Talk:33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne

Comments
No german miltary was sent to Galicia, Spain, ever! In Eastern Europe, there is another region called that way.
 * I've fixed the link. Blorg 18:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I remember long ago hearing that the last iron cross was given to one of the French Waffen-SS leaders in Berlin. Anything to that?

This article can surely not be considered NPOV. Examples: "Testimony to the prowess of the LVF came from a Soviet communique which spoke of their forces being stopped by the sacrifice of "two French divisions"." "It tenaciously held its ground, suffering heavy casualties." I could go on, but such language ("prowess" "tenaciously") glorifies the actions of the division. It is not fair however to say that this article simply puts forward one viewpoint. Indeed it oscillates between two - glorification of fascism on the one hand, and apologism for it on the other. I will be checking the details of the books cited as references, their publishing companies etc. I will also be making a complaint about this article. It, like many, in the military history section, are blatantly politicized. Later SF
 * I, for one, would object from removing words like "prowess", "tenaciously held its ground" etc just because they fought on Hitler side. If you can prove that these descriptions are false, then you can do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.207.196 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, (I'm back) this site references Feldgrau.net. This site claims to be non-political. One migth say that it is, in a sense. But when it's "non-politicality" entails a fetishistic interest in the German military, with little or no mention of their involvement in the holocaist and other war crimes, such neutrality becomes suspicious. Indeed, in their forums: "Discussions about the Holocaust are not allowed." This is effectively holocaust denial of a passive variety, given the subject of their "research". These links should be removed from the article. Later, SF


 * Sorry 'SF' some people are just interested in military history, we can go just about any where else and read about the holocaust. It gets a little old when people want to throw it in the mix of a military discussion, usually just to start a fight.  user:Pzg Ratzinger

Oh for Pete's sake calm down. I've viewed this article over the course of its lifetime and I haven't seen anything that could be considered "blatantly politicized". The examples of the language cited above are very minor and have been corrected. Big deal.

As to the forum mentioned, atrocities are frequently discussed and anyone displaying pro-Nazi sentiments is immediately banned from the forum. The Holocaust generally is not to be discussed because, as you well know, chat forums are ripe for abuse.

As to the military unit in this Wiki article, I'm familiar with the subject matter and believe it to be a factual and informative article; I'm very surprised that it only gets a B-. P1340 17:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)P1340


 * It is laid out poorly, there is alot of good information and a couple great pictures. However it needs to be in several sections (I created the 'defense of Berlin' part). Also it appear some one added POV language such as 'nazi apologist' in the article.  user:Pzg Ratzinger

---

I'm concerned that it seems based on the work of Richard Landwehr, who, according to Wikipedia, is a well-known holocaust denier. I also find the prominent role identified for this regiment in the defence of Berlin somewhat dubious, and would like to see more reliable references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.250.195 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the other references, Jean Mabire, is described as "far right" and "working to rehabilitate Nazism" on the discussion page of the french article Jean Mabire. The article has NPOV and EDIT WAR tags. 70.108.220.15 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"...the German authorities remained skeptical of incorporating French soldiers and limited the unit's size significantly. In spite of this, it only succeeded in including 5,800 recruits between 1941 and its disbandment in 1944." --- I don't understand the use of "only" here. That word suggests that recruitment was less than one might expect, but that is what is implied by the first sentence. So I suggest "In spite of this, it succeeded" (if we think the number was somehow "impressive" given the first sentence), or "Because of this, it only succeeded" if we think the Germans' skepticism resulted in "unimpressive" recruitment. But I'm not sure which is right/better. STeamTraen (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

LVF had allegiance to vichy france not germany!
actualy there should be a different article for the LVF and SS. LVF, SS Brigade and SS Division are different. i agree infos are not so easy to find in english, yet there are pictures on wikicommons about the LVF. Cliché Online (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the pictures don't show, that they swore an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler. See: Herbert Tint: French foreign policy since the Second World  War. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972, ISBN 9780297994886, p. 112. --Dodo19 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * the allegiance serment i saw was on archive videos when the LVF gave allegiance to Pétain when they had to say "i swear it" with the nazi salute. Cliché Online (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * the LVF had french flags (with battle honor on it) and shoulder patch with the french flag, they were serving vichy france under german command, just like the free french served in us, british and soviet corps with allied uniforms but were not mercenaries fighting for another country. the german allegiance certainly only applies to the french ss because the ss were close to hitler, i'm not sure. don't you have online source for this (like google books)? i have videos in the french national video archive institute here. what i saw was allegiance to petain, i'm gonna give it a closer look. Cliché Online (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * btw did you noticed the eagle emblem of the LVF looks like tyhe one of napoleon's grande armée with lightning and head toward right, while the 3rd reich eagle emblem had the head toward left. the french was lookinbg toward gemrany while the german was looking toward france. Cliché Online (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure, if you are on the right page here as you seem to refer to the Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism. The Charlemagne uniform is clear: German Reichs Eagle on the left upper sleeve, below French tricolor badge, and Charlemagne cuff-titles. Thus signalling a French unit serving under German command. This indicates, that allegiance is toward Germany and France with Germany dominating. Same applies for the LVT, except that Wehrmacht personnel wore the eagle above the right breast pocket, as seen on the picture in the article, with no cuff-titles as they were reserved for elite formations. --Dodo19 (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. To get to books on Google, just click the isbn and then on google book search. You can then search the book for any word you like, e.g. alleciance.

Hitler's last defenders were French?
It is stated in the article that that it was the SS Charlemagne that was the last force to hold the Fuhrenbunker. This is extremely ironic and an interesting footnote, but i have not ever heard this stated anywhere else, is there any other second source that is easy to access. I find it interesting and would like to see more proof--99.141.194.185 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That has been removed. It is a myth cited to unreliable source author, Jean Mabire. They were not holding anything. They were some of the last troops (a mere 30 men left), in the area of where the bunker complex was underground (the area which included the ruins of the Reich Chancellery). Most French SS men then surrendered near the Potsdamer rail station to the Red Army troops. Kierzek (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is weird. The guys that surrendered were killed immediately. So, are you trying to sell information from Red Army sources as proven facts? Shall we also believe information from Red Army sources on Poland then? I doubt the reliability of that approach. 136.219.16.35 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Since only 60 French Waffen survived any still alive today?
Article states onlyb 60 of the French contigent of tne Waffen SS Charlemagne remained! Any still alive today?Libremoi (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong figures
Are you sure 19,000 men composed the Division? I hardly believe it, even if there is a reference. The French page speaks about around 7300 men in 1944 at its peak. Are you sure you not to melt the Charlemagne soldiers with the people enlisted in collaborationist parties in France? I have always heard they were too few to compose an actual division despite the name of Charlemagne Division. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.154.15.139 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone changed the number and it is wrong. I will fix it, thank you for the heads-up. Kierzek (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Active 1944-45 but involved in the Battle of Moscow in 1941?
The info box is misleading. The Charlemagne Division was formed in 1944, so it couldn't have participated in the Battle of Moscow - that was the LVF. I suggest that "as LVF" of something similar is added to the info box and/or the date is changed to 1941-45. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Jean Mabire (since removed)
Most def an author with far-right extremist views - per French wikipedia: Jean Mabire is "the specialist" of "rehabilitation of Nazism" taking the form of a presentation of the SS men as heroic and exemplary men." He's also featured prominently in MacKenzie's work I've been using on historical revisionism by form members of the Waffen-SS. See MacKenzie Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I was going to check with you about Mabire. I provisionally binned it. I had a feeling...Irondome (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of this guy, Mabire. BTW - I see the Richard W. Landwehr Jr. book on this division is now being offered by self-publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (a red flag as to use). Kierzek (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, Mabire is used as source on Führerbunker to describe the French SS motivation to stay there until May 2. IMO -- questionable. Per MacKenzie, Mabire "reproduces in large part the HIAG version of the Waffen-SS at war"; he has written "a dozen" unit histories. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will fix that (Führerbunker). Kierzek (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Motivation for joining
Hello everyone, i would like to add information of the following book which is regarded as reliable source in german, austrian, swiss, belgian and the french historian community as well as their gouvernments. The book: An example of what i think needs to be added to this article in a shortened version: Quote from the book: The Waffen-SS: A European History by Jochen Böhler (Editor), Robert Gerwarth (Editor):

''One of the most striking moments in Marcel Ophuls’s celebrated documentary film about the period of the German occupation in France during the Second World War, Le Chagrin et la pitie (1969), is certainly co-author André Harris’s interview with a representative of French military collaboration, Christian de La Mazière. Filmed at the castle of Sigmaringen, the town in Baden-Württemberg to which the Vichy government retreated in the summer of 1944, La Mazière recounts how he enlisted in the Waffen-SS during that same summer, before going on to fight the Russians in Pomerania in the spring of 1945. This interview, as Vichy specialist Henry Rousso points out in his analysis of Ophuls’s film, brought to light an aspect of the German occupation that had been conveniently forgotten during the late 1950s–1960s, when the de Gaulle government had marginalized Vichy and sought to impose the idea that France had unanimously resisted. In fact, thousands of Frenchmen had volunteered to fight on the German side during the war, and, according to Rousso, they had not acted ‘for money or out of intellectual or moral turpitude’, as the stereotype of the collaborationist has it. Instead, they had become involved out of ‘political and ideological fervor’. La Mazière’s interview, Rousso concludes, reminded the French that their country had been deeply divided during the occupation. More fundamentally, it also reminded them that World War II had not been only a ‘conflict between nations’ but a ‘bloody ideological struggle’, a struggle in which some of their fellow citizens had participated, though not always on the side regarded today as the ‘good’ one.''

The source for this listed in this book is Can this book be used as reliable source on english wikipedia as it is considered reliable in France, Germany and some other countries? Thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Would like to see K.e.coffman opinion on this as well ChartreuxCat (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this comes across as a suitable source. I would make sure that you are adding content that is stated in your own voice, not copying from the source. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with K.e.coffman; add the info. in your voice and with brevity. Also add the cites in sfn format and then adding the cited book, as well. Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Vichy specialist Henry Rousso" seems to duck on of the most important issues. Volunteers from France (as well as volunteers throughout Europe and even the Americas and Asia) had been attracted by anticommunist slogans like "Europe contre le bolshevisme" and similar stuff. Not taking this into account is weird and it ridicules any evaluation of why people were motivated to go to war voluntarily in a criminal organization. 136.219.16.35 (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the scare quotes are doing, IP. Henry Rousso is widely recognized as one of the most eminent historians of France in the Second World War... —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "c/e; npov; excessive & unneeded orbat". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 33. SS-Waffen-Grenadier-Division „Charlemagne”.svg

"Military" unit
Waffen-SS was not part of the German military. While sometimes fighting under military command, Waffen-SS unit maintained a special role in Nazi Germany standing apart from its armed forces. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit has been challenged, please discuss. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure I follow this logic. "Military" is a generic descriptive term and has no connotations of belonging to the German Army - the divergence is not unique to the Nazi German context on Wiki. I am genuinely unclear what a "security" unit actually is in a technical sense and can see that this may be an issue for other Waffen-SS formations which were formed early enough to participate in operations in German-occupied parts of the Soviet Union but this is not the case here. The sum total of the Charlemagne Division's existence was two inglorious battles with the Red Army. If there is a need for a distinct category tree, why on earth do we not have a category tree based around, eg Category:Waffen-SS units and formations established in 1944?
 * As a side-note, you know that I have the greatest respects for your editing in this subject line but I am afraid you have come very close to the WP:3RR - please follow WP:BRD.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The generic descriptive term is "combat" [unit]. Military unit has a specific meaning: https://www.britannica.com/topic/military-unit. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's simply incorrect. Military (adj) is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "Relating to or characteristic of soldiers or armed forces" (1). Plenty (most?) generic military units are not "combat units" in any case. You have not addressed my concern about what on earth security unit means, and why it is more apposite. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Waffen-SS was not part of Germany's armed forces, which consisted of the Air force, the Navy, and the Army. This is in line with the Oxford definition presented above ("relating to ... armed forces"). "Security" is a better designator, since Waffen-SS was not the "fourth branch" of the Germany military. On the part of "characteristic of soldiers" -- please see here: Talk:Waffen-SS/Archive_2, with some of my analysis. After that, the Waffen-SS article was revised to remove "Waffen-SS soldiers" from it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're both edit-warring. You need to get more editors to participate in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

ud I see good arguments for both sides. However, I find this topic ambiguous depending on the perspective taken. It is not self-explanatory without more context. The opening sentence states "Waffen-SS was not part of the German military". I would have fully agreed to this statement if it had read "Waffen-SS was not part of the Wehrmacht". But as it stands, it leaves room for individual interpretation of what constitutes "German military". During WW2, Waffen-SS units fought under the command of the Wehrmacht and vice versa, making units of the Waffen-SS part of Germany's ability to wage war, which I would have intuitively associated with the term "German military". But Waffen-SS units also played an instrumental role in oppression, war crimes and holocaust. A clear either-or delineation seems difficult or controversial. As a workaround, where applicable, I would suggest placing Waffen-SS units in both categories. Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I am still baffled by this argument. I entirely accept that the Waffen-SS was not a conventional part of the German Armed Forces in the same way that, say the ideologically-organised Special Republican Guard (Iraq) was not part of the Iraqi Army - the arrangement is not particularly unusual in totalitarian regimes. However, the Waffen-SS was clearly intended to serve a military function in the same way that the Allgemeine SS was intended to serve a paramilitary one (a term we use in the article by the way) - this is purely descriptive of the kind of role envisaged and actually played by it. In passing, I think there is also something rather absurd in saying the Waffen-SS's role was limited to "security" which has overtly defensive connotations.
 * Even if it was accepted though, please explain why you prefer Category:Security units of Nazi Germany established in 1944 to, say, Category:Waffen-SS units established in 1944? To my mind, this removes the ambiguity and meets WP:PRECISE far better. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked up in sources and indeed W-SS units established that late in the war did not have an explicit police function. Still, I think that "military units" for W-SS formations is a bit misleading, since it feeds into the myth of the purely military function of the W-SS; cf: HIAG. The better category would be "Paramilitary units & formations...". But since it's just a category, I don't object to 's change. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Division Emblem

 * why is the symbol of the 33rd SS not on the page?
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:33._SS-Waffen-Grenadier-Division_%E2%80%9ECharlemagne%E2%80%9D.svg
 * 2601:442:4600:8F20:923:D15:5733:C1CD (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you can always ask but probably because that badge was never issued and worn according to Littlejohn (no preview) also see  this discussion.  Aeengath (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * is absolutely right. There is no reason to include it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2022
@Mathglot, my recent edit to the short description was merely an attempt at standardization. Please do not ascribe any motive other than distilling the short description to a short simple format. I apologize if it offended you, that was not the intention. Unnecessarily (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)