Talk:Female guards in Nazi concentration camps

First sentence under "Recruitment"
The first sentence under "Recruitment" says "Female guards were generally low class to middle class[1] and had no work experience; their professional background varied: one source mentions former matrons, hairdressers, street car ticket takers, opera singers, or retired teachers."

I am not sure how people who had been matrons, hairdressers, retired teachers and so on can be said to have had "no work experience". Unless someone objects, I shall remove the mention of "no work experience" or else change it to something like "some had no work experience, but others had been been matrons, hairdressers...".

Also, it would be interesting to know what the source is ("one source mentions..."). Opera singers seems an odd inclusion, partly because it seems unlikely and partly because the number of opera singers is small anyway, so why are they being talked about specifically in this context? Ondewelle (talk), 30 September 2010


 * Whatever the source might say, I find "opera singers" totally implausible, and "popular singers" almost as much so. For example, the Viennese Singing Sisters disbanded after the Anschluss and several members fled the country because they were either Jewish or were married to Jews. That wasn't uncommon in the music business. "Cafe singers" might be possible, I suppose. Definitely a case for better source.
 * A Google search for "KZ sängerin" yielded some hits about inmates but none about guards. Narky Blert (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Needs paragraphs
This has a lot of information, but it should be broken down into paragraphs. Someone with good literary skills should consider rewriting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.192.113 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 February 2004

Sources, sources, sources
I am getting increasingly uneasy about this article (and several related ones). It's badly written, and we are all good enough editors to quickly change that, but before we do that we need to be able to confirm the (monstrous) accusations in these articles. Don't get me wrong: it may be all true, and the individual women that are named on this page may all indeed have been female prison guards. But we need sources for that kind of information. Thore 12:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Edit to add: I mean, look at the second paragraph. The women generally were ..., opera singers, ...? What kind of statement is that? Thore 12:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, the article is originally by a user with a very peculiar fixation in articles. It may be innocent, and there might not be a problem, but it seems like it'd be a good idea to attempt to find some external sources for the article. I'm going to, time permitting, check out some historical documents in some local libraries next week to see if I can confirm some of this stuff. If any of the other contributors here could do the same, that'd be great. --Improv 16:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Female guards in Nazi concentration camps is particularly lacking. I've tagged it as such. The Dissident Aggressor 13:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten parts

 * I have rewritten the intro paragraph to the article because as it was, it had poor grammar/style. Anon IPs, how can I work with you to come to a version you'll be satisfied with too? --Improv 15:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of the passages that seem to me to need rewriting are alleged to be quotations. For example: "The women were seperated and brought before the inmates. The woman was then told to hit her [a prisoner]. Of the fifty women, only three asked the reason why they had to hit the inmate; only three asked the reason why, and only one refused, which caused her to be put in jail herself."  The anon's latest edit added the repetition of "only three asked the reason why".  Did the original repeat the phrase for emphasis, or is this a mistake?  Did the original include the misspelling of "separated"?  Did the original switch from the plural, in the first sentence, to the singular, in the second, and if so, who is the singular "woman" being referred to? JamesMLane 22:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the entire article needs a heavy-handed rewrite. The current form isn't even close to encyclopaedic, or NPOV. Since the article itself has potential, I am quite tempted to give it a try, but I would prefer to involve the main (anonymous) contributors in that effort. Improv has tried to edit some sections, but the anonymous contributors keep reverting it. Maybe I am mistaken, but there seems to be little inclination from the main contributors to change the form towards a NPOV. The current form seems to be closer to an opinionated essay. While that form may be suitable to the subject at hand, it cannot work for Wikipedia (a link from this article to such an essay would be just fine, of course). --- Would it help to put an NPOV tag on the article's front page in order to call the attention of the main contributors to this talk page, so that this would be more of an collaborative effort? The SOURCES tag that Improv put up quickly improved the article a lot, and I have hopes that an NPOV tag would do the same. Or would that be seen as too antagonistic, and hence have the opposite effect of what I intend? Thore 09:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the multiple issues I raised about a single quotation are just a drop in the bucket, in terms of the intensive rewriting needed throughout the article. Slapping on an NPOV tag is "antagonistic" only when, as is too often the case, there's no explanation on the talk page.  You should elaborate on your concerns here before adding the tag.  Anyone who gets upset at a good-faith dispute of that type isn't cut out for Wikipedia anyway. JamesMLane 06:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not concerned that a reasonable person could see your writing as antagonistic; your question shows that you can write good and balanced prose. I will keep an eye on this article and fight any unreasonable edits of your contributions. Sebastian 04:49, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Reorganised -- please comment
As you can see, I have moved quite a few of the paragraphs around, so that some structure in the article may become apparent. I am still not sure what the original contributors want to say with each and every passage, so I haven't refactored individual paragraphs (much). In any case, the current structure is far from perfect, especially it lacks a section containing the first three subsections. Suggestions are welcome.

I also started to edit the huge mess that are the references. Thanks to the original authors, these were provided very quickly once the Unreferenced tag came up, and the article improved a lot. But I simply cannot use the references (in the current Notes section) to find the works in question. What is the reference called (1) and (2)? In any case, the article needs to follow the style given in Cite sources. I made a brave attempt to follow this guidelines, but abandoned it because I simply don't understand what (1) and (2) actually are pointing to. I am sure the anonymous contributors can clean this up very quickly, and then removed the Unreferenced tag again. Thore 13:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your effort - this is certainly an improvement. Re the unverified references: Maybe it would help to write your concern before the list, so normal readers can see it, too. In that case, it might be best to change the pure number to an intrapage link. Sebastian 17:00, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Operation Rewriter
Ok, this article is in a horrible state. I cleaned up what I could see at a glance, but there's shitloads, if you'll excuse my French, that requires looking after. Seriously, this Brown character is not just apparently, but obviously so biased quoting him as a source would be like quoting GW Bush on terrorism as a NPOV. I removed the countless references to his more or less shady book - a Google on his full name gets less hits than my name, for crying out loud - from the article text. I removed a ton of unverifiable citations. I removed quite a bit of outright tragic English grammar and spelling. I removed certain quotes that were presented as facts, but come on "The vicious and evil -person-...". I removed irrelevant information. I removed some completely unnessecary info, like curent residence etc. I removed quite a lot, really, and I'd very much like someone else to help me, because this is not a small article, but DAMN, it needs a cleanup! And this Brown book which is quoted everywhere in the text, I have absolutely no faith in it being a factual book researched in any way. Someone that's not Dan Brown should look into it. --TVPR 01:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SS Membership
According to Guido Knopp's book 'The SS', there were more than "3000 women accepted into the SS between 1942 and 1945, and as required by their Reichsfuhrer, trained to be a 'genuinely dedicated female corps of the SS'". This implies that women were fully accepted into the SS and were indeed "true" members, contrary to the article. Can anyone shed some light on to which claim is true? 117th


 * Having just dug around a bit, it seems that camp guards were SS-Gefolge, i.e. civilian employees; I'm not sure if that's literally all women concentration camp guards but certainly most of them. They were not SS-Helferinnenkorps, a part of the Waffen SS who were actual legit SS members.  I'm unclear if the word Helferin[nen] covers both or strictly applies to the latter; if not, it's probably the source of the confusion and as such should perhaps be avoided in the article.  It's not helped in that, according to the German Wikipedia, SS-Helferinnenkorps members were often mistakenly assumed during denazification to be SS-Gefolge or Wehrmacht auxiliaries, whether by accident or deliberate intent (I understand this PoV was pushed to avoid stiffer penalties, and it seems there's also been a degree of revisionism that downplays the role of women in Nazi Germany) which doesn't help matters much.
 * I'm also unclear about the rank structure mentioned in this article as it doesn't seem to correspond with that described elsewhere for SS-Gefolge (which has just four ranks with different terminology IIRC). I presume it probably refers to the SS-Helferinnenkorps but "probably" isn't good enough for me to remove it.  Edit: having checked, it's obviously specific to concentration camps so probably isn't a list of Helferinnenkorps ranks but even limited to camp guards there still seems to be some inconsistency.
 * I suspect there's probably quite a bit that needs to be cleaned up, but definite information seems a little scant, annoyingly. --Vometia (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

more info
Can you make new pages? Thank you.

transl. by Google From, Deutsche Wikipedia Günther Tamaschke (* 26. Februar 1896 in Berlin; † 14. Oktober 1959) SS-Standartenführer (1935) Camp director of KZ Lichtenburg and of KZ Ravensbrück. Tamaschke, who had his last residence in Uhingen after the war, died in 1959.

74.239.209.92 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

spelling
Ravensbrueck, relevant info.

There between 500 and 1,000 women camp personnel were held while the US Army investigated their crimes and camp service. The majority of them were released because male SS were the top priority.

SS-gefolge (females SS) Anna Fest, acq and released. born 1920

Lieschen (Liesl), Anna Luise Rech was born in Oranienburg, Germany on January 10, 1923. In 1940 she married and received the name Lieschen Laskowski. In 1944 Lieschen was conscripted and sent to the Flossenburg concentration camp to be trained as a camp guard. Eventually the overseer served in various camps; Mittweida, Oranienburg Auer III, Ravensbruck, Gelsenkirchen, Buchenwald, and last in the Buchenwald subcamp at Benefeld, Germany. In April 1945 she fled the camp and was never apprehended. Lieschen has never been tried by any Allied Armies for war crimes.

Christine Holthöwer. acq due to 'lack of evidence.' aufseherrin. Chief warden of Siemens. Anna Friederike Mathilde Klein -Plaubel, Oberaufseherrin, Acquittal due to lack of evidence

The position of Oberaufseherin was the highest function in a women concentration camp, which a woman could reach as a guard in the SS retinue.

Hedwig Ullrich, belzec

Correct spelling is : Maria Mandl, not Mandel.

74.239.209.92 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Shocking
I assume that this article is well-researched but, frankly, I am shocked that more of these female concentration camp guards faced no punishment for their cruelty. I know it was during a war but when you read survivors' accounts, it sounds like many guards actually unnecessarily brutally. When I read over the accounts of those few who were executed, it seems pretty random, which ones were prosecuted and which ones were not even tried. How were they reintegrated into German society after all of thousands of deaths they were involved in? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Today" is irrelevant
The use of "today" in the headings is really poor form. I think the attempt is to distinguish near-term post-war trials from later ones. A better solution should be found. The Dissident Aggressor 13:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Gefolge vs. Helferinnenkorps
In its current version, there is a lot of confusion on the issue of SS-Gefolge vs. SS-Helferinnenkorps. For comparison, see German articles de:SS-Gefolge vs. de:SS-Helferinnenkorps. Most (if not all) female guards in concentration camps were members of the SS-Gefolge and therefor not members of the SS. Only SS-Helferinnen were full SS members, however, I don't know of a single SS-Helferin who was a guard (but that doesn't mean there wasn't one I'm not aware of). The problem of the article is, that it talks about guards, but cites literature on Helferinnen (compare notes #4 & #5). Note #6 is offline and also doesn't look as if it ever was a reliable source in the first place. The claim that there were female members of Totenkopf units seems to be originated in note #6 and is absolutely absurd – no women were ever member of a Totenkopf unit! Again, SS-Helferin was the closest a woman could get to being a member of the Waffen-SS. I doubt even the claim of female members of the Allgemeine SS … I only have some insight of German literature, so please provide English language research for this article. Thanks a lot! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.53.92 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen a number of photos of women wearing SS uniforms featuring death-head insignia on the caps. By which I mean regular Waffen SS uniforms rather than the type seen in e.g. the Höcker Album with the oval SS pins; these were the military grey Waffen SS uniforms (male pattern with the buttons on the right) with gorget SS insignia and rank.  AFAICT the photos aren't staged and definitely aren't a case "wearing their boyfriend's uniform" as I saw someone assert (this did happen sometimes, probably involving alcohol, but these weren't examples of it) though I have absolutely no idea if they had anything to do with the camps unless the death head badge is a dead cert.  In at least one photo, one of the women is armed, which may or may not be relevant given that Irma Grese insisted during her trial that camp guards "never" carried firearms; though that claim strikes me as probably being nonsense anyway.  Talking of Grese, there're some photos of someone who appears to be her wearing the Höcker Album-style uniform with the oval SS pin-on badge; I don't know if that was ever a thing with the SS-Gefolge (later uniforms were without insignia but I'm not sure if that was always the case) or just mistaken identity. --Vometia (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I realise I also really need to seriously update my knowledge on uniforms and insignia: having checked, I think the death's head insignia on caps was a common theme in the SS and not at all exclusive to Totenkopfbande (unless worn as a gorget badge) as I'd mistakenly presumed in my bleary-eyed state. I should probably get a book on the subject, it's sometimes easier to flick through something I can pick up while leaving a dog-eared mess of Post-Its in my wake than erratically going round in circles on websites! --Vometia (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Popular Culture
In order to avoid the distasteful possibility of trivialising the suffering of millions, by including references to film treatments of the article subject, even including soft porn references, might I suggest creating a separate page for pop culture references? Although, it promises to have an unweildy title, along the lines of Female guards in Nazi concentration camps in popular culture

Nuttyskin (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Rename
Hello all- I have moved this article to what I think is a title more in line with current Wikipedia practice. For reference, I am pasting a discussion from 2005 below. It was deleted instead of archived. (diff url of 2005 discussion).

I think everyone will agree that Aufseherin is a much more likely search term than Female guards in Nazi concentration camps. Eric talk 16:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's consensus to not move the title. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Aufseherin (Nazi concentration camp guard) → Aufseherin – On 27 February 2020 User:Eric moved this article from without discussion and left a note. If consensus is that "Aufseherin" is good, we can move the article over its redirect at. If not, we should revert it to its old title of fifteen years. 94.21.253.28 (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * (nom) we don't need this long and unnecessary disambiguating phrase acting as a translation. Long as it is, it omits "female".
 * The term "aufseherin" does not seem common in English: my basic Gsearch results all lead back to EN:WP and my Gbooks search gives only one unqualified use here. There are other uses qualified as or  but that doesn't make "aufseherin" alone the common name. 94.21.253.28 (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose the suggested move. The German word Aufseherin is a common term with multiple meanings. Because of the special nature of the subject, and as I know of no equivalent English term that conveys "female Nazi concentration camp overseer", I thought it best that the title contain the German term, with disambiguation to indicate its specific use in the context of WWII concentration camps. The title I chose was the most concise one I could come up with that suited the article topic. There might be a better formulation, but it is certainly not the long, drawn-out former title. As for a title consisting merely of the standalone Aufseherin, that would have to be in the form of a foreign language dictionary definition spelling out all the possible translations of the word, which is not what this project is about. Eric talk 03:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reverted Eric's undiscussed move because the long-term status quo is what the title should remain at should this discussion end in "no consensus", and also because it breaks disambiguation conventions. You cannot put a parenthetical disambiguator explaining what "Aufseherin" is if there are no other topics on the English Wikipedia with that title to disambiguate it from. So our two policy-compliant choices are Female guards in Nazi concentration camps and Aufseherin, of which I don't have a particularly strong opinion. (Unless someone creates an article on some other "Aufseherin" and makes the case for a disambiguation page to live at the base title.) -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , it might have been better to allow more than 44 minutes for discussion. Though I'm not familiar with what disambiguation is "permitted" in a title, I am fairly sure you have not improved the encyclopedia with your summary action. Eric talk 03:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the merits of your move, all controversial move requests must start from their stable title, so that they can remain there if there is no consensus. IPs can't move pages of course, but the proper way to start this RM would have been for someone to revert your move per WP:BRD and then you starting the RM yourself. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I take your point. I didn't see the move as controversial when I made it, maybe in part because my first inclination was to nominate it for deletion. I think this kind of article can take us down a logical rabbit hole of asking why we don't have separate prison camp guard articles differentiated by conflict and gender going back through history. I think at best this article should be merged into the one on Nazi camp guards (current name SS-Totenkopfverbände, by the way). But in a spasm of collegial generosity I decided to rename it to something less ungainly and less embarrassing to the project, not thinking it would be controversial. My rationale was more along the lines of Hey guys, we'd better erase the blackboard quick before the teacher gets back to the classroom.
 * My general tendency here on en.wp is to stick to English as much as possible, but as I mention above, in a context where we keep this as a standalone article -- which I believe we should not -- I thought the term special enough that it would be best retained in German with an explanatory disambiguation. But I now see that is not the accepted approach. All that blather to say that I think we should merge this material to the above-mentioned general one on SS camp guards, and then of course examine the title of that article. Eric talk 13:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course no one knows for sure if a move is going to be controversial - that's why BRD exists . Either no one objects and it sticks, or someone objects and we have a proper RM. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not just IPs: Most registered editors can't move over redirects with history, which I believe this had (as an R from move). I could have put in a technical request to revert an undiscussed page move ("the proper way"), but it's not important whether I or User:Eric started the RM. 94.21.253.28 (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH. "Aufseherin" is a German word that is not used in English, therefore an English translation is the best alternative for the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rreagan007. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the article itself states, and as seems to be used elsewhere, SS-Helferin seems to be the more-general title for female "helpers" of the SS (regardless of their "rank"). 94.21.253.28 (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose (keep at Female guards in Nazi concentration camps)—in most cases, we should use the English name. buidhe 00:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Gestapo is used in English. Aufseherin is rarely used in English without a preceding explanation.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename redux
While I understand the arguments for not using Aufseherin, the article title as it is at present is incredibly difficult to remember (at least I'm finding it so) because it's so long and woolly. I think it still needs to be improved in that it should be shorter and a lot more obvious. Something like "Nazi women guards" would be an improvement; not that I'm suggesting that precise wording but IMHO it should be that sort of length and start with the most relevant terminology.

Also to revisit the WP:USEENGLISH thing, we don't do that for e.g. the Waffen SS so why would this be different? Though as SS-Gefolge is now a thing, perhaps the articles should be merged, ideally with SS-Hilferinnen as a new article to try to resolve some of the ongoing confusion (though that may also require a Wehrmachshilferinnen article too as they weren't really counterparts AFAIK; but I'm now getting off the point).

TL;DR: needs shorter title. Should probably start with Nazi or SS. --Vometia (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Good points. As I stated in the above move discussion, I do not think this should be a standalone article. I think the title is silly; seeing it made me wonder if someone came across the term Aufseherin, discovered that German nouns for occupations usually differentiate between male and female, and was inspired to create the article, without considering that we do not have sexually dimorphic articles for every conceivable human profession or occupation. Again, as I stated above, I think this article should be merged into SS-Totenkopfverbände. Eric talk 18:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It would certainly make it easier to find. My only concern with doing so is that it could get whittled away to almost nothing as a result and we may end up with a similar situation to the SS-Hilferinnenkorps section of the relevant SS page which is a few short paragraphs that convey very little useful information.  I guess my interest in this is because there's been a problem with minimising women's roles or airbrushing them out completely, particularly in the military and it seems most of all with regard to Nazi Germany, but OTOH I see your point about separate articles purely on the basis of being women is a less than ideal approach.  argh, etc. --Vometia (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I support merging the gefolge and all other related female SS group articles into one and within that article we could specify which parent SS organization they were apart of (waffen, Totenkopfverbände, Allgemeine, etc.) and give more color on exactly how each organization differed in their hierarchies and general treatment. ShaveKongo (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's a really good idea. It would make it a lot easier to ensure that whatever information can be found is associated with the right group because there's so much confusion and lack of clarity, especially with different articles and sources often (albeit with the best intentions) misattributing stuff, contradicting each other and having often different versions of the same information.  Plus the risk that editing stuff makes it so easy to go out of sync when it's in multiple locations: I have enough problems with that even when I'm the only person working on something!
 * As much as I see Eric's point about rolling stuff into the main article in question, there's so much misinformation about women's involvement that I think your approach would be perhaps the most beneficial way to address that. --Vometia (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)