". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the Adam Carr photo is of high enough quality to be used in the info box, whether cropped or not.
Almost all of our SS photos are from the Bundesarchiv, and the majority of them were staged or produced for propaganda purposes.
The four images Poeticbent suggested are all good, and they are properly licensed Bundesarchiv photos.
I don't think we need to go so far as to start an RFC, but I think we need to post some suggestions for the info box image and do a poll. Here are what's been suggested so far, along with a couple of my own suggestions. Please feel free to quickly add any further suggestions before we start !voting: — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes I see what you mean. I think there may be a valid nonfree rationale. Odd it's not PD. I checked the page on Commons. Might be worthwhile to revisit the issue. Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
First choice: (g) members of LSAHH receive awards.
Second choice: (h) dead Ukrainian family.
Second Third choice: (d) bombed-out HQ, 1949.
Down votes:
(c) low quality, blurry.
(e) the soldiers look too cheerful. That's the way it was, but it's not appropriate here as it might send the wrong message.
(f) not a picture of the SS; not emblematic of the SS; I wouldn't go so far as to say irrelevant, but it doesn't work for me. — Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Amended at 14:30 on the 5th of March. — Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment This seems to be an excessively limited selection of lead photos. Of the ones provided I lean most toward e. I am not concerned by the expressions on the SS men's faces. Of the photos currently in the article, I think that File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-A0706-0018-030, Ukraine, ermordete Familie.jpg, the Einsatzgruppen lead art, would be the most suitable as it is a photograph of the SS engaged in the work for which it is best known by the world. File:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg, though nonfree, would also be suitable. I believe there is adequate justification for that nonfree image. Overall I'd suggest the lead art reflect the fact that the SS was declared a criminal organization by the Nuremberg trials at the conclusion of the war, and that its legacy is most heavily weighted toward its central role in executing the Final Solution. Hence I believe a lead photograph should explicitly reflect criminal conduct in that realm. Parade-ground, military images I feel fail to give proper weight to that fact and fail NPOV. Coretheapple (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a discussion, not a formal RFC, so I have added your selection to the gallery and amended my !vote. As someone who works with images a lot, I can tell you that we cannot accept a non-free image in the infobox when there's so many freely licensed images available. Fails WP:NFCC#1. — Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
OK. I appreciate your adding the additional photo. This Commons category has several others that are worthy as lead candidate and certainly the relevant sections within the article, such as this one. Much clearer. I'll take the liberty of adding that if you don't mind, but I would suggest some more showing war crimes so as to give a greater balance to the gallery. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I have removed File:Einsatzgruppe A.jpg as there's inadequate evidence that the image is PD as claimed. Not all USHMM images are freely licensed; many are copyright. This one shows (checking the Wayback Machine) that the image is credited to Novosti Press, Moscow, and is very likely not in the public domain as templated. — Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
News agencies frequently distribute public domain photos. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The dead Himmler photo would be my third choice, photo E of the Warsaw Ghetto the second choice of the ones offered. I would specifically not favor the photograph currently in use, showing the spic-and-span SS formations, or the LSSH photo. I don't believe that photos of that kind are truly neutral given the nature of this organization. Also I don't believe building photographs are especially informative. There were thousands, perhaps millions of bombed-out buildings and these do not appear especially different. I'm not troubled by the fact that photos of victims were taken by perpetrators, so long as they provide accurate representations of reality. The fact that the motives of the photographers are suspect is really not pertinent. Similarly, the fact that some SS men are smiling in the Warsaw Ghetto photo doesn't bother me, as it does not in any way show disrespect to the victims. On the contrary it simply indicates the mindset of their killers. Photos of war crimes frequently show smiling perpetrators. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment re: the picture of the dead Ukranian family, there's something in the caption that I think should be clarified, i.e. "the caption may be incorrect". In general, I'm leaning towards a neutral image, such as (d) Bombed out HQ. There something that bothers me about the pictures taken by the perpetrators of their victims and/or staged propaganda photos. Kind of the same explanation I gave for the image of Himmler "inspecting" a POW camp. I think there's room for these images in the relevant sections, but not as the lead, as (IMO) is still glorification of violence. If any dead person should be in the lead, it's Himmler's suicide picture. I will add it to the gallery. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
My preferences:
First choice: (k)
Second choice: (b)
Third choice:(g)
Down votes:
First choice: (i)
Second choice: (f)
Third choice:(h)
Of what has been offered so far. "No photo" is not a viable option. Kierzek (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
My preferences:
(g) LSSAH
(e) Waffen-SS burn down the Warsaw Ghetto, 1943
no third place
Down votes:
buildings
massacres. My rationale: The article is but a part of World War II series of articles, some of which are even bigger that this, but the story begins in 1923; this is an article about an organization, not about war crimes covered by other Wikipedia articles. I don't think we need to lead the reader with shock photography. The statistics speak of up to one million individuals during World War II. That's a lot of people, with an army of paper-pushers behind them. Infobox is a start, and little else. Poeticbenttalk 21:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: We seem to be at an impasse, with several valid rationales being offered for rejecting types of images presented. How about simply "No photo"? Compare with Reich Main Security Office. I still like Himmler's suicide photo for the lead, though, as a counter-point to the organisation's history of terror and power. So that's still my first choice. I also think we should remove either the "SS flag" or the "SS runes" from the infobox; one set of runes is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to add a "discussion" section or subsection, so as to separate the "voting" from the discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Nah, forget about that. Comments are too intertwined with votes. I like your Belzec photo. I don't think "no photo" is a viable option. Coretheapple (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Next step
Should we condense the list to currently viable candidates? I believe those that did not receive many down votes to be:
The discussion seems to have died off. Can we close on this? Otherwise, if you guys don't tell me, within the next 24 hours, to cease and desist :-) , I will update the infobox with the Himmler suicide photo with a WP:Bold edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
One should be picked but not that one. I have also now added my "down votes" above. Kierzek (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
That is not the same one I withdrew, but similar and frankly this one is better. I would ivote for this one. Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
How about this one? Mauthausen, Himmler's visit, April 1941 Mauthausen, Himmler's visit, April 1941 -- I have a slight preference for this one as it shows only the perpetrators, not the victims. But the other one is good as well. I believe there are many other images from Mauthausen. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe we've given any thought to this one - File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg : shows an SS man and victims. Given that the entire article is permeated with war crimes, including the combat sections, I think it says more than a photo of Himmler at Mauthausen. He could be anywhere. And the photo of him at Dachau predates the war and shows a prisoner who seems rather well-nourished in contrast to the almost universal fate of the SS's victims. Coretheapple (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's another one from Mauthausen; but one has to be familiar with the "stairs of death" to appreciate the photo. SS officers climbing the "Stairs of Death", April 1941 I do agree that the Dachau photo has an almost "domestic" feel to it, so it's a down vote for me at this point.
The one that CoretheApple posted is a good one, but I'd like to ping @Poeticbent: as they were the editor who objected to the "pictures of massacres". This is not exactly the massacre (yet), I'm wondering if this may pass.K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The "stairs of death" photo is intriguing, though it doesn't really, by itself, tell a story, as the ghetto photo does. The "stairs" would have to be explained. The advantage of the ghetto photo is that it shows both a number of SS men and a number of its victims. I don't see why we need to be squeamish about the latter, but here they are fully clothed and not dead. Coretheapple (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree, but let's see what Poeticbent's feedback is on the Stroop report photo as the editor who participated in the discussion previously. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, now look at the one I just posted of Himmler at a Russian POV camp. More realistic depiction of prisoner, nicely composed, tells a story, not static. I think that might do nicely. Not iconic like the Ghetto picture but it does show the top man. Coretheapple (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Coretheapple, this one you just added I put up earlier (see above) and withdrew after it was voted down. Kierzek (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh I don't recall that. I rather like it. Anyway, I see that one editor has taken an interesting approach by putting all the photos on the page. Not a bad idea. Coretheapple (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I have to say that I like Poeticbent's idea of putting up all the photos. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I hope you agree with what I just did. Most images mentioned in this discussion have merit. I read all captions in Commons (including German) just to make sure that they speak of the SS overtly. Some images and their captions are controversial, for example the shooting action in Zboriv is described incorrectly as conducted in Russia; while in fact Zborów was the seat of a powiat of the Tarnopol Voivodeship in Soviet occupied Poland. Please feel free to switch any image that isn't working for you. Thanks, Poeticbenttalk 19:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I liked that approach. Following Kierzek's edit, I did some rearranging, for "compare and contrast" approach. It appears that the "Stroop report photo" ("dugout") does not have a caption? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I very much like the "compare and contrast" approach. Very good job, both of you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Some of the images selected for the infobox in the course of this debate have already been featured in bodytext earlier, therefore, they need to be replaced with something from here that isn't used. Also, when replacing images, please remember to change the caption as well. Thank you all, Poeticbenttalk 19:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Excellent idea, Poeticbent; BTW-guys, some of the photo id. captions need to be fixed. I don't have time at the moment to do it. Kierzek (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was a simple idea and in retrospect obvious but it didn't occur to me. Really dresses up the whole page. Coretheapple (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Not wanting to be a jerk here, but the current number of images in the infobox seems excessive - it makes the infobox really big and offputting. I'd suggest cutting out two rows of photos. I agree though that having multiple images is the best option. Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I have a slight preference for the white lines between the images -- right now it looks all images merge together. I also think that the top row can be taken out. Done -- let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Superseding agency
The infobox lists SA as the "superseding agency" -- is that perhaps a mistake? How could SA have superseded SS since (1) SA as a defunct organization; (2) SS was dissolved? Can someone clarify? Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it is a matter of how it is read; but I see what you mean; the SS "superseded" the SA or one might say the SS took the place of the SA in many respects of the Nazi hierarchy. That is, I believe, the way it should be read. BTW, the SA was never dissolved until 1945, when the war ended. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The portion I was confused about is that SA is mentioned twice:
Again, I understand; the only way, I see it makes sense is to read it as the SS was the superseding branch of the SA; but I believe as I said above, it should be changed so there is no confusion. Thoughts? Kierzek (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Changed it. Kierzek (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
You've worked on this long enough for me to have total confidence that you'll be able to do it now. You Kierzek and Obenritter have a great deal more familiarity with this particular subject and its multitude of sources which I have not yet studied. Poeticbent talk 01:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Invasion of Poland
Destruction of Warsaw
The Eastern Front
Baltic states
Himmler's suicide
(a) Current image
(b) SS and Gestapo HQ in Berlin
(d) Bombed-out HQ, as seen in 1949
(e) Waffen-SS burn down the Warsaw Ghetto, 1943
(f) Gestapo political prisoners, from the Topography of Terror exhibition
(g) LSSAH
(h) dead Ukrainian family
(i) Himmler's suicide photo
(k) Belzec - SS staff
.jpg)
Sturmabteilung (SA)
