Talk:Schutzstaffel/Archive 3

Elite
I made some minor changes concerning the repeated assumption that SS and Waffe-SS were an 'Elite'-Organisation. Please add some sources if you assume the whole organization being 'elite'. Remember that by 1944, they nearly took everyone who applied, the Waffen-SS sometimes lacked the experience of the Wehrmacht-units, and while it was sometimes supplied with most modern equiptment, it had already trouble finding rifles, taking captured Rifles that the Wehrmacht didnt want. Differ between aspiration and reality, choose more fitting terms like 'fanatic'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.205.138.2 (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Veterans
Do any veterans organizations exist in Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.102.239 (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo of dead women
Hey, the photo appears to have the typical photoshop art's filter applied to it. Can someone upload the original, even if it might be more grainy. Thank you. --87.194.3.52 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with both the photo of the dead women and that of the dead officers. I find the photos extremely disturbing, sensationalist, and disrespectful. The general tone of both photos seems to be one of retribution. The photo of the starved women whose bodies have been exhumed just further infringes on their right to dignity and shows German civilians, including children, being taught a "lesson" by American soldiers. Justice for war crimes should certainly not be meted out by soldiers or through shocking photographs but through due legal process and the Geneva convention. I find that these photo's are inappropriate for a public website (even if they put a face to war) as the site is often used by school-children for the purpose of doing school projects. Finally I don't believe that either photo has direct relevance to the SS. 9/11/2007 KRR

The SS Totenkopfverbände were in charge of most of the concentration camps. Himmler and the SS masterminded what is now called the holocaust. There was retribution after the war. These photos are appropriate for a public website. Censorship will get you nowhere but new camps. Besides, the words of this public website about the SS should be just as shocking to a civilized reader, if not more so, giving as they do a sense of the scale of the SS and its acts. Let's not hide history. --John Lunney (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, a photograph of what is either two war casualties or two soldiers summarily (and thus illegally) executed does not seem to do anything to educate anyone on the SS or its deeds, any more so than a photograph of random combat fatalities would better educate one about any other military organization. The photograph of the women, however, I can understand being here, as it illustrates a war crime committed by the SS, in a way much more immediate and striking than mere words would be. - 25 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.101.232 (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos of Dead People in General
The photographs of dead people displayed on this page create two problems: 1) they are upsetting to people of a sensitive disposition, including minors, which is why television news routinely censors depictions of the dead; and 2) they serve no educational use here. On a page about a politico-military organization I would expect to see photographs of uniforms, equipment, personnel and leaders that would inform me about what they looked like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.7.162.206 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * there are many images that might upset me that are hosted on wikipedia, for example look at the pages such as ejaculation or penis, wikipedia is clearly NOT suitable for unrestricted access by children, contrary to the popular belief of many. WWII was the world's deadliest conflict, if wikipedia isn't censored we can't delete images of dead people to appease your sensitive nature while ignoring images of sexual activity, nudity or other explicit images hosted on wikipedia. Thisglad (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But only because it is no place for minors, I don't want to see pictures like these as a young adult, there is no good reason for that. Imagine other cases of violence, for example the victims of Marc Dutroux. I don't need to see pictures of torture where he smashed the testicles of Weinstein to know how cruel it was. And I don't need to see pictures of two dead SS soldiers to see how cruel war is. 88.64.3.100 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored SGGH speak! 23:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect
SS now redirects to Schutzstaffel based on the support votes above - this discussion is now closed. violet/riga (t) 20:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The SS neither "absorbed" nor controlled the non-Gestapo German police
See subpage: Talk:Schutzstaffel/The SS neither "absorbed" nor controlled the German police

Yes they did they controlled the Gestapo! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.164.169 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 February 2007  (UTC)

Corrected the section's heading accordingly Soz101 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the header refer to the *non*-Gestapo parts of the German police? (FWIW I don't think the SS controlled the police, just the Gestapo, SD and RSHA). Critic9328 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Waffen-SS - keep it short
The creation of the foreign legions outside Germany was for the most part the SS' desperate attempt to compensate for the human losses the Waffen-SS suffered in the course of the war. Since the concept of conscripting non-Germans violates the basic principle of racial purity Himmler has set for the SS forces, this should be viewed simply as an ironic episode in the SS history, which might not have happened if the SS had enough supply of the "pure" German blood. As such the phenomenon of foreign armed forces within the SS structure should be explained in the context of the war, and there isn't enough room in the SS article to do this. I suggest the whole thing is moved to the foreign legions section of the Waffen-SS or a new article is created where all of the foreign units could be listed and detailed. Cheers! Asknine 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * but since Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Holland are nordic Germanic lands they don't violate the racial purity principle of SS-Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  200.58.160.147 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 November 2006  (UTC)


 * In general I agree with the original comment, but as the above poster points out this no way accounts for such ethnically "Nordic" units as SS Wiking, Nordland, Michael de Ruyter, and so on--which were raised in the *early* years of the war, so unrelated to battlefield losses. Critic9328 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Afro-Germans
The reference in the Future visions section to Nazi plans for the extermination of "blacks" has been objected to on the ground that this is "ridiculous" since there were none in Germany in the Nazi period (see Page History].) The presence of Germans of wholly or partly African descent in the 1930s and 1940s and the measures of persecution the Nazi regime employed against them can be documented. For example,

Delroy Constantine-Simms Review of ‘Hitler's Forgotten Victims’ (TV documentary, 1997) by David Okuefuna and Moise Shewa

Whether they were "as much victims of Hitler's terror as [the Jews] were" is another matter.

Also objecting to Stefan 2's reference to Nazi plans to exterminate blacks and "Orientals" on the ground that there were none in Germany doesn't make much sense anyway since most of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were outside Nazi controlled territory on the 1 September 1939 and only subsequently came within their power. Todowd 15:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, but until that time when war broke out in 39, it was the conviction of a lot of people (not only in Germany, also in many other countries), that the Jews were some kind of a burden or even danger for the people and countries, they live in, just as gipsies like the Sinti and Roma for example. This superstition was not invented by the nazis, it allready existed since medieval times and was only perfected by the german propaganda machine to have an opponent, the people got to be saved before. With that belief in the peoples mind combined with hate and fear, they were able to make more "hawk" politic decitions which seemed logical and were accepted by the people like for example it happend in the "war against terror" campaign. When they reached the ultimate power of dictatorship, there was no need for any further opponents but the propaganda worked so well that it couldn´t get stopped even if the wanted to. The plan of the "extermination of all jews" was total ridicolous in itself because it could have never been realised cause you can only exterminate those people who are in your "area of control". Germany had no real interest in colonies and therefore no possibility to exterminate the black people, so i heavily doubt that there ever existed such a plan to exterminate the black people. It was all about the "Living space in the east". There were big differences in the racial thinking of that age for example between those, who were a parasite and threat (and had to be exterminated in the radical nationalists mind) or just sub-human but maybe useful. The British nationalists thought kind similar about their colonies and that people, if you think about india for example. If Nazi-Germany had planned to exterminate all sub-human life, they would have killed a lot more people in east Europe because slavic people were also seen as sub-human. To make it short: This plan seems ridicolous and i doubt heavily, that it ever existed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.56.22.105 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 October 2006  (UTC)


 * Actually they wanted there prewar african territories but I doubt they would have exterminated the black populations probably send them somewhere else though Rhodesia, Algeria someplace like that.

Trivia
The Trivia entry about the crossing of the runes forming a swastika should probably be removed. There is no evidence that the insignia was chosen for this reason. There isn't even much relevance. It wouldn't form a perfect swastika...and is more of afterthought observation than trivia. --Coplan 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC) ¨

From some of the reading many years ago, it has even been suggested that the Nazi party had an intense interest in some Indigenous cultures, esp Native American and Tibetan/Bhuddist, and that the swastika has been derived from these cultures.. just a thought for further investigation. The swastika was also prevelant among the Aryan culture, which was a fair skinned subroot of the hindi peoples which was one of the lineages of the Bhudda. That has been my understanding, correct me if I am wrong.. or at least partly wrong. please refer to this link within Wiki itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika Koldaussie 05:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the SS never used "Herr" before a rank as was/is normally done in the German military when not using a surname, eg. "Zu Befehl Herr Hauptmann" would simply be "Zu Befehl Hauptsturmfuehrer" (the rank differing for the SS of course). Can anyone confirm this? D Boland 00:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Maik Kopleck's guide to Berlin under Nazi rule, "Berlin 1933-1945", the swastika was also a Germanic folk art symbol representing Thor's hammer. At the beginning of the 19th century, it was used by the Gymnastics Movement to expressits ties with the ordinary citizens of a Germany divided into countless states and ruled by the aristocracy. By the 1920s, members of the extreme right-wing Freikorps carried the symbol on their helmets, giving it a nationalistic and anti-Semetic meaning.117th

Serbs and Albanians
Claim that "the Kosovo Albanians were likely motivated by the chance to fight against the Serbians, who oppressed them for centuries" is not true. Kosovo came under Serbian rule in 1912, and Serbia gained its independece from Turkey in 1878. In Otoman empire Serbs, who are Christians, certainly had no chance to oppress Albanians, predominantly Muslim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.244.195.222 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 November 2006  (UTC)

Rank deletions on Rudolf Höß
Everyone please visit the article on Rudolf Höß, there is a user who is blanking the section on his dates of rank and awards and decorations, saying that to hve them in ana rticle "validates a criminal organization". Clearly not a good reason to blank an entire section as that sounds like some personal feelings at work. -Husnock 13:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User is also removing large section from Reinhard Heydrich. As I dont want to get into an edit war, other editors are needed to review the situation. -Husnock 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Postwar persecution
I cannot find any article dealing with postwar persecution of SS-men, with the exception of a single sentence in the intro of this article. `'mikka 18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Postwar activity
Who is Klaus Klement? Spike2021 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hauptamt Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle
I invite anybody who's interested to review the Hauptamt Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle article and provide feedback for improving it. I created this article a few weeks ago and have just recently expanded it with information that I took from the German and Italian Wikipedias using the rough translation provided by Google. Unfortunately, the information about the departments of this Hauptamt was in the Italian Wikipedia with the German names of the Amts. This meant that Google ignored the German names since it was trying to translate "Italian => English". I can translate some of the names of the Amts but not all and I could use some help doing that. If you do translate the names into English, please leave the German name in the article so that readers can see what the actual name was.

--Richard 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language website links
According to WP:MOSLINKS, links to foreign language websites maybe useful only if they provide: The website Die Schutzstaffel (SS) meets none of those standards. For those readers who speak no German, that website, for all we know, talks about the quality of BMW automobiles. Orangemarlin 04:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * when the website is the subject of the article
 * when linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables; explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can still interpret them
 * when the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative)

Branch
Branch 	Wehrmacht Is incorrect. The SS has never been part of the Wehrmacht, but was an entity in its own right.

Peasant-warriors
This part of the article is incorrect. Although only a slight mistake it is a clear one. Himmler didn't want 'peasant-warriors' but 'warrior-farmers'; whilst this may be nit-picking, the difference between peasants and farmers is clear as Richard Rhodes points out in his book on the Einsatzgruppen and SS. I've changed it accordingly. Any objections?

Photo of "punished" SS soldiers
This caption needs work. If soldiers are "shot to death" (sic) after the liberation of a camp (implying they've surrendered), but without being tried, then they have been murdered in a probable war crime, not "punished". No matter how horrific the sights they have just seen, it is not within the prerogative of a private soldier (or even an officer) to summarily mete out "punishment" to soldiers who have surrendered to them. Alternatively, if these men were killed in fighting while the camp was being liberated, and had not yet surrendered, then they are casualties of war, not victims of punishment (except, perhaps, for a somewhat metaphysical sense). The caption should reflect this.

The caption as it stands is highly dubious, and needs proper sourcing to support what it says. I've removed the bit about "punishment", because that's ridiculous. There needs to be a source supporting the assertion that they were shot after the liberation of the camp, and similarly if the "punishment" claim is reinserted, this should surely also be supported by a citation, explaining why this can be considered punishment and not murder. It is not clear that these bodies are even of SS members - they have no insignia and do not appear to be in SS uniform. Finally, the original source of the photo (the US Holocaust Memorial Museum) simply states that they were killed after the liberation, and seemingly gives no justification for the "punishment" conjecture.

Finally, it is unclear exactly what the purpose of including this photo is. It has very little to do with the section of the article in which it appears. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the SS. It is thoroughly problematic, and I would suggest removing it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.198.248 (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi 41.243.198.248, and thanks for your thoughts, upon reflection I agree with you that the 'punishment' part of the caption is indeed unnecessary, however the United states holocaust memorial website indeed states they were killed after liberation, which means after the entry of US soldiers into the ohrdruf subcamp of Buchenwald concentration camp, which means they were either killed by armed prisoners or US soldiers, such acts weren't that uncommon, and saying it was punishment for the treatment of prisoners is not ridiculous, although I don't know if these two guards did anything wrong. This photo must stay because the SS had a high casuality rate in WW2, it is enyclopedic to show a few dead SS members Urgedhands 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with both the photo of the dead women and that of the dead officers. I find the photos extremely disturbing, sensationalist, and disrespectful. The general tone of both photos seems to be one of retribution. The photo of the starved women whose bodies have been exhumed just further infringes on their right to dignity and shows German civilians, including children, being taught a "lesson" by American soldiers. Justice for war crimes should certainly not be meted out by soldiers or through shocking photographs but through due legal process and the Geneva convention. I find that these photo's are inappropriate for a public website (even if they put a face to war) as the site is often used by school-children for the purpose of doing school projects. Finally, I don't believe that either photo has direct relevance to the SS. 9/11/2007 KRR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurreira (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the photos are extremely graphic for such a well known and widely used site such as Wikipedia. The picture of the two SS officers, sickens me, the fact that the picture is in colour is even worse and gives no respect to the dead what so ever. Yes the SS did some bad things in their time, but would you like to see a picture of your dad or other close relative dead like that in a public domain where it has been given absoloutly no respect at all. I think these pictures should be deleted from the site or at least the colour picture turned to black and white as it is just so graphic and realistic in colour. As Hurreria said above, children use this site a lot to research the war and the Nazi's, its unlikely they would look at the SS, but would you like to have seen that picture as a child. I'm 16 and i can hardly look at it without feeling sick, upset and angry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.144.22 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Were SS automatically members of the Nazi Party?
I've asked this question elsewhere and always gotten the response "Of course" (or something like it...), but how could this have been possible, considering that many non-German units existed within the W-SS? (I don't think Bosnian Serbs were granted membership in the NSDAP for example).

Were there exceptions made for non-German SS units, or were the SS simply affiliated with the Party, but not automatically a subset of it? (I tend to think the latter, although the Western CW on the subject will probably reflexively decry that possibility.) Critic9328 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The original ss organization usually referred to as the Allgemeine SS (german: common ss) emanated from the nazi party itself and therefore was made up by party members. In the pre war era units of the Waffen SS were formed by subsets of the Allgemeine SS and consisted of staunch nazis. During the war the Waffen SS served as a possibility to enlist combatants who could not serve in the Wehrmacht, like german minorities in foreign countries, foreigners themselves and underaged germans in the Reich – all of whom could not even think of being party members. However the commanding officers of these troops were germans and had to be party members, as the idea for the Waffen SS was to have rather a politically convinced leadership than a military experienced one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.125.189 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As in other "Gliederungen" membership in the Allgemeine-SS was not identical with membership in the Nazi party. Several members of the SS did not or only later apply for membership in the NSDAP. This was partly due to the fact that in 1933 the NSDAP closed membership for those applicants that not already belonged to a "Gliederung" like the SS.
 * -- Dirk Mahsarski (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Founded" by Himmler?
How could it have been founded by Himmler if there is a list of commanders previous to him listed under the graphic to the right? Critic9328 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

1923<->1925<->1926
First: Excuse my bad english. I am a member of the german wikipedia project and i found some confusing sentences in this article.. i think someone mixed or confounded informations about SS, Stabswache, Stosstrupp and SA. So:

1. The Schutzstaffel was founded in 1925, not 1923. [1923 the Stosstrupp was built, but that was a very, very, very small group of just 12 people, to protect A. Hitler.. there is not real a connection to the SS]

2. This group wasn't a part of the SA, in the begin it was an independent part ("Sonderorganisation") of the party NSDAP

3. Only 1926 at a party-meeting (we say "Parteitag") the SS was incorporated into the SA

Hope i could help. --91.40.26.254 (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I read a bit more intensively and this whole Section..


 * Origins


 * The group was first formed in 1923 as a company of the Sturmabteilung (SA), stormtroopers, tasked with protecting senior leaders of the Nazi Party at rallies, speeches, and other public events. Commanded by Emil Maurice, and known as the Stabswache (Staff Guard), they were nicknamed the "Brown Shirts" according to their dress. The original group consisted of eight men and was modeled after the Erhardt Naval Brigade, a violent Freikorps of the time.


 * After the failed 1923 Putsch by the Nazi Party, the SA and the Stabswache were abolished, yet they returned in 1925. At that time, the Stabswache was reestablished as the Stosstrupp Adolf Hitler, tasked with the personal protection of Hitler at Nazi Party functions and events. That same year, the Stosstrupp was expanded to a national level, and renamed as the Schutzstaffel (SS). The new SS was delegated to be a protection company of various Nazi Party leaders throughout Germany.

.. is totally bullshit and seems to be terrible bad translated from the german article. *grin* Maybe someone who is in a position to speak both languages at a good level should improve that. :-) --91.40.26.254 (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that calling any portion of an article "bullshit" violates WP:CIV. And I actually dont see anything too incorrect about the paragraph although the 1923-1925 period of the SS is very grey and hazy and some fo the facts mentioned above could be wrong. As far as the claim that this was stolen/taken from the German wikipedia, there is no evidence of that. I wrote the paragraph years ago and never have even looked at the german version of the article.-OberRanks (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that "bullshit" is such a terrible verbal derailment in your language, excuse me - what i want to say is: It is useless. [Useless == Free of sense] :-) It's real not my intention to defame your work, but in my land we have tons of detailed literature about this topic and because of our sad history, we learn a lot about the time between 1933 and 45. Theres nothing "grey and hazy".. and i thought its translated (at the german WP we don't say stolen, because informations has to exist in every language for everyone with a broadband connection), because its nearly word by word the same, with just one problem: Its mixed, so that there are mistakes. If you would tell someone in Germany or Austra that the SS is emerged from Stosstrupp, everyone would laugh. The one was an organisation with thousands of members, the other was a small bodyguard-unit (12 "specialists" at a brawl-level, which were simultaneously members of the SA) at the time, when A. Hitler was still a small "Local-Politician" in bavaria. And.. when i read this sentence:


 * That same year, the Stosstrupp was expanded to a national level, and renamed as the Schutzstaffel (SS). 


 * Like i said, excuse me.. but that is.. not true, not even a part of that sentence is true. :-) Just want to help, i will not work/edit outside my own language, its your task to handle with the spended informations. Think about: Do something, or let the lies inside - it is your project. If my expression seems to be offensive or unfriendly, i would like to ask for forgiveness, my english is at a basic level. In german/french/russian i had chosen my words in a better way.. but.. hey: I like to invite you, to have a look at the specific british/american/australian-articles in the german wikipedia, its also possible that we made such detail-mistakes. *smile* Thank you and greetings to the united states. --91.40.35.98 (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S.: The term "Schutzstaffeln" is also incorrect, we just say "Schutzstaffel der NSDAP", because "Staffeln" is not an existing noun in the german language. :-) When we use "staffeln" it is a verb and it is a synonym of the word "sort". I allready heard that designation from a british friend, seems if some primitive german websites have disseminated that expression, but historical and linguistically it has never existed. [Try to have a look at some old papers, documents, etc.] So.. now i'm really quiet. *g* --91.40.35.98 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can work something out to merge your many facts from the German point of view into this. And it was clear you didnt know the word was bad, just used it by mistake. Alle ist gut. American textbooks do contradict eachother about the 1923 to 1925 period. For instance, Emil Maurice is listed in a lot of places as the founder of the SS but inothers as simply an SA commander put in charge of it. ''Bitte Sie, schreiben eine Liste von alles Idea das Sie mochten in dieses Artikle sehen. Dann wir kann lesen und werden wir im diesem Artikle also schreiben''. -OberRanks (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the term "Schutzstaffeln" I have to correct my fellow German. In fact you can find the plural form of "Staffel" not only on many official letters of the "Schutzstaffeln der NSDAP" but it is also used within the German Luftwaffe (air force) where it designates two or more squadrons.


 * -- Dirk Mahsarski (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wewelsburg Castle
Ideological and representative central and main cult site of the SS-Order was to become Wewelsburg Castle:

Wewelsburg from 1933 to 1945 - Place of cult and terror —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.162.82 (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture
I removed this completely unnecessary picture;--71.185.193.191 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Did it really add to the article?--71.185.193.191 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it does, it illustrates the kind of retribution levied on SS members following the liberation of the camp, and it certainly does not detracted from the article, and no argument can be made based on its inappropriate content. SGGH speak! 18:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed. It does not add anything to the article. A picture of two corpses portrays two corpses, it says nothing specific at all about the type of retribution meted out to the SS. It is merely gratuitous decoration which distracts the reader. MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They've been out in the sun too long! But seriously, I agree with SGGH. 76.235.52.38 (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"The SS was responsible for the vast majority of war crimes perpetrated under the Nazi regime"
Where is the authority for this statement? Numerous (maybe even countless) war crimes were committed by all branches of the Nazi government and the German armed forces, Army, Air Force, and, yes, even Navy. Can't blame it all on SS.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Nuremberg Trials declared the SS as the leading organization which committed war crimes with that agency bearing primary responsibility for the execution of the Holocaust. This has been repeated in countless texts, journals, and research papers by the top historians of the Second World War among them Stephen Ambrose and John Keegan.  The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich also declares the SS as the leading perpetrator of war crimes under the Nazis. -OberRanks (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest making specific references in text then. Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. -OberRanks (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in proper citation format. Without specific authority, the statement as written appears inconsistent with War crimes of the Wehrmacht. A good place to start assembling authority for or against the proposition that the SS "was responsible for the vast majority of war crimes" might be with the extensive collection of links to primary and other sources assembled by Professor Stuart Stein on his website. Mtsmallwood (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never been good at in-line citations; I'm sure anothr editor can clean that up. The entire point here that none of this should really be in dispute.  Also no one is saying that the Wehrmacht was blameless and pure.  Perhaps an additional sentence linking to the war crimes article you mentioned or just rewording the paragraph a bit.  I would not recommend, however, putting anything in the article that there is little proof that the SS committed war crimes and that the Army did them instead (that is not what you did, I am just using that as an example).  It is very easy for people to get the wrong idea and think that such statements are revisionist.  But, as I said, you did not do that in any way shape or form; there is just always the danger that any comments along those lines could be badly misunderstood. -OberRanks (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahnenerbe
The Ahnenerbe never had any roots in the fictional Vril Society and no relevant connections to the Thule Society. It nevertheless had roots in pseudo-science due to its connection to Wirth, Teudt and (to a lesser extend) Willigut. For further information compare H.M. Kater: "Das Ahnenerbe", Stuttgart 1974 and H. Pringle: "The Master Plan", London 2006.

-- Dirk Mahsarski (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of references
This entire article has exactly 3 footnotes, and is starting to look like original research. I would expect multiple layers of sources to be available for this subject to be used as citations, instead there are practically none.Mtsmallwood (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There just has not been interest in it apparently, which is sad, but hopefully other editors will get on board and help out a bit. This has the makings of a Featured Article if it ever got cleaned up.  I for one dont have the avaialble time required to massively work on the article, and also some of this I would rather publish professionally (and get paid for it!) rather than write it on Wikipedia.  Its all for fun, you know, but you are correct that the article needs more sources. -OberRanks (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed there are 15 sources listed in the biblo-section so the article is hardly unsourced. The matter (I guess) seems to be adding in-line citations.  I dont entirely agree with tagging each section as "unreferenced"; to me that makes it seem like we are just making the problem worse instead of fixing it.  But, I won't remove such tags since I edit this article form time to time and am not a heavy regularly editor of it. -OberRanks (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking about tackling the whole thing for sources, but maybe a smaller solution would better. Part of the solution may be to write some smaller sourced articles and include references. I will put together a little something along this line and you can see how it might work.Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to stop stating that this article isn't sourced. There are 15 sources listed very clearly at the bottom of the page.  The issue is in-line citations which can be added over the next several months if need be and not just by you or I, but any editor.  There is really no need to rewrite anything in my opinion, we just need to take the existing sources and link them to the text with in-line citations. -OberRanks (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

List of sources
Just so there is no further debate about this, the current list of sources for this article is as follows:


 * Arenhövel, Verlag (1989). Topography of Terror. Berlin: Berliner Festspiele GmbH. (ISBN 3-922912-25-7)
 * Höhne, Heinz. (1969). The Order of the Death's Head, The Story of Hitler's SS. London: Pan Books Ltd.
 * Infield, Glenn: The Secrets of the SS (ISBN 0-8128-1790-2)
 * International Military Tribunal (referred to as IMT), (1947-1949). Record of the Nuremberg Trials November 14th, 1945 - October 1st, 1946. 42 Vols. London: HMSO.
 * Koehl, Robert Lewis (1983). The Black Corps University of Wisconsin Press.
 * Krausnick, Helmut (editor) Anatomy of the SS State with contributions by Hans Buchheim; Martin Broszat & Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, translated from the German by Richard Barry, Marian Jackson, Dorothy Long, New York : Walker, (1968).
 * Lasik Aleksander, Sztafety Ochronne w systemie niemieckich obozów koncentracyjnych. Rozwój organizacyjny, ewolucja zadań i struktur oraz socjologiczny obraz obozowych załóg SS, wyd. Państwowe Muzeum Auschwitz-Birkenau, Oświęcim 2007. ISBN 978-83-60210-32-1.
 * Lumsden, Robin: The Allgemeine-SS, Vol. 266 (ISBN 1-85532-358-3)
 * Mollo, Andrew: Pictorial History of the SS (1923 - 1945) (ISBN 0-7128-2174-0
 * Schultz, Sigrid: Germany Will Try It Again (Reynal & Hitchcock, New York, 1944)
 * Shirer, William L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Gramercy. (ISBN 0-517-10294-3)
 * SS Officer Personnel Files, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland
 * Tetens, T.H.: The New Germany and the Old Nazis (LCN 61-7240)
 * Wechsbert, Joseph: The Murderers Among Us (LCN 67-13204)
 * Yerger, Mark C.: Allgemeine-SS (ISBN 0-7643-0145-4)

-OberRanks (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of references does not help people verify what is being said. While I think that most of what of the article could be supported by references there are several controversial statements that I believe need specific sources for support.  I took a crack at referencing some of the material, there is however still quite a lot to do.Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The list of sources above can verify most of what the article said. For specifics, in-line citations can be used. I also removed the block out on the SS before WWII section. That came straight out of Mark Yerger's book. I added a line at the bottom of the section stating that. -OberRanks (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Private version of this article on a user page
I'm recording this here not to insult or offend the creator, just to provide a link so other editors can see the alternate version of this page maintained on a private user page. I have a few concerns about this, the first of which I voiced here. While it is the right of any user to create whatever they wish on a user page, I have concerns that some of this might be copyrighted information and also have concerns that the user in question may be planning to blank and replace the existing article, either in part or in whole, with this private version of the page. Once again, this is with all politeness and respect to the creator. I am just very concerned where this is leading and it might develop into a WP:OWN situation. I think the comments of other editors are needed here. -OberRanks (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that some references were added by (parens) rather than by citation format. I apologize if I commented out sections that appeared to be unsupported because of missing the parenthetical.  These seem to be related to the Yerger source.  I added some more information to the Yerger source (full title, date and place of publication, and publisher) based on a worldcat search (have not examined the source myself), and put it into citation format.  If you have sources for the other portions of the article, but need help in putting them in citation format, please let me know and I would be glad to put the material into inline citation format.  Please note the links to the online versions of the IMT documents referenced in the sources. every document cited from the IMT.  Finally, I believe I am permitted to test ideas on my own user page, no?Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your changes look excellent and, to the other matter, you have a right to create whatever you want on your user page. I have just seen some nasty situations with people on this site writing what we call "fork articles" on a user page then pasting in on top of legit articles in mainspace. I never meant to suggest you were going to do that, however. My main reason for the prods on this was to get other editors interested and help out with the citations and footnotes and the material. Things look fine now, so I will leave you too it. I am probably going to be devoting myself to the Service record of Reinhard Heydrich. I've staerted a major expansion and plan to add in citations and scans out of his actual SS record over the next few weeks. Best. -OberRanks (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Added Einsatzgruppen image
I added an Einsatzgruppen image.Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Command Structure of the SS"
I dont follow the purpose of this section. It appears to be simply copying of text (word for word) from textbooks and, although cited, comes close to breaking WP:NOT in particular "Wikipedia is not a mirror". The information also seems to be out of place and is duplicated later in "SS during World War II" farther down the page. I would suggest we remove that section. -OberRanks (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The following I removed from themain article as it appears to be simply copied text out of a textbook and/or reference book. While the mateiral can be used for the aritcle, we should avoiding simply copying and pasting texts from other works. There was also no response to the above inquiry about the purpose of this section, so I am storing it here. -OberRanks (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Command structure of the SS
"The transformation of a small emergency force into a vast combat Army did not result in any separation of this branch from the SS. Although tactically under the command of the Wehrmacht while in the field, it remained as much a part of the SS as any other branch of that organization. Throughout the war it was recruited, trained, administered and supplied by the main offices of the SS Supreme Command. Ideologically and racially its members were selected in conformity with SS and Nazi ideology."

SS Main Office
"'The SS Main Office, through which these recruiting activities were conducted, was one of the principal departments of the SS Supreme Command. Other departments of the Supreme Command performed other functions in connection with the Waffen SS.'"

SS Operational Headquarters
The SS Operational Headquarters (SS Führungshauptamt) included the Command Headquarters of the Waffen SS.

"'In the Fuehrunshauptamt the command office of the Waffen SS handles tasks of military leadership: Training and organization of the units of the Waffen SS, supply of the troops with arms, equipment and ammunition, procurement of motor vehicles for the Waffen SS and General SS, personnel and disciplinary affairs.'"

SS Main Legal Office
The SS Main Legal Office (Hauptamt SS Gericht''). . . controlled the administration of courts martial and discipline within the Waffen SS. The secret Hitler order of 17 August 1938. . . had provided that on mobilization the SS militarized forces should come completely under military laws and regulations. That provision was modified [by the decrees of 17 October 1939'' and 17 April 1940.] ''These two decrees established a special jurisdiction in penal matters for various classes of SS members, including members of the SS militarized units, in cases which would ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction of the Wehrmacht; and created special SS courts to handle such cases under the direction of the SS Legal Main Office. Thus, in the vital question of discipline, as well as in recruiting, administration, and supply, the Waffen SS was subject to the SS Supreme Command.''