Talk:Non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II

Cut from article
I've cut the following sections from the article. It's about a compilation album of songs, at least the majority being marches, from the Axis side in World War II. It may deserve an article of its own (it's hard to say, because there is no information about whether this is even a commercially released record; and compilation CDs, even if commercially released, are not necessarily notable), but I don't think a track listing belongs here merely because this term was used as its title. This all will probably involve a disambiguation page if this material is worth having at all. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the disambiguation page suggestion. The article itself, I think, should focus on the history of the phenomena of non-Germans who fought for Germany (although perhaps there shold be an article titled something like Non-Germans who fought for the Third Reich or Foriegn Nationals in the German miltary during World War Two, as the current title excludes African and Asian soldiers*).  The CD is commercially available, , ) and I think its notability lies in it being a good illustration of the multinational scope of the Europäische Freiwillige movement and the contemporary representation of that movement.  I have no information about its circulation quantity, but it seems to have "been around" for at least a few years now. -- Morning star | Talk 03:37, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Tone of this article
Although this article is just a stub, I am concerned to see an article about volunteers who served in the Nazi military that gives as references four books, that are as far as I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong) all sympathetic to the Nazi cause. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Porat and Browning removed from bibliography, as they more properly related to the topic of "other units...", and not to the main article topic, i.e. "europäische Freiwillige", per se. Estes added instead. Zalktis 14:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Arājs, etc.
In (German) WWII usage, the term "europäische Freiwillige" generally only refers—as the article originally formulated it—to non-German units of Nazi Germany's armed forces, i.e. the Waffen-SS and (to a more limited degree) the Wehrmacht. The term really only gains circulation after 1943, and in particularly in 1944. Thus, references to other groups, especially those local SS auxiliaries created to specifically murder Jews in the Holocaust, only clouds the issue for the reader. I've therefore decided to make this a separate topic heading. In the future, I suggest removing some of the books that are only specifically related to the Einsatzgruppen from the list of references for this article. Zalktis 08:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Article name
I've read very widely on the Second World War, and I can't recall ever seeing the term 'Europäische Freiwillige' used to describe these people. As this is not the term used in English-language sources, I'd suggest that the article be moved to something like Non-Germans in the Germany military during World War II. The use of the term 'volunteers' should be avoided as many of these men were either directly or in-effect conscripted. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Non-Germans in the Germany armed forces during World War II would be more appropirate. Military can often mean the land army.--Patton123 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another term that I've seen a lot in the literature on these units is European Volunteer Movement, which might be another possible title, although a little ambiguous for my tastes unless we add the WWII dates in parentheses. But I could live with either name. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that a lot of these men weren't 'volunteers' in any meaningful sense. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As there were no objections, I've moved the article to Non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there already is an article called Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts, why didn't you simply change the name of this one into Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts? Or did you intend this article to be on a higher level and include sub chapters, of which the SS volunteers are one?

As it is much of the text in the article seems geared to what happened to the Europeans who volunteered for the SS, which is fairly natural since the original title was geared towards that, but since you changed the title the ss stuff should probably have been put in the SS article instead?

So, please tell me what the idea is. Is this an umbrella article for all types of formations, including such as national militias in Lithuania that collaborated with the Germans, or is it a specialized article on the armed forces, i.e. the Wehrmacht? The answer to that will affect what info to put in here and what to lift out.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of the other article, and the rationale for changing this article's name from Europäische Freiwillige is explained above. Nick-D (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger
Hi

I created the article Freiwilligen and after an AFD nomination it was decided I should merge it into this article.

I will try and do that in next week or two, but can anyone tell me how to leave the freiwilligen article as a redirect ??

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research tag
This article appears to contain original research used in compilation of various lists. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of this information is not original research and has appeared in multiple German publications and books. Note the citations I've already added -- which is just the tip. Suggest removing the tag. What's here is just uncited material or worse, just speculation. Some of the material related to the lists is just stuff extracted from appendixes or even indexes. In fact, you may want to remove anything not cited. Also - some of this probably comes from less-than-scholarly sources, which should fall directly into your line of fire. There's no reason for unsubstantiated material to sit in Wikipedia for any length of time.--Obenritter (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your excellent work on the article. Now that I look at it, it seems that everything after "...and by the corresponding disruption to their way of life" can go. Would you agree? Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts covers those who served in the Waffen-SS so I don't think there's a need to duplicate information.


 * Separately, would the source support the adjustment to:
 * Many of the foreign volunteers fought in either the Waffen-SS or the Wehrmacht. Generally the non-Germanic troops were permitted into the Wehrmacht, whereas the Germanic volunteers were recruited into the service of the Waffen-SS as part of propaganda-driven "pan-Germanic army of the future".?


 * This seems more neutral to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Your sharp eye for objectivity is appreciated. Please make the changes you deem fit.--Obenritter (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just came over here to have a look; thank you gentleman for the improvements and ce work; especially the RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Navbox
Is the SS navbox needed? The article covers those who served in the Wehrmacht frontline units, Hiwis, etc, not just Waffen-SS. It appears only tangentially related. Should it be removed? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 04:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

European non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II → Non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II – Article scope has increased recently to include non-European units K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be moved; not limited in scope with the name change; in fact, that is the only reason why I removed the Indian Legion photo, because of the current article title. Kierzek (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also why do we have this article and Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts. Seems redundant and a merge should be considered. Kierzek (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Another title to consider: Foreign volunteers and conscripts in the German armed forces during World War II. Rather long, I know. Kierzek (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relationship to other articles
To 's point above, I had previously thought that this article was redundant. But Obernritter did a nice job rescuing the article. It now discusses what motivated these people and what the historical context was.

On the other two articles, Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts and Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts, they are mostly lists of units. Another difference is that they both include ethnic Germans in their discussions, while this article does not. On the other hand, Wehrmacht units, formed from foreign conscripts, were later transferred to the Waffen-SS, so there are some synergies there.

So one option may be to merge all three into one comprehensive article Foreign volunteers and conscripts in the German armed forces during World War II. The other option would be to keep three separate articles. There's some overlap but it's not significant, IMO, so a merge would be fairly easy. Opinions? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it is not this article which needs to be merged with the other, it is the other way around; the meager "list" of the other one, I thought was redundant and not really needed. I don't believe all three should be merged together. Kierzek (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, this article would serve as an "umbrella article". What would happen with the other two, Waffen-SS volunteers/conscripts and Wehrmacht ones? Could you clarify? I'm all for simplicity, so if something is redundant, then I would support letting it go. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts should be left alone; we have that in good shape now. I thought the list Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts could be merged with this article. Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This makes sense. Actually, my earlier suggestion about combining with the Waffen-SS article was incorrect, as technically Waffen-SS was not part of the "Armed Forces" (the Wehrmacht). K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

why did muslims hate soviets
"For the majority of volunteers from Muslim communities, their animosity against the Soviets stemmed from their anti-Russian feelings, religious impulses (their disdain for Soviet atheism for example), coupled by the negative experience of Stalin's policies on nationality, and by the corresponding disruption to their way of life." Interesting how this passage does not even imply the most clear reason any nation hated soviets, and that is that it was a totalitarian communist country that suffered huge poverty and provided no civic liberties to it's citizenry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.128.6 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts with Non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II
Should Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts be merged with this article? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A shrugging YES, since it appears so, but I have to confess some ambivalence on this merger. What say you:        ?--Obenritter (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Overlapping subjects  // Timothy :: talk  17:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverse suggested merge It seems to me that Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts is much to be preferred as the title for a merged article, as this is more easily defined, understood and a more useful topic if we define "foreign" as citizens of countries outside the immediate pre-war borders of the Third Reich (ie including Austria). There were plenty of ethnic Germans living in "foreign" countries before the war started in September 1939, like the Volksdeutsche in Yugoslavia. They were Germans, but also citizens of foreign countries (sometimes militarily occupied, but sometimes allied, client or puppet states). Also, Wehrmacht is pretty well known (it is defined in Merriam-Webster), and more concise than "German armed forces". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree there should be a merger of the two articles, as Brigade Piron suggests. As it is, there is a content fork to be dealt with, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet Oppose: the topic of Non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II is an umbrella article that also covers the Waffen-SS, which was not part of the Wehrmacht. See: Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts. How would this proposal address this? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. Also I've proposed spinning detail (unit mergers and renamings) about foreign volunteers in German armed forces from Collaboration with the Axis powers since the scope of that article is huge. I am not adamant about doing this (there are other proposals) but it's one fairly easily recognized topic. The bright line in my mind is that if you voluntarily signed up you're a collaborator (vs. a conscript) Another reason for doing the split though is that it would allow some length to talk about POWs who said they joined to escape or because they didn't think they would survive internment. The Flemish Legion apparently was told that they would not be sent to the front lines, also, and I've encountered several stories like that. Anyway -- LMK? I don't have strong feelings about how to do this: I'm just trying to make the article I'm working on better.Elinruby (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * – Good point. Besides the overview difference (which includes Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS), what I also did not consider when I agreed initially is the fact that Russian POWs, who were surely volun-told or joined up so as not to starve to death also shows up in the Non-Germans article. Deconflicting the problems will require plenty of sub-sections and a careful eye, should a merger take place.--Obenritter (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote to "oppose", as I think we still need this umbrella article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It still can be done, just with a careful eye, using discernment, as Obenritter and others suggest. As for "Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts", it can continue as a separate sub-article. I still believe the best merger is how Brigade Piron suggests. Which, to be clear, would be merging parts of the Wehrmacht article into this one. So, this “umbrella article” would survive (with certain inclusion as needed from the former article mentioned). Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wehrmacht = the German armed forces. I would suggest that for better and clearer divisions, there should be articles about foreign volunteers in each branch of the Wehrmacht: German Army (1935–1945), Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. There's also material in the Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts that is certainly not within that article's scope (e.g. Waffen-SS, governments, ministeries, committees), which must be moved elsewhere. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)