Talk:Germanic SS

Norway SS
For the record, sources I hav eon the Norwegian Germanic-SS state that the ranks were not capitlized. Ths SS prefix was considered to be the start of the word. Probably something to do with the Norwegian language but since I dont speak it, I dont know (I'm going by the textbooks). So, the Norway SS ranks are not typos. They are supposed to be lower case, as far as I know. -Husnock 13:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Swedish SS
While not wanting to change this for the moment I believe that the extra attention giving to swedish volunteers in the SS is a little strange. Having read in several places that only approximatly 180 swedes fought with the germans compared to far more Norwegians or Danes. I think this should be looked into and possibly changed, as at present it paints sweden being very pro nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.208.251 (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the literature that I have read suggests that a Germanic SS organisation was ever actually created in Sweden — even if one may have been planned at some point. —Zalktis (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen in Title
Why is the title hyphenated? Shouldn't it be Germanic SS? --Jan Onbekend (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard way the Germans did it: Allgemeine-SS, Waffen-SS, Germanic-SS, Reichfuhrer-SS. There are numerous historical primary source documents that also back this up. -OberRanks (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that so? Because it doesn't make sense to me. The article on Allgemeine SS doesn't use a hyphen as Allgemeine is an adjective, isn't it? And the same would apply to Germanic, as it is not a conjunction as in Waffen-SS, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe you could point out some of those sources to me. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We had this discussion some time ago at the article at Talk:Reichsführer-SS and posted several scans of original SS documents. The original source documents clearly showed the hyphen in all of the titles.  The transliteration is also indicated in primary SS textbooks by Mark Yerger and others.  Not sure why Allgemeine article doesn't have the hyphen.  Seems a very minor issue. -OberRanks (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you got me confused. In Reichsführer-SS the hyphen is clearly joining two nouns. But in Germanic SS it would join an adjective and a noun. That can't be right. It certainly isn't in German. I would really like to see those scans, but can't find them. Any chance, they are online somewhere? --Jan Onbekend (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

On corresponding Wikipedia articles, Waffen-SS is hyphenated, Allgemeine SS is not. Probably should start a discussion somewhere at one of the noticeboards to get consensus. I'm fairly sure also you should be able to find some SS documents scanned on line. -OberRanks (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which, as is observed above, reflects German usage. Whether English does reflect German usage is another question; but that it departs from it to always hyphenate seems unlikely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

image caption
Dutch Allgemeine-SS officers in The Hague in June 1940.

According to the caption the picture shows members of the Nederlandsche SS. Alas, the picture was taken before the Dutch SS was formed. In addition to this, the person in the center is identified as Friedrich Wimmer, General Commissioner of the occupied Netherlands, he's Austrian by birth and German by nationality in 1940. The SS-officers around him show the SD-rhombus, so they are unlikely to be Dutch. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC) BTW: The year of formation in the box should be 1940, not 1939.

Hyphen or no hyphen

 * ''The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

This article uses a hyphen in the title, Allgemeine SS doesn't. My gut feeling is, there shouldn't be one, but some authors use it. Which version is the correct one? --Jan Onbekend (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there's a naming convention for this somewhere. What is strange about all of this is that Waffen-SS is listed both on Wikipedia and in historical documents as always hyphenated - Allgemeine SS isn't.  What to do? -OberRanks (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In German there is no need for a hyphen between Allgemeine and SS, as Allgemeine just means general/common and distinguishes a certain branch of the SS. In Waffen-SS the Waffen is like gun in gunboat, but since SS is an abbreviation, it is hyphenated. (In theory it could be Waffenschutzstaffel or something along these lines. Germanic would be treated the same as Allgemeine. So, even if we agree on changing this article's title, it would not affect the article on Waffen-SS or Reichsführer-SS for that matter. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Some historians (and places) do hyphen Allgemeine-SS. For example, the title of Robin Lumsden's book: "A Collector's Guide to: The Allgemeine-SS". Chris McNab also does in his book on "The SS", when it is discussed therein. Kierzek (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should respect common usage, and the way that sources portray the name. Consistency with a different article should not overrule that. bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bobrayner. If most reliable sources use a hyphen, then the article name here should use one, too. This is from WP:NAME and regardless of how other articles are named. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly it should be used here, I agree, as well. With a hyphen is how the authors and historians commonly list it in English. Kierzek (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That raises the question about the "most reliable source". I came across the reprint of the U.S. (dots or no dots here?) War departments Handbook on German Military Forces, which does not make use of a hyphen neither with Allgemeine nor with Germanische SS - but does so with the Waffen-SS. George H. Stein equally does not use it. In Germany and the Second World War, vol. V doesn't either. I have not heard about the other authors/historians. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The ultimate authority would be an original German document from the era, using the term Germanische-SS. If documents were found with the hyphen, then there would be no doubt.  Records of the Germanic-SS are actually incredibly rare, however, - those who they pertained to burned everything in 1945 to prevent being labeled as traitors by their home countries.  A complete intact Germanic-SS uniform is likewise priceless - I saw one auctioned once for close to $9,000 - and a Corporal's tunic at that! (Danish Germanic-SS Corporal - used in Jewish arrests circa 1944) -OberRanks (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I found this photo of the cover page of "De SS-Man", the newspaper of the Germaansche SS in Vlaandereren - and this  of the Dutch weekly "Storm SS" on the web. No hyphens anywhere. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that's not in German. I was referring to German documents of the SS.  In any event, consensus seems to be with leaving the hyphen in place, at least for now -OberRanks (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You will hardly find a source in German using a hyphen, so this argument is futile. So basically you are telling me, you don't have any sources, but that the page cannot be moved because you do not want it to be moved. Great. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not moving the page right now because you requested opinions from other editors - you had four editors respond - and everyone who responded agreed to keep the page here. Not sure what you mean about the sources - we just need to do some research and try and find an original German document which references this agency. -OberRanks (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a simple statement - all I got was staling. Meanwhile I have done some research and found that a few popular books use the hyphenated version, while most academic publications don't (e.g. the War Department, Stein, Germany and the Second World War, IMT). Which shall it be then? Apart from you and Kierzek, the other two statements support any version that can be supported by sources. I can't rule out that there is a document somewhere in a far far away archive which shows a hyphen, but in general, as I pointed out above, in German it is rarely used for such purposes - because it doesn't make any sense. So, if you know of a German source that uses the hyphenated version, please post it here. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Recommend at this stage starting a broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles on the hyphenation of Nazi paramilitary titles. This would cover not only this article, but all Nazi articles on Wikipedia dealing with paramilitary groups and titles. I can probably get around to it in the week or so, unless someone wants to start the conversation now. -OberRanks (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved topic to Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles. Archiving this discussion so as we dont have mutlple threads on more than one page. -OberRanks (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Archived, discussion moved here for broader discussion. -OberRanks (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Germanic-SS → Germanic SS – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No consensus was reached, either here, NOR under the recent discussion on WP:MOS. Impasse has occurred. Kierzek (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The common name of the organization seems to be Germanic SS rather than Germanic-SS. Cf. TM-E 30-451 Handbook on German Military Forces ; Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 4. TWENTY-THIRD DAY, Wednesday, 19 December 1945, Morning Session p.171 (see also ); George H. Stein, The Waffen-SS, p.148 ; ''Germany and the Second World War: Organization and mobilization of the German sphere of power. Wartime administration, economy, and manpower resources 1942-1944/5, Bernhard R. Kroener, Rolf-Dieter Müller, Hans Umbreit (eds.); translated by Derry Cook-Radmore ... [et al.] ; vol. V,Part 1 Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt/Oxford University Press, 2003, ISBN 0198208731, p.122 ; E. K. Bramstedt: Dictatorship and political police: the technique of control by fear, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0415175429, p. 93 ; Christopher Ailsby: Hitler's renegades: foreign nationals in the service of the Third Reich'', Spellmount, 2004, pp.39,72. However, some editors consider Robin Lumsden, and Chris McNab more authorative. NB: Hugh Page Taylor: Uniforms of the SS, Vol 2: Germanische-SS 1940-1945, Windrow & Greene, 1991, ISBN 1872004954 uses the hyphenated version on the cover, but the non-hyphenated version throughout the text. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the links above don't appear to work correctly, at least on my browser, or they don't link to pages or documents displaying the term "Germanic-SS". What would be prefered would be a direct link to a document or book term actually showing the term.  I inserted one below. -OberRanks (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE: There is currently a much broader discussion (see above) at the WP:MOS regarding the hyphenation of Nazi Germany organizational titles. The previous discussion above also had four editors weighing in that the majority of mainstream sources list this organization as "Germanic-SS".  A move at this time would only add to the growing problem of redirecting and constantly moving Nazi Germany groups which has been prevelent for years.  Strongly recommend leaving this article where it is until a firm decision can arise with regards to hyphens in Nazi paramilitary titles. -OberRanks (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There appears to be no consensus as of this point. Even the discussion at WP:MOS didnt really reach a firm conclusion. -OberRanks (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT on the whole, unless these massive numbers of English sources which hyphenate actually turn up. The question whether to retain a German hyphen is close, although I note that Shirer generally doesn't; but I see no benefit to the reader in introducing an artificial hyphen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I draw the attention to these source:, , (Item #4); the first one is also considered one of the leading reference books on the Germanic-SS in current circulation.  The main issue here is what is the predominant English spelling usage - in all such cases, the hyphen appears to be present. -OberRanks (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The first link in the above post is to Taylor's book mentioned above. The second is a reference to a book using Wikipedia content (hardly reliable), the last one refers to Lumsden, also mentioned above. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - WP:TITLE is the policy that governs this. It says to follow whatever usage is most commonly found English language sources.  That means we have to determine whether the hyphenated or the non-hyphenated version is significantly more common than the other.  It's not enough to look through the five or six books we happen to have on our shelves (where sources a, b, and c may hyphenate, but sources e, f, and g may not).  We need a broad sampling, to get a big-picture idea of usage in English language sources, over-all. (has anyone done a simple Google/Google books search to get an idea of raw hit-numbers for each?)
 * Now, it may be that neither usage is significantly more common than the other ... in which case this comes down to consensus. To help us form that consensus, we can look to things like the MOS (and other policies and guidelines) as tie breakers. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Google doesn't differentiate between the two versions . So I would suggest we go by the version used in academic publications rather than popular literature. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE until WP:MOS done. This is English Wikipedia and how it is refered to by the majority of english sources should be used. For verifiability reasons, English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources to non-English ones (unless we are talking original docs). With a hyphen is how it has been listed for the most part over the years. I will agree that there are examples given showing that different sources list it either one way or even both ways, at times. BTW-"Handbook on German Military Forces" was put out during World War II by the US Gov., I read it years ago; it has errors in it and can't be consider as authoritative. With that said, the burden is on the one who wants to change it; consensus has NOT occurred thus far. I believe the matter should be allowed to go through WP:MOS regarding the hyphenation of Nazi Germany organizational titles first. Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Footnote: This started with "Germanic-SS" but does have an impact on several others. In that vain, I add to be noted another book; this by authoritative historian, Mark C. Yerger. "Allgemeine-SS: The Commands, Units and Leaders of the General SS". As one will note he uses a hyphen. Kierzek (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Yerger can hardly be considered "authoritative", cf. Jürgen Förster, Die Wehrmacht im NS-staat: Eine strukturgeschichtliche Analyse, p. 90, Fn 76 who considers Y. completely insufficient and apologetic. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another author's opinion of Yerger is completely irrelevant. Mark Yerger has published peer-reviewed texts on the SS and is recognized by the U.S. National Archives and the Holocaust Memorial Museum as one of the more well respected SS historians in the business.  I work for NARA and met Yerger several years ago - he is, without a doubt, a legitimate historian. -OberRanks (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that explains everything. OAO --Jan Onbekend (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note The normal German form is Germanische SS], (not always capitalized, but we capitalize by default) even in compounds (germanische SS-Freiwillinge); using a hyphen is not natural English syntax, except by doubtful analogy with Waffen-SS (which is the German form for that word). If neither language supports it, why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edit
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: unsourced WP:OR; WP:NOTMANUAL; c/e for concision & npov; c/e lead for notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)