Talk:Ideology of the SS/Archive 1

Name
The consensus was reached to call this "Ideology of the SS". see [talk]. Rjensen (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rjensen is correct. It was decided a new article should be created from the main article on the SS; further the title "Ideology of the SS" was proposed for it, with no objection. Kierzek (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

20 May 2015
Very interesting article. The article about the overall SS might be too big a mouthful for me, but I will do my best to expand this article to GA-status tomorrow. Stay tuned! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My GA-improvement is done. Going to nominate it for GA-status. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict
I believe this edit belongs in the article because it's a Christian image added to a section which discusses religion in the SS. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the life me I cannot see a connection between the Delivery of the Keys (Perugino) and the subject of this article. Yup...'tis a christian image....and? It adds nothing. Juan Riley (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the image is not related for the point to be illustrated. Kierzek (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not so much the content of the specific image, just that it's a Christian image. Remember 99% of Nazi Germany's population was Christian. However, I've replaced the current image with a picture of a church, but kept the caption. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The picture still is a distraction. Why not have a picture of Himmler, the head ideologist whose policies towards religion are discussed in the section? Dame Etna (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dame Etna, Himmler's photo would be a good choice; an earlier one from the 1930s. Kierzek (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Juan Riley (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC) (Crossing my fingers and hoping we don't next get a picture of Ignatius Loyola.) Juan Riley (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is obscene and sacrilegious to suggest that the SS was just like the early Christians by using this ridiculous out of place painting. A medieval Italian church is just as bad. Why not show a photograph of what the SS did to synagogues in Germany? Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear...
At absolutely no point do I regard The History Channel as a neutral, reliable source for the SS—or anything associated with history for that matter—I'm only using this particular source because The History Channel, despite it's mumbo jumbo historical content and novel-like narrating, contain lost of useful interviews with German SS veterans. In this case, it's the cat quote from Wolfgang Held I'm referring to. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolling up my sleeves...
I'm happy to help out with getting this very interesting article to GA. I'm gathering up some articles and books right now, and I'll try to make some helpful contributions. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds GREAT buddy! I agree, it's a super interesting subject. As you know i'm om vacation at the moment, but i also intend to do some last edits before the GA review. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you think it's worth putting in a paragraph on the SS attitude towards homosexuality? I can certainly do that (I just added the sources for it, but am not sure where to put the information.) I will also add information on the Nazi attitude towards Darwinism, if you like. GAB (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember this is "Ideology of the SS", so keep it tailored to that aspect. Kierzek (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Obenritter has already added a list inside "Ideological enforcement" subsection about the SS's attitude towards a number of defined groups of people, including the homosexuals (which presumably also incorporate the overall LGBT community). I don't think a whole section, rather than simply expanding the part Obenritter added, is appropriate. I also agree with Kierzek, it should related to SS ideology specifically, not the Nazi Party or any affiliated organizations. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 10:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was planning on expanding that bit, except I thought it might look awkward for one entry to have significantly more information. GAB (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but how much longer are we talking? If it's only a few sentences, we could perhaps expand all together? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Only a few sentences. GAB (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I say be bold and add it, but of course keep as short as possible. If it looks too stupid with the length, I'm sure other editors will come up with a proposed wording or alternative solutions. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gents - this article felt a little incomplete without mention of the SS-Einsatzgruppen, particularly given their role in the ideological design and implementation of genocide as an organ of the SS. Therefore I added a short blurb which Kierzek astutely edited for that purpose. This article is actually starting to really come together nicely and is probably about ready for GA nomination - a process you as a group are more familiar with than me and one I am sure Jonas will erfolgreich durchkriegen. My intention is to add solid academic content to articles and/or recognized and respected sources in the subject arena. Kierzek carefully follows behind my work for ce that is concise and on task given my penchant (as an academic) to take things too deep from a granularity perspective. In this case, his commendable and sustained efforts remind me that this is an encyclopedic work and not an academic journal or a book - which is all I have ever written for until my appearance here on Wiki - but I am learning to appreciate it more and more as time goes on. Jonas and GAB - your efforts are certainly praiseworthy on this article and it has been a pleasure working with you.--Obenritter (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, even though I've done next to nothing on the page. GAB (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Every bit is contributing, no matter how small.--Obenritter (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Danke schön, Obenritter, Sie verdient auch Lob. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments
This is an interesting and well-researched article. My chief concern however is that it leads the average reader to consider the SS as a monolithic organization, and all SS members motivated by the entire set of values/ideology mentioned here. That is patently not true, as the SS was very much an amalgam of disparate elements. The pre-1933 alte Kämpfer could indeed be said to exemplify the Freikorps spirit and the "violence for violence's sake" mentality; the host of ambitious technocrats, aristocrats, etc. who joined after 1933 however were rather apolitical and dispassionate about Himmler's pet crazes (Eichmann is I think the poster-boy for this group); the Waffen-SS then were a different entity altogether with a different esprit de corps, and the Totenkopf and Einsatzgruppen units another different category with different mentalities (and social origin, unsurprisingly). The various SS departments like the Ahnenerbe or the Lebensborn, or the SD service, also were very much unlike the Waffen-SS or the "average" Allgemeine-SS man. IIRC (it has been a long time since I read it), Höhne makes some of these issues quite clear, it would be useful to include them here. Constantine  ✍  18:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point. Also, I've seen dozens of interviews with Waffen-SS veterans who claim they were simply common soldiers doing their duty (click here and fast-forward to minute 2:00 for some of those interviews). I think we could solve this issue by stating that a large number of SS men came from Freikorps groups or had been former Brownshirts, where discipline and ideology were much less formal. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm about to get started with a bit on the Waffen-SS and their multinational recruitment. We have a paragraph on Einsatzgruppen that could do with expanding, and Totenkopf would be a good edition. I don't have too much on the SD, though. GABHello! 23:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While it is understandable that one could construe that the SS was monolithic from this article, its purpose is not to define the SS in all its agonizing detail as that would be something suited for the main Schutzstaffel page which is quite weak in my professional opinion. This article is supposed to be about the ideological construct that formed the SS ethos. What is most important in this article is the general obsession with racial hygiene, Lebensraum, and the general enemies of the SS - along with their general creed and belief in their cause. What Cplakidas is suggesting is not without merit and he makes a great point; however, those nuances and agonizing details belong in the main SS page. The goal of this article is to give the general reader a basic understanding of the ideas that drove the SS, their esprit de corps, unquestioning obedience, Himmler's notions of discipline, hardness, and violence. Compartmentalizing the various units and any and every dissenting idea or variations within the myriad branches and subordinated units will likely just confuse the average reader. We could really reduce this down to just the basics of "Blut und Boden which amounts to racial hygiene and Lebensraum but that amounts to an oversimplification.--Obenritter (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly this article is not the place for a discussion of the intricacies of SS structure; but at least some attempt should be made at explaining the main point of my argument. "The SS" in the popular mind is this black-uniformed evil machine, with one SS-man indistinguishable from the other, and it would only serve our educative purpose to make clear that it was not, but rather an amalgam of different institutions, each with slightly different membership and ideological imperatives. The beliefs mentioned here are indeed those held by the SS, or at least promoted by Himmler as the ideal, but I dare say no single SS-man held all of them at the same time or to the same degree, especially concerning Himmler's pseudo-pagan nonsense. I leave that at the discretion of those better informed and with access to better sources than I, however. Constantine  ✍  08:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , as for the main SS article, it could use some work; I have recently been thinking of a structure, layout change. As it is now, it has the lede, this long background section and then go into the history section. To all others above, as for this article, remember it is about ideology. I do think a mention that many non-German men fighting for the Waffen-SS saw a main mission as fighting against communism is worth a mention. As long as it is kept in context and not overdone. Kierzek (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Cplakidas - perhaps we just need a well written section which explains the very statements you've made. One or more of the many scholars on the SS has penned these same observation as I have read it myself, but where is the question? Of course, the distinctions between individual units and people within the Third Reich itself comes to mind. Each leader of the myriad organizations tried to set themselves apart in a system where redundancy was abundant. Broszat talks about that, as does Frei but somebody mentions this when describing the organization of the SS. Nonetheless, you're right of course about the difference between the Waffen SS vice the SD, but their unique missions aside, they were all driven more or less by the same basic convictions. --Obenritter (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kierzek - I meant no offense about the SS article. We've both worked on it some. Its structure really is the problem. Plus, there are considerable chunks that are academically unsubstantiated. It's one of those subjects where so many people have an interest and have made contributions that it is just a sort of jumbled mess. Anyway - even though Cplakidas is right - this SS ideology article risks becoming confusing if we're not careful about how we distinguish the varying components. Like you said, "remember it is about ideology" not operational structure.--Obenritter (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Obenritter, no offensive taken. Maybe we can work on the structure of the main article of the SS soon; having the time is the enemy. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding has always been that almost every non-German member of the Waffen-SS joined solely in the belief they were part of a crusade against communism. I know this with certainty when it comes to Frikorps Danmark. I would strongly be in favor of mention this. Also, I would also be very interested in properly structuring and copy editing the main SS article. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we have a taker Kierzek! Go for it Jonas - it needs some serious attention. Now we have to figure out how to address the concerns raised by Cplakidas about the way ideology was applied across the different SS orgs without getting into the operational weeds.--Obenritter (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Kierzek (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Constantine have a suggestion, given he started this section? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A simple three-to-four sentence paragraph clarifying this would suffice, I think. Perhaps mention a few examples, juxtaposing the pre-1933 "rough-and-tumble" membership, the Waffen-SS (both German and foreign) with their distinct ethos, and the "bureaucrats" and "technocrats" of Eichmann's ilk. Perhaps also an additional note that many SS memberships were honorary (von Braun had one for instance, IIRC, and so did plenty other senior Nazis)? I am far from having sufficient command of, or access to, the relevant material to be able to propose something concrete... Constantine  ✍  21:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can come up with and post here on the talk page for everyone to see and comment later. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Post-war and legacy
Couple of suggestions

(1) Remove "and legacy" from section title. Definition of legacy: anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor. Since no successor organization exists, I believe this use of 'legacy' is misplaced in this context.

(2) Shorten last paragraph - the discussion of the ideology itself within it is superfluous. Original text: ''Distinguished by commitment to Nazi ideals, SS ideology uniquely demanded a pledge of unconditional obedience, observable in the oath, "my loyalty is honor". Constituting a fanatical loyalty which impelled them to tyranny and cruelty, a set of ideals that permitted no real political philosophy aside from the National Socialist party line, and comprising a complex organ across many facets of German life in what became a "state within a state", the SS and its accompanying principles represented the realization of Nazi ideology and as historian Gerald Reitlinger avows, their various acts of horror "will be remembered forever".[151]''

Suggested text: The SS and its accompanying principles represented the realization of Nazi ideology and, as historian Gerald Reitlinger avows, their various acts of horror "will be remembered forever".[151]

Or perhaps remove the paragraph altogether?

Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I read pp 451-454 of Reitinger, and here's what that the paragraph where "will be remembered forever" is included states:
 * It is for these tasks [of racial intolerance] that the SS will be remembered. The machinery of the SS as a state within a state will be forgotten because it never achieve its end. The successes of the SS in the field will be forgotten because the SS never fought as an army and its leaders never achieved more than local tactical control. The idealism of the SS will be forgotten because it meant nothing beyond loyalty to one man. But the racial transplantations, the concentration camps, the interrogation cells of the Gestapo, the medical experiments of the living, the mass reprisals, the manhunts for slave labor and the racial exterminations will be remembered forever.
 * So, instead of the original paragraph (which is run-on and confusing), I suggest using the entire Reitlinger quote, since his work is considered a classic (I believe) and this paragraph also ends the entire book.
 * Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not put in the entire quote per the fact it is copyright material and per WP:QUOTEFARM: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text." So, I would use the most powerful part: The SS and its accompanying principles represented the realization of Nazi ideology and, as historian Gerald Reitlinger avows, their acts of horror of "...racial transplantations, the concentration camps, the interrogation cells of the Gestapo, the medical experiments of the living, the mass reprisals, the manhunts for slave labor and the racial exterminations will be remembered forever." What do you think? Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this?
 * The SS and its accompanying principles represented the realization of Nazi ideology and played a crucial role in the pan-European genocide during WWII. As historian Gerald Reitlinger states, while the machinery of the SS as a state within a state, the successes of the SS in the field and the idealism of the SS will all be forgotten, their acts of "...racial transplantations, the concentration camps, the interrogation cells of the Gestapo, the medical experiments of the living, the mass reprisals, the manhunts for slave labor and the racial exterminations will be remembered forever."
 * I find his contrast between what will be forgotten and what will be remembered elucidating. I also broke up into two sentences for readability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your version, but write out "WW II" to World War II or change it to read: "in the pan-European genocide that occurred"; for some of the above started before the war started. Kierzek (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good pt on WWII; I modified accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Relocating ideology material from Schutzstaffel
Hi, I've been involved in the copy-editing work on the above article. I came across a few instances of info or sources being presented there (in the Ideology and culture subsection) which are not included in the main article Ideology of the SS.

If this is relevant content, I would like to have this material vetted and perhaps included here. Since I've not been involved in the Ideology article, I would like to ask for help from the editors here in reviewing the content and adding it in relevant sections of the main Ideology article, if appropriate. I did not author this content and I don't have a specific opinion on it. This is more about consistency between the two articles and making sure that the two articles do not diverge in how they present the SS ideology.

Here's the content in question:


 * 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. Historian Doris Bergen aptly reduced this Nazi concept to the expression "race and space."


 * In contrast to the Imperial military tradition, the nature of the SS was based on an ideology where commitment, effectiveness and political reliability—not class or education—would determine how far they succeeded in the organization. The SS stressed total loyalty and obedience to orders unto death. It became a powerful tool used by Hitler and the Nazi state for political ends. The SS ideology and values of the organization were one of the main reasons why the SS was entrusted with the execution of many Nazi atrocities and war crimes of the Nazi state. Along these lines, Himmler once wrote that an SS man "hesitates not for a single instant, but executes unquestioningly any order coming from the Führer". Additional evidence for the unconditional loyalty of the SS can be found in Himmler's comments concerning the notion of the Führer-Befehl ("Führer order") for members of the SS using religious connotations.


 * 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. 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.


 * The Nazis regarded the SS as an elite unit, the party's "Praetorian Guard", originally with all SS personnel being selected on the principles of racial purity and loyalty to the Nazi Party and Germany.


 * The SS grew in size and power due to its exclusive loyalty to Hitler, as opposed to the SA, which was seen as semi-independent and a threat to Hitler's hegemony over the party, mainly because they demanded a "second revolution" beyond the one that brought the Nazis to power. Under Himmler, the SS selected its members according to the Nazi ideology.

Some of the material has already been removed from the main SS page, but you can see it by checking on today's revisions of the Schutzstaffel page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As one of the principle authors/editors of this article, feel free to integrate this material accordingly. Some of the content is already here (perhaps in a slightly different form) so you'll need to carefully read the article in order to properly place this material. You are correct in thinking some of it belongs here. --Obenritter (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, although I don't think the Jesuit reference is necessary. GABHello! 14:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What about moving the "Oath of the SS" section over to here. What do you guys think? Kierzek (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the oath's removal from the Schutzstaffel article. I will let others decide whether it's needed here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur.--Obenritter (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the relocation process would appear to be quite intricate, I wonder if I could defer to on that. I would not want to upset the structure of the article or put things in the wrong perspective. In addition, some new references would need to be added (such as Baranowski), so I'd like to defer to a more experienced editor on that. Would that work? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also like input from as he did the GA review and has done some editing herein, as well. Kierzek (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
[Continued from above]

Yes, I am also concerned about how the sources are used and cited. For example, Bahro appears to be a scholarly source (?), but the citation looks exalted, with "feats" and "final victory" used non-ironically, in Wikipedia's voice.

Other examples:
 * Non scholarly source Robin Lumsden: http://www.robinlumsden.com/ (website speaks for itself)
 * Chris McNab: http://www.amazon.com/Chris-McNab/e/B001IU0S94 -- appears to author non-scholarly, "militaria literature" works
 * Terry Goldsworthy -- work from a self-publisher Dog Ear Publishing https://www.dogearpublishing.net/

This is from a quick look. Even scholarly sources may be improperly used and cited; see the "original text" in Post-war and legacy, above, subtly rewording what Reitlinger actually said:

"Distinguished by commitment to Nazi ideals, SS ideology uniquely demanded a pledge of unconditional obedience, observable in the oath, 'my loyalty is honor'. Constituting a fanatical loyalty which impelled them to tyranny and cruelty, a set of ideals that permitted no real political philosophy aside from the National Socialist party line, and comprising a complex organ across many facets of German life in what became a 'state within a state', the SS and its accompanying principles represented the realization of Nazi ideology and as historian Gerald Reitlinger avows, their various acts of horror 'will be remembered forever'."
 * As was presented in the article in Nov 2015:

"It is for these tasks [of racial intolerance] that the SS will be remembered. The machinery of the SS as a state within a state will be forgotten because it never achieve its end. The successes of the SS in the field will be forgotten because the SS never fought as an army and its leaders never achieved more than local tactical control. The idealism of the SS will be forgotten because it meant nothing beyond loyalty to one man. But the racial transplantations, the concentration camps, the interrogation cells of the Gestapo, the medical experiments of the living, the mass reprisals, the manhunts for slave labor and the racial exterminations will be remembered forever."
 * Actual quote from Reitlinger:

The reworked citation focused on "remembered forever" and repeated "my loyalty is honor", while Reitlinger was much more critical, and at the same time quite dismissive. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's what I was afraid of. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, your suggestions that this article constitutes some attempt to "praise" the SS ideology is offensive. There is plenty of substance in this article about the horrible things these fanatics believed and your insinuation that 'various acts of horror' "will be remembered forever" comprises anything other than what was stated is ludicrous.


 * racial transplantations, the concentration camps, the interrogation cells of the Gestapo, the medical experiments of the living, the mass reprisals, the manhunts for slave labor and the racial exterminations = VARIOUS ACTS OF HORROR (this is not a misuse of a source but condensing for concision)
 * Many of your edits are certainly welcome and some are very good -- but to insinuate that this was a fan page to the Nazis is improper and after reading through its entire contents, this should be clear. Perhaps it was more detailed than you'd prefer but in many places, your criticism has become academically disingenuous. You could easily have simply omitted the prefaced, 'observable in the oath' "My loyalty is honor" and explained in your edit why you edited it and that would suffice. All this additional speculation about intention is unwarranted.--Obenritter (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can definitely vouch for the content added by Obenritter as I've seen their work on other articles; it's always thorough and sourcing is scholarly. The rest I'm not so sure, what with the "feats" and "total victory" used non-ironically. BTW, the selective quoting of Reitlinger I was quoting was from November; this content had been adjusted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article needed further work, I said that before the atom bomb dropped and still agree with that fact. With that said, it should have been handled better and without the certain Hand-waving comments that have been made. In the current state the article needs a lot of work if it is "re-built" and one wants the thankless task. It should be delisted from GA straight-away at this point. BTW - I don't own Reitlinger's work, I used to, still good but dated on certain information; as for the quote above, I don't know who added it or tweaked it, and at this point it really does not matter. The question now is what to do with this mess. Kierzek (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Main article
The main article also needs looking at; Schutzstaffel exhibits similar issues:
 * 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. 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.


 * 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.

Italics mine for problematic statements presented in Wikipedia's voice. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have a funny feeling that this may be a common problem among Nazi articles. Fringe theories/Noticeboard exists, I have never used it, don't know if it would get more eyes on the article(s). Also NPOV/N. This is essentially a WP:FRINGE as well as an NPOV situation. At a minimum. Coretheapple (talk)


 * Just posted at FT/N. Coretheapple (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I also posted to the main article: Talk:Schutzstaffel. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Lack of attribution
Is "SS intellectuals" something that WP:RS sources discuss as a concept, or is that something that the SS invented? Also, the "principle of blood and soil" appears to be used seriously, i.e. this is a valid concept, rather than propaganda.

These sentences read NPOV to me:


 * Medical journal articles written by SS intellectuals stressed the importance of genetic heritage,....
 * 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".

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a contradiction in terms. Perhaps "Medical journal articles written by members of the SS stressed the importance of genetic heritage" Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In general, I think this article suffers from lack of attribution. The attempt to write in the Wikipedia voice resulted in what appears to look like (unintentional) rehashing of propaganda. I think the article would benefit from a lot more "according to so and so historian, who studied the topic of [...], blah blah." It would read a lot more neutral and avoid the pitfalls we are currently dealing with. It would also be more appropriate for such a sensitive topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * SS Intellectuals is a terms employed throughout Ingrao's book: Ingrao, Christian. Believe and Destroy: Intellectuals in the SS War Machine. Malden, MA: Polity, 2013. Read the book and the pages cited and stop assuming this is not attributed, because these terms were indeed used by the author. It was cited as well. It's not a contradiction of any kind. It refers to members of the SS who had advanced degrees and were considered "intellectuals". In terms of the creation of special high schools...I have no clue who added that so that needs dropped I'd suspect unless there is a respected academic source attributed and fact-checked.--Obenritter (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This may illustrate my point about the lack of attribution. If I search "SS intellectuals", I get hits to the book above. (I actually had the book for a while and read portions of it, so I know it's a solid source and WP:RS). But Ingrao's subheading is "Intellectuals in the SS" (neutral), vs "SS intellectuals" as used in the article (non-neutral). If the article copy mentioned Ingrao and his research on the intellectuals in the SS, then I would not have any issue with it. Otherwise "SS intellectuals" make me wonder "were they special SS intellectuals?"; "did SS make them a different kind of intellectual"? Etc. This is subtle, but it does create the (unintentional) appearance of propaganda. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no question that there were intellectuals/professionals in the SS (Josef Mengele comes to mind)) but the phrase "SS intellections" has a WP:FRINGE written all over it, and I think we need to know who and what they're talking about. Coretheapple (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * One question of course we have to ask ourselves in reviewing the sourcing of this article is whether the source is being reflected both in word and spirit. Re the Ingrao book, for instance, I see this quote in a WSJ review: The merit of Mr. Ingrao's book is to clarify how these intellectuals, as supervisory officers, were "a decisive factor in the organization and codification of the practices of violence, conceiving and developing the techniques of extermination, managing the transgressive nature of violence and legitimating the acts of genocide." So yes, on first blush, it does look like a useful and interesting book, one I'd like to get. But I don't have it, and again the question needs to be raised if this and other sources have been properly utilized, given that this article does seem to adopt certain questionable phraseology. In this instance, is "SS intellectuals" quite adequate? Should it be "professionals serving in the SS"? And putting that aside, were these professionals utilized as technocrats or as ideological theoreticians? This is an article about ideology after all. Coretheapple (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, just one last thing. The only questionable use of the phrase is this one: "Medical journal articles written by SS intellectuals stressed the importance of genetic heritage, arguing that "biology and genetics are the roots from which the National Socialist worldview has derived its knowledge, and from which it continues to derive new strength..." That is attributed to Proctor not Ingrao. Again, seems like a fine source, but the phrase raises red flags and wonder how it is utilized in the source. Coretheapple (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * My understanding from Ingrao's work was that he discussed the technocrats: those who worked in the SD, commanded the killing squads, etc. They had degrees in jurisprudence, other sciences -- i.e. were highly educated, not necessarily ideological theoreticians. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In the same vein, here's another problematic area, also probably due to lack of attribution:
 * 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.

If this is what Mineau said, then should be attributed as such; otherwise sounds fringe and un-encyclopedic. I'm sure there was no "scientific impetus", just propaganda. Same for the "paroxysm." K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, have tweaked that phraseology; as a summary sentence I don't think it even really needs attribution if phrased neutrally. Definitely cannot be allowed to stand. Even quoted, attaching the word "scientific" to the impetus for genocide and racism is simply not acceptable. Also it's very wordy. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those changes look good. Regarding the (now removed) "ultimate paroxysm", it's worth remembering that the Nazis planned on becoming even more murderous had they won the war. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh well perfectly fine to add that back in but it would need to be clarified, more or less as you put it. Also I think that more section headers would be helpful in readability. Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Problematic content
This article contains sentences like: "All recruits were taught the basic ideological fundamentals of the Nazi Party, namely the belief in the superiority of the Nordic race, loyalty and absolute obedience to Adolf Hitler as the Führer of Germany, and hatred of inferior races, particularly the Jews." (emphasis mine)

There is just one human race, there are no "inferior races", and "Jews" is not a race. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Naturally, the Nazis would have disagreed with you, and that is what that sentence tries to reflect. But you are right, the sentence should be re-phrased to make that clearer. Suggestion? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If nazis disagree with me then I must be doing something right. First I would like to point out another problem, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is mentioned, so we should state that this document is a hoax (it was exposed as fraudulent by The Times of London in 1921). I will think about how to rephrase this. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel that "an anti-Semitic document purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination" makes the nature of the document quite clear. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all non-native speakers interpret the word "purporting" correctly. Adding a word or two to indicate that this document is a hoax seems like a good idea. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One must remember it is not what an editor "thinks" WP:OR; it is what the subject matter of the article "thought". With that said, I tweaked the sentence. As for the second sentence, what do you suggest? I don't see how "purporting" can be read wrong, but am open to a tweak of improvement as always. Kierzek (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * purport : "To convey, imply, or profess outwardly (often falsely)" (my emphasis). Far-right propaganda always skirt around the hoax issue, of course, when describing this, one of their favourite "documents". Mainstream sources, however, don't. zzz (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It also means allegedly; clearly not fact; semantics; words are my living. And we have better things to do here then discuss something not a present issue when this article and others need work; the wording is better now; hopefully we all can work together in this project of articles from NPOV. I invited you over so have at it. Kierzek (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the second sentence, gentlemen; see what you think. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The problem has been fixed. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The current phrasing is fine, but the earlier one, at the top of this page, is an example of the general problem with this article, which is POV phrasing. Also there is far too much extraneous and unencyclopedic detail. The photos tended to promote a fringe, heroic and positive view of this organization, which was declared a criminal organization at Nuremberg as I recall. Which, come to think of it, should be noted in this article if that has not taken place already. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The section on the Holocaust and the article's coverage of German atrocities during the war more generally is also problematic: it presents the SS as being essentially the only part of the German state responsible, and doesn't recognise the major roles played by the other branches of the armed forces and the various civilian agencies. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Photo
The photo with the subtitle: "SS soldiers making enquiries about partisan operations, 1943" is described as "Sowjetunion-Mitte.- Soldaten der Waffen-SS bei der Gefangennahme von Partisanen; SS-PK" and it was made by "Propagandakompanien der Wehrmacht - Waffen-SS". Are we sure that this photo isn't staged? The German Wikipedia has an article that explains what a Propagandakompanie is. It seems rather unlikely that they were genuinely making inquiries about partisan operations.

Wikipedia refuses to link this correctly so you have to copy paste the URL:

http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1456923659/?search[view]=detail&search[focus]=1 The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not add it and I see where the English description states what you say; I cannot get the link you have pasted to work. However, the photo may well have been staged. I leave to you guys to decide its fate. I also did some further ce tweaks, see what you think. And I must say, this sentence, "SS classes also featured relatively modern tools such as reversal film shows and movies", could use some further explanation; I don't have the book cited. Well enough for now, I must focus on real life work. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh no, don't remind me of real life work, I am here to avoid that! The previous link didn't work, maybe this one will:
 * http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1456932153/?search%5Bform%5D%5BSIGNATUR%5D=Bild+101III-Niquille-067-24
 * If you click on the picture you will go to the correct page.
 * The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I believe the photo should be removed based on what you found. Given I see below that others believe this GA article needs more than usual tweaking at this point, I would invite them and you to work on the article in conjunction on the reviewer . Back to work for me. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I went a head and changed out the photo discussed above; I assume no one objects. Kierzek (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I changed the lead photo. But to be frank, I think this article is one long Stormfront piece. Propaganda from beginning to end, and is not salvageable, requiring a complete scrapping and starting over from scratch. A word or two here and there won't do. It's NPOV in the sense of being Nazi POV. Coretheapple (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed the "SS oath." See note below, per WP:NOT. Seemed a bit uencyclopedic and excessive, and added to the POV slant of this dog's breakfast of an article. Coretheapple (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How is it OK to make this statement (quoting Coretheapple ): "this dog's breakfast of an article" ? --Obenritter (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I support the removal. The oath in full looked problematic to me in the original location at Schutzstaffel. If a WP:Secondary source analyzed the oath, then such analysis may be worth including. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, an analysis perhaps, but I wonder about this article as a whole, whether it is just fundamentally broken. It does not read in a neutral fashion. Coretheapple (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Signedzzz
This comment was written by User:Signedzzz and copied here with permission by The Quixotic Potato (talk)
 * Thanks, that's great. I really didn't have the stomach to deal with it. I mentioned a couple more things in my statement at RFA. To be honest, I just started reading the article at random, in that middle section. I was not impressed: pretty much every sentence had issues.


 * "an 'old fighter' of the party" - according to who, and meaning what (ie, just say who he was)
 * "published the SS-Leithefte on a monthly basis" = started publishing it 8 years later in 1943-45, so what is the statement doing here, immediately following a statement about 1935
 * "descriptive depictions" - meaning what (the phrase makes absolutely no sense in the context - just more peacock BS)
 * "other ideological content" well, that's what the article is supposed to be about, FFS, so why not be specific (presumably, because the editor knows nothing about the subject)
 * "Furthermore, SS classes often featured relatively modern tools such as reversal film shows and movies" - lose peacock "Furthermore", "featured", "modern tools", "such as"
 * "published two additional magazines for ideological propaganda" - unclear (was that the purpose, the sole content, or what?)
 * "the monthly FM-Zeitschrift" from when (see problem with SS-Leithefte, above)
 * "funded by 350,000 Fördernde Mitglieder of the SS" totally unclear - funded how?
 * "the weekly Das Schwarze Korps" - from when
 * "the second biggest weekly paper in Nazi Germany" - ditto

That is the issues with that paragraph. (Plus what I mentioned before, "racially conscious choice of partners" - is that a quote - from who - or just the editor's illiteracy)


 * "expected to obtain the sports badges of the Sturmabteilung ("Storm Detachment"; SA), thereby promoting a "natural selection" and guaranteeing the formation of an elite group" this is garbage.

ETC... I don't know if the article just needs nuking. zzz (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This comment was written by User:Signedzzz on an RFA page and copied here by The Quixotic Potato (talk)

"A school leader complained in 1935... " Which school? What is a "school leader"? Etc. Followed by "The office published the SS-Leithefte on a monthly basis..." - no mention of the fact that this only began publication in 1943, 8 years after the last date mentioned - "...which were used in classes and featured descriptive depictions of ancestral studies, 'racially conscious choice of partners' and other ideological content." Descriptive depictions of racially conscious choice of partners? I could go on, but I don't think it is necessary. zzz (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've deleted some of the opening stuff that is unrelated to ideology, since this article is called "Ideology of the SS". This may help editors to focus on the highly problematic material that is related to the subject. I have pointed out some of the problems with this material, above. It is currently of no encyclopedic value whatsoever, but it is possible that someone may want to work on it to fix the issues I have drawn attention to. zzz (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, your tone that you display here and in your edit summaries is completely out of line. If you continue to insult users like this, I will notify the administrators of your behavior. Second of all, your edits reflect your opinion of what is important to this article or not - and your opinion alone. I seriously disapprove of you making such large edits without consulting your fellow editors beforehand. While I agree that some sections could be phrased more carefully, I completely disagree with your notion that the article displayed any form of non-NPOV or even displayed the SS favourable. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll find there are no insults in what I wrote, so you should try to read more carefully. My "fellow editors" (see below, and on my talk) believe the article should be deleted as it is biased and unencyclopedic, so you are totally wrong about "your opinion alone". As I said (if you bother to read comments, which apparently you don't) the stuff about ideology is so poorly written and organised as to be worthless. If you want to improve it along the lines I have suggested, then there may be some point in the article. zzz (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "garbage", "worthless", "the editor's illiteracy".... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when is it OK to describe editorial work so disparagingly, "garbage", "worthless", "the editor's illiteracy" and with seeming impunity?--Obenritter (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made some WP:BOLD edits, but I agree that this article is beyond help and needs to be deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You've described the work herein as "beyond help" and that it needs "deleted" - based on what academic criteria; your opinion? --Obenritter (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Coretheapple
I don't know if this has been addressed before but in skimming the article the first thing I noticed (there may be more) is this prominent sentence: "The ideology of the SS was built upon and mainly congruent with Nazi ideology in general. At its center laid the conviction of the superiority of the Nordic race.[2]" There is of course no "Nordic race," that is a discredited pseudo-scientific, racist concept and it is presented here as fact. I wonder how much poison like this is in the article.

And then we have copious references to "racial hygene" in Wikipedia's voice. Such as "Intellectuals within the SS took racial hygiene very seriously." That's just outright propaganda.

Worst of all, we have the lead photo. As if you expect the reader to say "sieg heil!" I mean, seriously, that is simply a WP:FRINGE photo. The "ideology of the SS" anywhere outside neo-Nazi circles is represented by the death camps, piles of bodies. That photo belongs here, not this line of proud young Aryans. Offensive garbage. Ditto the other photos, especially the "enquiries" one. Oh yes, just making "enquiries," like the police. Deeply disturbing article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The convention is that BLPs contain a picture of the person and that in articles about groups of people the lead picture is the logo of the article's subject. Is it a good idea to replace the lead photo with a logo? The words "Nordic race" always make me think of Brian Blessed, that guy is basically a Yeti. Maybe we can change "namely the belief in the superiority of the Nordic race," to "namely the belief in a superior Nordic race". But I noticed that the article also contains the text: "At its center laid the conviction of the superiority of the Nordic race", which should probably get a similar treatment. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, those ideas have merit. Wikipedia is often used as a teaching tool, heaven knows why, and the potential for this being skinhead propaganda is not to be taken lightly. The Nordic article also needs to be examined, hopefully by editors with better background in this than I do (I just saw this article mentioned in an RfA). Coretheapple (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I subbed a photo from Belzec extermination camp that helps remove a bit of the POV, fringe, propaganda aspect to this article. We are dealing in this article with a Nazi philosophy, of which the Final Solution was its principal handiwork as executed by the SS. Coretheapple (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the "Oath of the SS" on the grounds of WP:NOT. It is unencyclopedic, excessive detail. The only value I see in it is if some young chap out there wants to take the oath. He can get it off his local skinhead site. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, a category into which I would include "SS oaths." Coretheapple (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

About that Nordic/Aryan race thing, there are 3 very similar sentences, 2 about Nordic race and one about Aryans. See here. I changed "the belief in the superiority of the Nordic race" to "the belief in a superior Nordic race". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed yes. Have been making some WP:BOLD edits to reduce unnecessary details, in which this article is swamped. Far too much fancruft. Coretheapple (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's a bit of whitewashing I picked up: "The SS and its accompanying principles represented the realization of Nazi ideology and played a crucial role in the pan-European genocide that followed the Nazis' rise to power." That's how this article refers to the Final Solution, "pan-European genocide." I've performed a series of bold edits to rid the article of this kind of thing, but I am not convinced there is any real purpose served by this article or that its content is either balanced, represents all major viewpoints, or encyclopedic. Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not whitewashing, this is academic observation - you obviously have not read the original source. The Germans co-opted the participation of other peoples when carrying out genocide, this is well known and thoroughly correct. The Police Battalions described by many scholars were supplemented by citizens from within the occupied countries, making the German efforts very much pan-European. Ingrao used this very expression. You Sir appear to be on a witch hunt, and have not conducted the research to back up your statements. Far too much opinion, far too much -- atop the insinuation that this was "whitewashing". What credentials as a historian or what sources are you bringing to this discussion to refute this scholarly observation precisely, because I am seeing an inordinate amount of opinion.--Obenritter (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop the WP:OWN behavior. This article is a mess. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Learn the scholarly literature on this subject before making sweeping statements of "white-washing". Regarding your comments about "pan-European genocide", this is what renown scholar Robert S. Wistrich, Professor of modern Jewish history at Jerusalem' Hebrew University has to say on this topic:


 * The Germans did not carry out the Holocaust alone, although under Nazi rule they were undoubtedly its spearhead and driving force. When it came to killing Jews, they found many willing collaborators and "helpers" among Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Croats, and others...The Holocaust was a pan-European event that could not have happened unless millions of Europeans by the late 1930s had wished to see an end to the age-old Jewish presence in their midst. This consensus was especially strong in the countries of east-central Europe, where the bulk of Jewry lived and retained its own national characteristics and cultural distinctiveness. But there was also a growing anti-Semitism in western Europe and America, tied to the hardships caused by the Great Depression, increased xenophobia, fear of immigrants, and the influence of fascist ideas. [From the Introduction of Robert Wistrich, Hitler and the Holocaust (New York: Modern Library Chronicles, 2001), pp. xv–xvi.] --Obenritter (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To summarize what you're just referred to, in Wikipedia's voice, stripped of context, as a "pan-European genocide" is just plan ridiculous. It is Nazi genocide. The fact that you're arguing the point still, and the belittling language you use, is WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:OWN. Since I expect that arbcom is sooner or later going to have to scrutinize this entire subject area, based upon this exact kind of language and this exact kind of behavior you're exhibiting, you're making the job a whole lot simpler. Coretheapple (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not the case whatsoever as we are discussing the language used in the text by scholars which you challenged. How is it stripped of context when the article is entirely about what these maniacs believed? Singling out sentences individually is what removes context. Changing the language is and was not the problem nor was there any attempt in the article to dampen the Nazi genocide. Your statement about the nature of the description was wrong and has been pointed out; hence the reference to the scholarly literature. There are plenty of places in the article where scholarly works were used to point out the atrocities. This is a point of contention being elucidated and nothing more. You cannot make claims about deliberate "whitewashing" when the evidence proves the identified statement is an accurate reflection of the scholarly literature. If you wanted to explain things further in the article or rearrange it to read better so that the Holocaust figures more prominently, there's no issue from me or any other editors. That is not what happened.--Obenritter (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is excusing/rationalizing this sentence: The SS and its accompanying principles represented the realization of Nazi ideology and played a crucial role in the pan-European genocide that followed the Nazis' rise to power. Note that there is no reference to its context, which is simply the historian correctly pointing out that the execution of the Nazi plan was by non-Germans as well as Germans. That source is not even footnoted! But taken out of context, it is a whitewash. It reads more like "both sides killing each other" than "non-Germans killing at the direction of Nazis." Just because a historian correctly used the term "pan-European" doesn't excuse its incorrect use in this article, as you are repeatedly doing. I don't know who came up with that cherry-picked, whitewashed language but I can tell you that your conduct in justifying it is precisely the problem on this page, almost as much as the language that you defend. So please, go on and continue to demonstrate that problem. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right - it should have been cited and referenced to one of the many historians who have made this or a related statement. This is not an attempt to argue with you, just an attempt to understand how or why you came to your conclusion. The original statement represents synthesized knowledge that only those familiar with the subject would understand categorically. I get that now. It does not read as sinister to me compared to what you originally conveyed, but given the perspective you've applied here, I can see what the problem is precisely now. Your latest alternative reading/interpretation makes it clear. In the end, the page is being reworked which is all that matters. Thanks for taking the time to further clarify and for your efforts otherwise.--Obenritter (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your softened tone, but I just wanted to point out that it's a mistake to assume what level of knowledge or reading editors have and do not have, and then to make statements based upon that assumption that veer toward the condescending. An editor may be perfectly cognizant that Europeans of many nations collaborated with the SS, as that is not exactly a little-known segment of WWII history, and still disagree with the language utilized, as it simply did not indicate what the original author said. Or be completely ignorant of it. Indeed, as you point out, it is synthesis, and synthesis is not permitted via WP:SYN because of this precise kind of situation. Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Roger that. Thanks for being patient with me.--Obenritter (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the topic has merit in terms of showing the indoctrination process and its results. Thank you for making the edits. I will read through the article carefully and come back.


 * On a related topic, the linked article Das Schwarze Korps also needs looking at. I've seen this periodical described as a "hate rag" by Ralph Georg Reuth, while the current copy is quite neutral. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll look at that article. As for this one: in theory, yes. But it would require a complete treatment of the subject matter that avoids stating Nazi principles in Wikipedia's voice. Also I am a bit concerned, given the history of the article, as to whether the sourcing is a complete and full reflection of the scholarship on the subject of the article. It may, I just don't know. However, one can review the article and check for obvious issues and omissions, such as not including that the SS was found to be a criminal organization after the war. In general, when one is profiling a fringe ideology there are pitfalls and I believe this article has fallen into them, including photo selection of a really dreadful nature.


 * From a layout standpoint, there are large blocks of text, hence my breaking up the masses of grey. I do think there are insufficient subsections. Coretheapple (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stand corrected on an issue identified by and removed observation accordingly. Obvious misunderstanding on my part. Tis' what happens when one skims vice reading thoroughly.--Obenritter (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is really no need to be personally offended by what people say about the text. Personally I can't tell one editor from the other and have no idea who's done what. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sports indoctrination
I re-removed "The SS sports training had an emphasis on total victory over the opponent" because it is devoid of information ("an emphasis on winning"). In fact, I fail to see what the paragraph about sports has to do with "Indoctrination" at all - there is nothing there to connect it. I have deleted the paragraph. zzz (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was trying to improve the paragraph so it made better sense. The point was that part of the "indoctrination" was not just "winning" but a total beating down victory over an opponent; part of the psychological "training" if you will; also to mold what they called "soldier-athletes"; group exercises and sports were encouraged at certain times to 'bond" the men into a team (and to compete against teams from the Luftwaffe and army; who they were expected to beat. But it either needs a re-write or removal; the band-aid, I added was not enough, just trying to make what was there not so disjointed; but, frankly I don't have much interest in this article and with my limited time can work on other things. So, I don't feel strongly about whether it was removed or not; currently the article is rated C class and needs quite a bit of work if you gentlemen want to invest the time into it. Kierzek (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * K. e. I tried to answer your query marked in the "Attitude toward religion" paragraph. The fact is that Himmler and even much more so Heydrich saw the Catholic Church and their organisations as "principal enemies" of Nazism and the SD and Gestapo were used for spying and suppression, but other Nazi Party organisations and members were also involved in the process. Frankly, this part is not as relevant to the article itself. Just trying for it to make better sense. I leave it up to you guys if you want to keep it all in. Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- your changes made it clearer. But you are probably right; this para probably belongs in another SS topic, as it's not strictly about ideology -- more about SS activities. I will think about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
Here's an idea I wanted to run by the editors on this page about the steps to take in fixing this article.


 * What if we took the content from Schutzstaffel and then used that as a base? This will allow us to build out the article from a solid foundation, repurposing material from the current version of this article as needed. This seems like an attractive approach, rather than trying to fix this article piecemeal. But it would be somewhat radical, so I'd like some inputs.

This approach would also allow for condensing of the material on the main Schutzstaffel which is getting quite long.

Please let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems like a sound approach to me. I'll keep watching and help out when I can. zzz (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much more the section in the main article can be "condensed" from its present state and still convey the information it needs to for a general reader. As far as using what is there for a guide or outline herein, I don't see that as a problem. Please though, before you "condense" the main article section, post your thoughts on the main article talk page for discussion. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Frei reference / page 107
Requested quote concerning the condensing of the Norbert Frei reference, "For members of the SS their mentality was such that for them, nothing was impossible no matter how arduous or cruel" page 107. Here is part of the paragraph from which the citation originated:
 * Here ripened the SS mentality, so highly valued by Himmler, which deemed nothing to be 'impossible' and in the final analysis accepted 'special duties', no matter how arduous, up to and including the leadership of the Einsatzgruppen and the murder of millions.

Additional statement added to text to give the observation even more force.--Obenritter (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Enemies
This list makes the intro too long. Would there be any objections to removing it?

Representing the ideological opponents of the regime in one form or fashion, historian George C. Browder identified the Nazi state's list of enemies as follows:
 * Enemy States: Other nations' efforts to keep Germany down, to persecute or treat her unfairly or disrespectfully
 * Miscegenation: Sexual relations with people viewed as being a different "race"
 * Jews: Fear and hatred of Jews
 * Catholicism: Conflicts with or hostility toward Catholic clergy and disdain for Catholicism, and a conspiratorial view of the Roman Catholic Church
 * Freemasonry: Conspiratorial view of the Masonic order as undermining natural German culture and society
 * Communism: Fear and hatred of Communist and socialist ideologies and parties, their labor organizations and influence in the Weimar Republic
 * The Republic: Hostility directed at the liberal republican constitution and form of government
 * Homosexuality: Fear and hate of homosexuality and homosexuals that "defied the command structure of government and military institutions" (Himmler wrote a 1942 memo urging "ruthless severity" to eliminate the "dangerous and infectious plague," and the death penalty was instituted for homosexuality in the SS)
 * Moral Decay: Concern with other symptoms of "moral decadence" as threats to the strength of the German nation
 * Capitalists: Hate and fear of economically powerful combinations or individuals as unjust, corrupting, undermining influences and forces in German society
 * Old Guard: Hate and fear of traditionally powerful influences and institutions of the old society as unjust, retarding influences in German society

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the first section of the article, which I believe is important to provide the general reader with a representation of all their main "enemies". You may be able to tighten it up, but frankly, except for copy edit & clean up work I really don't work on this article. So, I would suggest you discuss it with others herein, such as: . Kierzek (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you remove this content, it will impact the general understanding of the Nazi's enemies. See if you like what I did to the opening section. It retains its basic information but with less space. --Obenritter (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Obenritter, the edits for concision look good to me. Kierzek (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kierzek. We'll see what our friend thinks of them. The one thing I never liked about that structure was the same citation repeated after every bullet.--Obenritter (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

-- this works much better; thank you for condensing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ideology of the SS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402115820/http://www.ghwk.de/ghwk/engl/texts/wannsee-conference.pdf to http://www.ghwk.de/ghwk/engl/texts/wannsee-conference.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"the Christian church"
Section "Rejection of Christian precepts" states "... neither Himmler nor his deputy Heydrich expected the Christian church to support their stance on ...". But what is "the Christian Church"? Might just be a missing plural, but I don't want to edit w/o reading the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:1302:DEC0:1FB:FD2F:8C15:459 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)