Talk:Schutzstaffel/Archive 7

Porcelain
I'd like to adjust the 1st para in the "Business empire" section to more interesting details from the linked article. Would the below work, provided it matches the Weale citation?


 * In 1934, Himmler founded the first SS business venture, Nordland-Verlag, a publishing house that released propaganda material and SS training manuals. The following year he purchased Allach Porcelain, which, within a year's time, was run with forced labor provided by the Dachau concentration camp. The emphasis was on decorative ceramics &mdash;objects d'art for the Nazi regime. Because of the labour shortage and a desire for financial gain, the SS started exploiting concentration camp inmates as slave labour. Most of the SS businesses lost money until Himmler placed them under the administration of Pohl's WVHA in April 1939. In July 1940 Pohl established the Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe GmbH (German Businesses Ltd), an umbrella corporation under which he took over administration of all SS business concerns. Eventually the SS founded nearly 200 different holding companies for their businesses.

I also copyedited the 3rd sentence as it was it was saying "exploit" twice. I therefore took out: "...to exploit the concentration camp inmates..." from "Because of the labour shortage and a desire to exploit the concentration camp inmates for financial gain, the SS started exploiting them as slave labour.

Here's another version, with better connection between sentence 2 and 3:


 * In 1934, Himmler founded the first SS business venture, Nordland-Verlag, a publishing house that released propaganda material and SS training manuals. The following year he purchased Allach Porcelain to produce decorative ceramics &mdash;objects d'art for the Nazi regime. Within a year's time, the enterprise was run with forced labor provided by the Dachau concentration camp. Similar developments occurred in other camps, due to labour shortages and a desire for financial gain, whereas the SS started exploiting concentration camp inmates as slave labour. Most of the SS businesses lost money until Himmler placed them under the administration of Pohl's WVHA in April 1939. In July 1940 Pohl established the Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe GmbH (German Businesses Ltd), an umbrella corporation under which he took over administration of all SS business concerns. Eventually the SS founded nearly 200 different holding companies for their businesses.

Please let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there's no mention of Allach using laborers from Dachau in Weale, and for items produced he lists commemorative plates and figurines as well as symbolic items like the Yule candlesticks. We can't add material without a citation. (Just to let you know that all content I have imported from other articles is material I wrote myself from sources I personally have viewed.) I have implemented your suggestion regarding the repetitive wording. — Diannaa (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for checking. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, Weale, on 114, does not say "the following year"; he states, "this was allowed by"; it also does not say, "Within a year's time"; it states, the CCI was "...determined to make the camps economically productive". Lastly, Flaherty should be cited to pp. 119-120 (on page 120, it states "slave labor"). Kierzek (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I did not know that "Julleuchters (Yule candleholders)" were a Third Reich era symbol. Perhaps it should be quickly explained in that sentence? I.e. "the Nazi era Julleuchters (Yule candleholders)"? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't have room to explain / include everything. We are still 3,000 words over the 10,000 word limit. If people want to know about the Julleuchter, they can follow the link. I have found something about the porcelain factory in Longerich 2012; adding now. — Diannaa (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that I've added it, it seems like a less important detail. I might take it out again later when doing the final round of copy edits. — Diannaa (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is also interesting to see how different articles about history, created independently and sometimes years appart eventually come together in support of each other. The SS "Business empire" is a good example of that, but the stealing for personal gain by concentration camp commandants including Odilo Globocnik, Karl-Otto Koch, Hermann Florstedt, or Hans Kellermann (Szebnie), still needs to be mentioned. "Diamonds, gold, coins, dollars, and foreign currency from all over Europe were stolen" on a scale never seen before. -- Ian Baxter  Poeticbent  talk  21:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Remember Amon Göth got in trouble for stealing confiscated goods, which were property of the state. I don't think we need to list all these guys, but a general statement that there was plenty of stealing is needed. I will do that right now. — Diannaa (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a separate article on the SS commercial empire? I'm not seeing one. Perhaps I've missed it. It seems well worth a separate and more detailed article, if not. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is already: Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe and SS-Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt. It does not mean they cannot be expanded; especially the first one listed. Kierzek (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Yes, they can certainly be expanded. And ayy..... those titles. They are mouthfuls. I'd been meaning to raise that point eventually concerning this article, as to whether we should revisit the title. Perhaps those too, at some point. Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Forced labour under German rule during World War II, another related one in a general sense and check out DEST, as well. BTW, I did do redirects to the two above. Kierzek (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the "See also" section can be expanded and divided into categories. There is an SS category but it includes everything, down to divisions. Or a list article: List of SS commercial enterprises? Coretheapple (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for Decline section
Suggestion to cover the SS actions to cover up the crimes and prepare for Germany's defeat as a subsection there. Sonderaktion 1005 is mentioned in the article, but it's under SS-Sonderkommandos subsection, so not prominent enough.

I believe Sonderaktion 1005 should be covered in a sub-bullet under the Decline section (along with below), as that's when the leaders came to realize that they would be held accountable. Posen speeches should also be included, as (in my understanding) Himmler made them specifically to make a wider group of functionaries aware of the SS criminal enterprise, so that they would not be able to claim ignorance after the possible defeat. Himmler appears to have made similar speeches between December 1943 and June 1944 to commanders of the Wehrmacht. I may be wrong, but the speeches should probably be covered.

Lastly, it would be interesting to include what preparations SS made for the eventual collapse -- false passports, escape routes, "Nazi gold" (unless that's a myth), did they make any special arrangements with the Catholic church? (unless also a myth). This area I don't know much about, but I think it would be worthwhile to include.

In any case, just some thoughts. Hope this is helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a staggering amount of material relating to the SS over the years, and its decline in and of itself could be quite a lengthy article. This reminds me somewhat of BP. There were perhaps a dozen articles on the oil spill. Some of them are not very good articles. But the organization was fairly good. This article suffers from a lack of articles on sub-issues such as the SS commercial enterprises or whatever, and additionally the use of German terms as article names, when English terms are more common, is extremely burdensome for English speaking readers and this is the English Wikipedia. Yes I know, I know, it's been argued to death in the past. But consensuses change. Putting that aside, I think that structure needs to be thought about. This article is very very very long, and there are many small articles on various SS-related topics that are not properly linked from this article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to add that I do agree with K.e.coffman's suggestions re the decline of the SS. Sorry, I didn't intend to hijack the discussion with my concerns. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In an article such as this, it is going to be long to have proper coverage; with that said, we are at the point where further additions will cause a problem as to "length" as Diannaa has pointed out. Some linking to sub-articles can be done and some minor ce to trim could be done, but in the end, that is what sub-articles are for so the main article is not unwieldy. Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've changed the header of the section to "Military reversals" as that summarizes the contents of the section better. I think that what K.e. coffman is suggesting is worthwhile and perhaps should be in a separate section. Perhaps "Collapse"? The current section begins at Normandy and is a recitation of military defeats, whereas what they are suggesting is a bit different I think. I have a book on the Nazi gold, by the way, but not sure how authoritative it is. Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

K.e. coffman's suggestions for the section are interesting, but it's the wrong approach; we shouldn't decide ahead of time what the section should say and then try to hunt up sources to support the proposed content. Rather, we need to check and see what the available sources have to say on the subject, and then write sourced content using those sources. Not everyone at Posen was a member of the SS, so it's off-topic in my opinion. As of right now we are at 12212 words. We don't have room. Related articles are covered in the Template:SS organizations navbox at the bottom of the article. — Diannaa (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If K.e. coffman is familiar with the literature out there on the SS then I think he/she is going about it in the right way. As for the length: I agree that this is long, but the subject is broad. If anything significant is omitted it should be un-omitted. Coretheapple (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested trim
Suggesting a trim/ce for the section "Reiter-SS"

Like many sporting associations, the governing body of horse breeders and riders pledged the support of its 250,000 members to Hitler when he seized power in 1933. Shortly thereafter, most of the horse riding associations were taken over by the SA and SS. These equestrian clubs were used to attract members the upper class and nobility into the SS. Members received formal military training to serve in the Reiter-SS (SS Cavalry Corps). The first SS cavalry regiment, designated SS-Totenkopf Reitstandarte 1, was formed in September 1939. Commanded by then SS-Standartenführer Hermann Fegelein, the unit was assigned to Poland, where they took part in the extermination of Polish intelligentsia. Additional 14 squadrons were created; added in May 1940, they were supported by specialist units and horse-drawn gun batteries artillery. There were then 14 squadrons in total.

The unit was split into two regiments in December 1939, and by March 1941 their strength was 3,500 men, with Fegelein in charge of both. Fegelein was placed in charge of both regiments. In July 1941, A few months later, they were assigned to the Pripyat swamps punitive operation, tasked with rounding up and exterminating Jews and partisans Red Army stragglers. The two regiments were amalgamated merged into the SS Cavalry Brigade on 31 July, twelve days after the operation started. Fegelein's final report, dated 18 September 1941, states that they killed 14,178 Jews, 1,001 "partisans", and 699 Red Army soldiers, with 830 prisoners taken. The historian Henning Pieper estimates the actual number of Jews killed was closer to 23,700. The SS Cavalry Brigade took serious losses in November 1941 in the Battle of Moscow. Fegelein was appointed as commander of the 8th SS Cavalry Division Florian Geyer on 20 April 1943. This unit saw service in the Soviet Union in attacks on "partisans" and civilians. In addition, SS Cavalry regiments served in Croatia and Hungary.

I also put "partisans" in quotation marks as the Wehrmacht/SS definition of this term was purposely vague, and was used interchangeably with "Jews", "plunderers", "bandits", "bandit supporters", Red Army stragglers, along with actual guerrilla formations (via Hitler's Bandit Hunters). Some language should probably be clarified or removed for concision; please see the inline tags.

Please let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Add: the section should probably be renamed to "SS Cavalry" as more comprehensible to the English-language readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, I don't see why you can't just make these changes, as more dramatic ones have been done without posting them first here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've done the SS Cavalry. I also also did the same for Schutzstaffel. I kept the paragraph structure the same, so that they can be compared side by side. Once you guys are okay with these changes, my goal is to combine so that each sub-topic has a paragraph or bullet to it. I also adjusted the formatting, to remove a level of subsections -- this section was the only one with subsections at this level (i.e. 7.6.1.) and it was creating visual clutter. Please let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the proposed changes do not agree with the material in the cited sources. We can't substitute "Red Army stragglers" for partisans, as there were no Red Army stragglers in the Pripyat swamps. They were fighting actual partisans, well-organized guerrillas. Same with the other two uses of the word partisans, the ones you suggest placing in scare quotes. Section headers should not be replaced with placing things in Bold. Bold text does not create a section break, and thus makes the section less accessible to people using screen readers. BADHEAD. Reducing the depth of the table of contents is achieved using the  template. Fixing now. — Diannaa (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip on TOC limit -- always learn something from you. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Parking spot: Latvian Legion
I believe this is pertinent, as Waffen-SS was the only SS branch that strove for recognition and rehabilitation in the post-war decades. The Latvian Legion Day is part of that movement. It may be combined with some of the HIAG content along these lines. I will propose a version on this Talk page.


 * On 21 February 2012, The Council of Europe’s Commission against Racism and Intolerance published its report on Latvia (fourth monitoring cycle), in which it condemned Latvian Legion Day which commemorates persons who had fought in a Latvian unit of the Waffen-SS and takes place every year on 16 March. It is held in the centre of Riga. Within that report is the following statement which applies universally concerning the Waffen-SS, "All attempts to commemorate persons who fought in the Waffen-SS and collaborated with the Nazis, should be condemned. Any gathering or march legitimising Nazism in any way should be banned."

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It can be added to the Waffen-SS article page. Kierzek (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think placing it on the Waffen-SS page is a good suggestion. — Diannaa (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Adding rationale for removal: It's slightly off-topic for this article (see GA criterion 3b). Current word count (without this material) is 11419 words, which I think we can justify given the importance of the topic. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it belongs in this article, but as a couple of sentences. I note that the section "links to contemporary movements" was removed because it did not relate specifically to the SS. However, here we have an SS legion honored, so it is directly relevant. Also I note the absence of a Legacy section that belongs in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked through the 10 books I have here that I used in conjunction with my recent copy edits, and did not find any material that was suitable for constructing a Legacy section. Thinking some more about the Latvian Legion material, I think another good reason to omit it is because it would be kinda just tacked on there at the end on its own, which would give this one event undue weight. Why is it important enough to be included? is the question our GA reviewer will ask. Why so important, especially when we are still over the suggested 10,000 word limit for page size. I think it could be placed in the Waffen-SS article. There's already extensive coverage in the Latvian Legion article. — Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Legacy" sections are common in far less consequential articles. I see them often in Wikipedia articles about movies and minor historical figures, and I doubt very much that you find many source materials with separate "legacy" chapters. I don't think it's a leap to include one here. Just because ten books don't have legacy sections doesn't mean that we should not have such an obvious section. Coretheapple (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are of course welcome to search for sources and create the section yourself. — Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the Latvian legion aspect, alone, is not enough to sustain a legacy or similar section. Coretheapple (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Image
I commented out the image of "demonstates the ovens..." -- it's a staged photo and I also find it problematic as it could be interpreted as "blaming the victims" (members of the Sonderkommandos). If an image of the ovens / crematoria is needed, a free/properly licensed image is available on Commons:.

Feedback/suggestions? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest the featured picture, File:Crematorium at Auschwitz I 2012.jpg. — Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a good one. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have changed the image. — Diannaa (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this. Sorry but I strongly disagree with substituting the preexisting photo with a museum photo. First I have to say that I couldn't disagree more that the presence of a Sonderkommando in any way "blames the victim." I've seen that photo for years and the thought never crossed my mind. I don't think most people would feel that way unless they are utter fools. It is well-known that prisoners were forced to engage in the concentration camp/extermination machinery. The old photo shows how the actual cremation was done. The new photo is excessively sanitized and is not as informative as the previous one.
 * Re "staged." Come on. Is a museum photo from seventy years later any less artificial? I think it's fine as long as we state that yes, this a prisoner demonstrating the process. Coretheapple (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I also do not believe this photo "blames the victim"; it instead shows the horror of the situation as "demonstrated". I agree with Coretheapple as to this photo; with that said, as to the replacement, I don't have a problem with that one being used where appropriate, in addition. Kierzek (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition - yes, of course. But not as a replacement. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest: "Demonstration photo by former prisoners at the Crematorium in Dachau concentration camp." The word, Sonderkommandos, does not need to be used. Kierzek (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the photo was staged; most photos were, as film and processing were both very expensive. I don't agree that the image blames the victims though. I have no objection to its use on that basis and am putting it back, since two people object to its removal and I have no strong preference either way. For a caption, i have used "Former prisoner at Dachau concentration camp poses at the camp crematorium, May 1945" to start with. — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I actually wonder whether that really was a sonderkommando. Virtually all were liquidated, and this was Dachau, not a death camp. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me preface that the image is okay with the image after the caption has been adjusted.

Re: "blame the victim" narrative, it most definitely exists. The Nazi origins of it are evidenced in Rudolf Hoess's memoirs, where he wrote that he "could not understand how the Sonderkommandos could kill their own kind" (or something to this effect).

Most recently, I came across this notion while watching the Cannes press conference on Son of Saul movie. One of the journalists started asking a question of the director on (IIRC) whether it was difficult to find funding for a movie that treated a "controversial subject dealing with half-killers and half-victims". At that point, the actor who played Saul interrupted the journalist and delivered a passionate statement that you can see in this 1-min clip. It got quite heated for a while: Cannes presents: Hungarian director Nemes' Son of Saul.

Hope this clarifies! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well it is sad that people feel that way. There's certainly no accounting for idiots. Incidentally to change the subject somewhat, re the Legacy section, I recall a book that came out in the late 1950s called Schizophrenic Germany, by a Newsweek correspondent, that might be useful. I used to have a copy but can't find it. I recall there's much on the aftermath of the SS. The author was John Dornberg. I imagine "aftermath" genre books like that would be helpful. Coretheapple (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No one doubts that it exists; it happens in court cases. The point was we were focused only on this photo. Which is discussed above. Kierzek (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The photo appears to be in the wrong section, as Dachau was technically not a "death camp". In the context of this section, the Majdanek photo I linked to earlier may be more appropriate, as it was both a labor camp and an extermination camp. I believe Majdanek was the only extermination camp that fell into the Allied hands somewhat intact, with the evidence of the mass exterminations present; the rest were raised to the ground (i.e. Treblinka) or largely destroyed (Auschwitz).


 * As a side note, the accounts from Majdanek appeared so outlandish, that the BBC initially refused to run an article filed by the British war correspondent Alexander Werth. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a good point about the photo's location. I moved it to the section where Dachau is discussed. We can have one of the other crematorium photos in its place in the death camp section. I have no preference among the two offered. I think both would work. Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the name
The term Schutzstaffel, short Schusta, was already in use during the First World War. It was than used for squadrons of escort fighter planes. German Jewish fighter ace Fritz Beckhardt for example served in Schutzstaffel 11 before transferring to Göring's unit. In a non-reliable source I recently read that Göring misappropriated the name for the future SS. Trying to find anything on this naming connection to the original First World War Schutzstaffel is difficult as everything is of course overshadowed by the latter use. Has anybody come across some information in any reliable source confirming this or is it just a myth? Calistemon (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually don't think this should even be the name of the article, given that SS is far and away the most common usage. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

SS offices: naming / moves
I have moved SS-Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt to SS Main Economic and Administrative Office.

I also proposed moves for SS Führungshauptamt and Hauptamt SS-Gericht. Additional suitable move suggestions for the offices that appear in Schutzstaffel would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I DON'T agree with them all being changed to "English translations": such as Einsatzgruppen, Ordnungspolizei, Sicherheitsdienst, Allgemeine SS, SS-Verfügungstruppe, SS-Totenkopfverbände, Kriminalpolizei, Sicherheitspolizei; but with that said, others such as: SS-Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt, and Persönlicher Stab Reichsführer-SS, are two I do agree with changing out. SS Führungshauptamt and Hauptamt SS-Gericht, I would like more feedback on as I consider them. I have thought about them and I can agree to them. SS Leadership Main Office for the first and the second one: Main SS Legal Office or SS Court Main Office (this second one being used more widely). Kierzek (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to suggest that all should be changed. Einsatzgruppen is widely used in English-language literature, for example. The rest I'm not that well versed on, so I was asking for feedback. The SS terminology was so complex and arcane, that the more we can simplify for the reader (in agreement with mainstream historiography) the better. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a note on the Persönlicher Stab Reichsführer-SS Talk page about the proposed move. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. I moved today, the article and talk page since there was no objection noted. Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't personally object to the move but I think any such move should have gone through the proper channels through Requested moves/Controversial to allow for a larger input of other contributors in the discussion. Calistemon (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That only if it is controversial/contested, which Persönlicher Stab Reichsführer-SS, above was not. The regular editors herein and the people who watchlist this page and that particular page were all made aware. Kierzek (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A discussion about the move was started, therefore the move was seen as at least potentially controversial, therefore the proper procedure as per Requested moves should have been followed. If the move was uncontroversial no discussion was needed in the first place and the page could have been moved straight away. Calistemon (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That was probably due to my unfamiliarity with the process. sorry! I think I was trying to gauge whether or not the moves would be considered controversial. It appeared that they were not.
 * What about the other two? Should they go through the move noticeboard? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you can't go wrong doing things by the book and using the proper process. It will add an extra week to the process but it may get greater amount of input because it will get listed at Requested moves and, hopefully, get a clear consensus. Calistemon (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I will do it for the other two. There's no rush. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What was the outcome, if any, for the two: SS Führungshauptamt and Hauptamt SS-Gericht? I checked the "Requested moves" page but did not see it (unless I missed it). Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I got distracted. If you are willing to request these moves, that would be great. If not, I will get to them eventually :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, it can wait. Kierzek (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Finally got around to this; it was not as complicated as I had thought. I've proposed the moves for the following articles:


 * SS-Hauptamt
 * SS-Führungshauptamt
 * Hauptamt SS-Gericht
 * SS-Personalhauptamt

Please feel free to comment on the respective Talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-nuetral POV
This article seems to be very anti-SS, and not all all neutral. It makes it appear that all SS members were bad, and we know that's just not true. Many former SS members went on to become extremely important and valuable members of American society. Wernher von Braun was an example of these. Why not point out the good in addition to the bad? A statement saying so would be appropriate at the top of the article, and much more accurate and balanced. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wernher von Braun's reputation is largely in ruins today now that his involvement with slave labour during wartime Germany is well known. The SS was a core element of the Nazi state, mass murder campaigns, slavery organisations and wars of aggression, and was found to be a criminal organisation, so the article should reflect that. Nick-D (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article tells it like it was and is well cited. It went through the GA vetting process. The SS was the principle branch of the Nazi state which carried out the Holocaust and mass murder campaigns, as Nick-D states. Frankly, more could be said, but the points are made. Kierzek (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 98.194.39.86: In Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View means presenting the various source materials so that Wikipedia itself does not take sides. Certainly, notable information from reliable sources could be added to the article, whether such information is about "good" members of the SS or about "bad" members of the SS.

However, the fact that a reader might come away with a wrong idea that all members of the SS were "bad" is not necessarily based on any kind of flaw in the neutrality of the article. The nature of the subject matter is such that most reasonable people will indeed come away with the impression that the SS was "bad." Neutral Point of View does not mean straining to try to prevent someone from somehow getting a wrong idea that all members of the SS were "bad."

Stated another way: "Balance" and "accuracy" do not mean adding something at the beginning of an article to point out what should be obvious -- that while every barrel of good apples might have a few bad apples, every barrel of bad apples might also have some good apples. Famspear (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The article does have a fundamental problem, which is its name. It is most commonly known as SS, not "Schutzstaffel." It's been discussed in the past, but can be revisited. Coretheapple (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor of that. "Schutzstaffel" is practically unknown to the vast majority of people, whereas "SS" is by far the common name. Pedantic accuracy should not win over WP:COMMONNAME. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Template insignia
After realizing that some of the templates in the bottom section here and in the related articles vary in the size of the insignia included, I'd like to suggest standardizing them – though I'm not quite sure about the proper figure to chose. Please ping me when answering – thanks in advance! Best--Hubon (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * & others: I suggest that the SS runes not be used in templates altogether. This comes across as "unneeded iconography" (of course we know that the templates are SS related) and also make the templates, some already bulky, appear taller. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It common to have them as the symbol or flag or photo of the subject matter of the template. I believe they should be kept, but at a common size (small) for all and something which does not overshadow the template contents. At the top of the template is a good position. Kierzek (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Opening lede, third paragraph...
Hello all, I would like to suggest an alteration to the beginning sentence of the 3rd paragraph, but only it as from the second sentence onwards I consider fine. It would be a much more accurate statement to specify a few other points in the lede of this paragraph, such as:


 * ..The SS-Totenkopfverbande were the section of the SS that implemented the physical reality of The Final Solution that the Third Reich was trying to achieve within the concentration camps, specifically in the genocide of an estimated 5.5 to 6 million Jewish citizens of German, Polish, French, Dutch and various other nationalities of Europe, known as the Holocaust. The SS as a whole though, especially the Allgemeine SS alongside the Gestapo and the Sichenheitsdeinst, are considered the main perpetrators in the systematic genocide of millions of Homosexuals, Intellectuals, Communists, Christians, Mentally & Physically Disabled and various other undesirables that did not fit into the Third Reich's ideology of a Superior Race or of their political expectations from the citizens they controlled..

I think this gives a more un-emotional and more precise description of the differences the SS had within its formation, and the implementation of their differing duties, and therefore the genocide each section was ultimately responsible for, irrelevant of the 2nd paragraphs previous statements. Its a touchy subject but I consider the exclusion of the other sections of society the Third Reich systematically murdered to be a very bad omission. It wasn't just the Jews who suffered and this needs to be specifically outlined or it comes across as just they that had their lives cut short by this regime and the others are not as important, unfortunately. The lede needs to always cover such important matters from the outset. I haven't made said changes, instead I am doing the correct thing by putting the question to those that care to debate the subject further, and with respects to the nature of this particular subject matter.

Regards Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 23:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a couple problems with your proposed re-write.
 * The quality of the prose does not meet the standards required for a Good Article.
 * The Holocaust is already discussed in the final paragraph of the lead, including mention of the number of victims. Listing the different groups and nationalities that were killed in the Holocaust is too much detail for the lead of this particular article. As an alternative, I have added to the lead that there were millions of other victims and offered a link to Holocaust victims. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diannaa in her assessment and the tweak to the lede which she made helps with the point as to other victims. The other points raised are discussed in the body with RS cites. As you know the lede is only to be a summary of the body of the article. Kierzek (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well my prose wasn't a finally submission for starters, it was a "how about something like this"...so the rather small amendment is a slightly better example but nowhere near sufficient I will say, as once again the Jews are mentioned but nobody else. I consider it of sufficient enough importance to mention at least 3-4 other types of victims other than Jews, especially Slavic and Romani peoples as well as such issues regarding Homosexuals/Lesbians (mainly due to the fact so many Nazi's where themselves) and Intellectuals, who aren't even barely covered. I state I find your response rather stand-offish and with a detectable amount of resistance to my concerns, to what is an important element of history, and to state once more it wasn't just the Jews who were persecuted, which is what most people think of when the term Holocaust is mentioned, and this needs to be corrected for proper transparency and unbiased reading. I do appreciate the timely response though and thank you for your efforts. Regards Nürö  G'DÄŸ MÄTË 11:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

So I take it you feel that nothing more needs to be said? I re-read the article again and there is a massive amount of Emotional bias from the view point of Historically factual wording, instead of a neutral framework. I believe there needs to be some re-thinking of this by those that have contributed. I'm studying Military History, specialising in the years 1901-1980, and I've come across various pages that relate to the Third Reich, and those involved with WWII in general, to be factually misleading do to such emotional wording. I'm writing this to ensure that someone creates a mindset of fixing this, because it comes across as such and therefore does not give a correct amount of variance in the war in general. Various elements are covered in this article, and is in general well written, but some much emotional wording is used. I'm not trying to say that I support some morally bankrupt 'revisionist' version of specific issues that far right groups attempt to use nowadays, but neutrality is not there from the point of view of a historian, the only view that should be put forward I will say. Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's really an extremely vague statement, and not very helpful in terms of what you think needs to be done. Can you be more specific about where you see "emotional bias" or "emotional wording", for instance? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello BMK, thank you for engaging. I'll make a comprehensive summary asap, but my objective was to have some debate. I will update this soon, I'm not in a rush, so again thank you for bothering to reply. Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 02:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't get my hopes up too much. I do want to know what you are referring to, but given the SS's intrinsic involvement in one of the worst cases of institutionalized genocide the world has every known, it would take very extreme emotional overreactions to convince me that the article was inaccurate or biased. Writing an encyclopedia does not require that we throw off our humanity and act like emotionless robots. We are human beings, writing for human beings, not automatons writing for computer data input.   It is inevitable that when he write about the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, or the millions of people killed by Mao and Stalin, and other instances of genocide, emotions will play a part, as they should, as these events were inexcusable moral apocalypses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that great care and thought has been taken in the editing and additions of lanuage, Nuro Dragonfly when this article was brought up to GA status (after review). I don't know what language you believe needs to be changed at this point but can tell you the article is well cited to RS sources. The main editors on this article are not an overly emotional bunch and I agree with BMK above and so far have not seen what is overly "emotional bias" in presentation of the facts. Kierzek (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the proposed third paragraph would not be a positive change, and that the current wording is fine. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

troops are killed, but not "murdered"
Troops in war are killed, not murdered; murder is a civilian crime in the criminal code. This idiocy was used by israel to pretend a soldier on duty was "kidnapped"; kidnapping is a civilian crime; soldiers are captured. Get it straight, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.140.7 (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The word "murder" is used here to describe the killing of troops who have already been captured. I'm not sure agree that the word needs to be changed, as premeditated killing prisoners of war violates the Geneva Convention. The word "kidnapped" does not appear to be in use in this article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diannaa. If one is shooting unarmed and surrendered men, that is "murder"; not KIA. Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll add my agreement as well: troops killed in the line of duty are not "murdered", but those killed once taken prisoner, or otherwise in blatant disregard for the agreed-upon rules of war, can be said to be "murdered", because the killing was unlawful. Thus POWs held by Japan who were starved or beaten to death were murdered, as were the very many German POWs held by the Soviet Union who were never repatriated after the war; and vice versa for Russian POWs murdered by the Nazi regime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that the image under which murder is used does not specify that those American soldiers were POWs, and therefore makes the usage clumsy. I thought the use of murder was strange enough that I looked at the talk page. I suggest we change the caption to include the acronym POW. I would do it myself, but I can't find where to edit the image caption. 71.212.15.231 (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

'SS' rune symbol
Will the editor who keeps referring to the SS runes as being Armanen designed please take the time to research the matter correctly. As I stated in my edit the Nazis did NOT make use of the Armanen runes. it is a matter of record their use was banned during the Nazi regime. The SS initially made use of the 'Standard' Germanic or Elder runes, and later adopted the runes designed by Karl Maria Willgut. Please stop adding inaccurate information94.9.27.43 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The runes used were based on völkisch mystic Guido von List's Armanen runes, which he loosely based on the historical runic alphabets. Wiligut's work was based on List. Kierzek (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * KIerzek you have stated it exactly. The SS insignias were designed by Karl Maria Wiligut, to say loosely based is vague. One can easily say 'loosely based on the Popular Germanic runes' which is the facts of the situation . He may have based them on Von Lists' but that does not mean they were the Armanen runes. Indeed Willigut is responsible for the majority of runic based insignia and are therefore his work and no one else's. For source material see Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke 's "Occult Roots of Nazism" chiefly the chapter on Willigut p177 to 191. Stephen Flowers' "The Secret King" where Flowers shows the complete set of Willigut runes including Willigut's design for the Totenkopfring. Paul Roland's 'Nazis and the Occult' p.301 where Roland specifically states that the S of the SS insignia was designed by ' employee of Ferdinand Hoffstatter, badge makers'Ayon707 (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Refernces Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke "Occult Roots of Nazism" ISBN 9781850434955 See chapter 14 - Karl Maria Wiligut P.177 -191 Stephen Flowers "The Secret King - The Myth and Reality of Nazi Occultism" ISBN 9781932595253 See chapter 'Wiliguts Texts (Wiligut's Runes) p.91-96, Design of the Totenkopfring p. 55 Paul Roland "Nazis and the Occult" ISBN 9781848588387 Sig rune design attributed to 'employee of Ferdinand Hoffstatter' p.301Ayon707 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The source for this was Yenne, Bill (2010). Hitler's Master of the Dark Arts: Himmler's Black Knights and the Occult Origins of the SS, p. 64. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears the reference is 2010? How could the reference be accurate when the date of historical authorship is 2010. I'd like to see sources that dates way back. It appears there is some cover-up of Christian's involvement in the crimes of Nazi Germany. As I read, the Pope had an agreement with Hitler. With Hitler himself saying in his speech of how the Jews killed our Christ (the reference of which points that he is a member of the religious organization or reads the Bible at the least.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.83.99.242 (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2017‎ (UTC)
 * In many instances, reliable sources for historical subjects are better when they are more recent, because they've had the advantage of the years of additional research, the opening of formerly closed archives, etc. Older sources don't reflect those advantages.As for your specific charges, there's a lot to criticize about what the Pope did and did not do in relation to the Nazi regime, and the other Christian denominations in Germany were shockingly willing to go along with the precepts of the regime, but, on the other hand, there was also a great deal of resistance (mostly passive, because of the personal physical danger that active resistance could bring out) from responsible Christians in Germany.  I don't believe that there's any "cover-up" of these issues, which have been covered by numerous historians. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Will the Editor of the description of the SS symbol please STOP referring to the insignia as being the Armanen Runes. It is a matter of historic record that the NAZI movement did not use the Armenian runes and used instead the 'Standard' or Germanic Elder. If you can produce historic records stating that the Nazi movement did use the Armanen Runes than reference it. I noticed you've also blocked my editing. What give you the right to think you can do this? Wiki is a public open database you do not own it. .Ayon707 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I will continue to correct the origins of the SS insignia no matter who changes it. If an article is not historically accurate what is the point of the article?Ayon707 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a source for your change. I have provided a citation for the content as the article stands: It is from Yenne, Bill (2010). Hitler's Master of the Dark Arts: Himmler's Black Knights and the Occult Origins of the SS, p. 64. If you have a source that states something else, please say so. Otherwise the content will have to remain as-is, as it is properly sourced to a reliable work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ayon707, if everybody added whatever they believe is the correct history, this wiki will fall apart very quickly. So the standard is to add only what can be verified by reliable sources. What you're saying may be right, but if you can't make it verifiable via a reliable source, then you're just trying to make this wiki fall apart, and I'm sure that's not what you want. EyeTruth (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For References please see above reply to Kierzek. Ayon707 (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can get Flowers in on inter-library loan but not Goodrick-Clarke. Neither book is visible to me on Google preview. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Goodrick-Clarke's book on the Occult Roots of Nazism, comes up for me on Google Books preview and has a section on List; I just don't have time to read it today, too much real life work to do before the office closes for Christmas. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's how to properly format the citations:

*

*

*

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the information on how to correctly format citations. Now that I have provided three sourses as requested, can the entry be changed to correctly reflect the actual origins of the SS insignia?Ayon707 (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Kierzek and I have not had a chance to check the sources yet to verify that they support your proposed change. So no, please don't make any edits until consensus is reached that it's an appropriate change. We are both busy at the holiday season with last minute things at work and family commitments, so please be patient. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Ayon707. Alternatively, you can post an image of the specific passages using an image sharing site (like imgur or postimage). Do limit how much you share to avoid overstepping your fair use leeway. If don't have current access to these sources, then you'll have to wait for other editors to validate. EyeTruth (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @EyeTruth. Thanks, I was wondering if that is possible, I'll scan the relevant texts. Particularly the page of Paul Roland's book where he names the actual designer and the page from Guido Von LIst's own book which shows his design of the SIG rune, nothing like the SS insignia.Ayon707 (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have checked Longerich's biography of Himmler and Weale's Army of Evil and the origin of the SS rune is not covered in either book. That's all I have for now. I have ordered The Secret King: The Myth and Reality of Nazi Occultism on itner-library loan and it will likely take 2 weeks to arrive. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The whole 'Secret King' book will demonstrate just how influential Wiligut was on all the SS insignia and how it was largely his runic work that inspired to the various rune based designs used by the SS. I would also highly recommend Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's Occult Roots of Nazism as it give the most comprehensive overview of the whole topic

As per EyeTruth's suggestion I've uploaded some relevant material. The following links will take you to page 300-301 of Paul Roland's 'Nazi's and the Occult' book where he specifically states who was responsible for the actual SS insignia. The second link will take you to a page of Guido von LIst's The Secret of the Runes which the book where von List outlines the Armanen rune. My reason for adding this because it shows Von List's own hand drawn SIG rune which looks nothing like the SS insignia. Incidentally, it also shows that SIG is just one of the names given to this particular rune, there are several others listed.

The links (apologies if the format is wrong I'm still new to this) Paul Roland's book - http://i.imgur.com/jg0LwKw.jpg Von List's Rune book - http://imgur.com/vj8jQ9s Ayon707 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Von List died in 1919, so he cannot be directly responsible for the SS rune. The image in Von List's Rune book is not necessarily "Von List's own hand drawn SIG rune" as it's mechanically printed in a book published in 1907, and there are likely limitations on the printing process. The rune is more upright than the one in our info box, which tilts, but it more closely resembles the one available at Armanen runes. If I recall correctly that table closely resembles the images in Yenne. I will find out on Thursday when I go back to work (I work at the library). The material in Yenne states that whoever created the SS rune in 1932 based it on von List's series, which does not contradict the material in Roland. I found another source that agrees with Yenne: The Science of the Swastika By Bernard Thomas Mees has some material on von List's runes and their adoption by the Völkisch movement on page 61-62. Page 210 specifically states that the SS rune was based on von List. There might be another potential citation in Lumsden, Robin (1993). The Allgemeine-SS. Osprey Publishing. p. 17.  Do you have access to that book?  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't; I used to have two books by him, one of the Waffen-SS and one on the Allgemeine SS, but I sold them about two years ago and stopped using him; although he is still seen as a decent source for medals and awards, I decided there are better ones for everything else within the SS and Waffen-SS. Kierzek (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The version of the Armanen Runes use on the Armanen Rune page were drawn by S.A. Kummer and are taken from his book 'Hellige Runenmacht' which amended the rune's appearance to better fit the imagery being used by the rising 'volkish' movements in Germany. so effectively the other way round to what you're stating. And I cannot believe you're simply dismissing that fact that the runic images in von List's book are those that were hand written by von List. If you care to contact Dr. Stephen Flowers he will confirm that the are mechanical reproductions from Von List's hand written manuscript. But, you know what I give up! Those of us who seriously study the runes will know that this page is inaccurate and wrongly assigns the origins of the SS insignia. So let leave the page as an incorrect representation of facts. It goes to prove what's previously been said of Wikipedia "Being right has nothing to do with being accurate"Ayon707 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that any of the images you posted support what you're claiming (that is, the SS insignia is based on runes designed by Willigut). On the other hand, the source cited in support of the current claim in the article explicitly states what you see in the article. As it stands, it meets all the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Like I told you earlier, if everybody added whatever they believe is the correct history, this wiki will fall apart very quickly. There is really an easy way to solve this issue: Provide sources that clearly support what you're insisting on, simple. Your arguments gives the impression that you're reaching hard for original synthesis, which is no good for Wikipedia or any encyclopedia for that matter. EyeTruth (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * EyeTruth I suggest you re-read my original post "the Nazis did NOT make use of the Armanen runes. it is a matter of record their use was banned during the Nazi regime. The SS initially made use of the 'Standard' Germanic or Elder runes, and later adopted the runes designed by Karl Maria Willgut." - As you will see I did not say Wiligut designed the SS insignia, although he is responsible for later designs such as the Totenkopfring. I am now in direct contact with Stephen Flowers who is certainly one of the highest authorities on the history and use of the runes. he has already suggested a title worth consulting for an accurate history of the Nazi's use of Runes. However, it is in German and my German is not up to the task. He is going to get back to me with more information. Ayon707 (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the misinterpretation. The solution to this is still the same: Provide reliable sources (see the WP content guideline WP:RELIABLE) that clearly support what you're insisting on. EyeTruth (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The solution to possible OR is always the same reliable sources. Incidentally, second-hand information from a source is not really acceptable, as it cannot be easily verified and the reliability of the source cannot be confirmed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The chart on pages 26–27 of Yenne shows von List's rune as being similar to the rune shown here. The angle of the crossbar is not as acute but the stems are totally upright. The prose on page 27 states that von List's rune was derived from "the Futhorc rune Sigel, the Younger Futhark rune Sol, and the Elder Futhark rune Sôwilô, all of which meant Sun". von List changed it to mean "Victory". The illustrations on page 68 show the SS runes as adopted were tilted at a rakish angle pretty much identical to the example in the info box. Here and on page 69 it specifically states that the creator adapted von List's Sig rune. On page 70 it states that the person who adapted the rune was Walther Heck, a graphic designer for Ferdinand Hoffstatter's firm in Bonn. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Diannaa _ I don't currently have Yenne's book (I've had it previously but sold it as it contained so many inaccuracies.) Can you quote Yenne's specific source material for his claim on page 69 - that the creator adapted von List's Sig rune"? From memory, Yenne was pretty light on referencing source material. Incidentally the book Suggested by Dr. Flowers is 'Ulrich Hunger's book RUNENKUNDE IM DRITTEN REICH' unfortunately there is no English lang. edition.Ayon707 (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The book does not have footnotes. If you wish to question whether or not Yenne is a reliable source, I suggest you post at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * it is right that this article should be based on a book that does not have any referencing? How can that be correct? I have offered several sources showing that there is an error in claiming the SS insignia Armanen in origin, including well referenced and sighted material, particularly Dr. Flower's 'Secret King' which includes reproductions of original documents, and I have included the mechanically reproduced image drawn by Von List himself that shows a design of the S rune which is quite different to the version used by the SS. given this could simply change the entry to say 'Germanic' rather than Armanen?
 * I have heard back from Dr. Stephen Flowers, he replied with the following explanation. This is a direct quote "The SS did not use the Armanen SYSTEM of runes. The Ahnenerbe runologists and symbologists had been profoundly influenced by the Armanen system, but when you look at runolgists WITHIN the SS itself, e.g. Wiligut and especially Karl Theodor Weigel this is obvious.The Armanen were clearly *occultists,* and the NS did not want to *appear* to have anything to do with that stream of thought. I am just now revising my book RUNE MIGHT and working on a magnum opus entitled NAZI OCCULTISM in which these ideas will be discussed"Ayon707 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When either of those books are published, if they say what you've quoted, and Flowers is indeed the recognized expert you paint him as being, you can use them as sources to change the article. In the meantime, Flowers' statement is hearsay and cannot be verified, so it cannot be used a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The new Edition of Rune Might is an update of the existing title. Stephen Flowers own wikipedia page can be found by click on his name. Not quite sure how you can describe a direct qote as hearsay. would you like screen shots of the conversation? Ayon707 (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, screenshots would not be a reliable source, they can easily be faked. Hearsay: someone says something to you, you repeat that to me - that's the very definition of "hearsay" (you hear it, and then you say it). The validity of the information is dependent on the original source (who we don't have access to in order to verify it) and whether you accurately reported what they said (which we only have your sayso on).  One way around this: if Flowers has a website, if he's willing to make the statement there, and (as I said above) if he's a reliable source (I'm agnostic about that question), then the information could be usable if the opinion is one held by the mainstream of people who study this stuff and is not an outlier and therefore a fringe viewpoint.  Those are question to be argued by people who know more about this subject than I do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

In the existing edition of Rune Might pg.23-26 Flowers makes it very clear just how influential K.M Wiligut was on the symbolism used by the Nazis, Wiligut, not Von List.
 * Ayon707 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hearsay relates to verbal conversation, not text. An Email, for example, is acceptable court evidence. The legal definition of hearsay - Definition of Hearsay "Hearsay" in criminal proceedings is "a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings that is evidence of any matter stated" (section 114 (1) Criminal Justice Act 2003). note the word 'Oral'Ayon707 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC) As to Dr. Flowers validity as a Runic Expert. I would like to point out to that hold a Doctorate (Ph.D.) in Germanic Languages and Medieval Studies in 1984 with a dissertation entitled Runes and Magic: Magical Formulaic Elements in the Elder Tradition, and has been a lecturer in the departments of English and Germanic Languages at the University of Texas. So I think it's fair to say he is one of the leading experts on the field of Runes and their use. I would also point you in the direction of Nicholas Goodrich-Clarke a British historian and professor of Western Esotericism at University of Exeter, whose book The Occult Roots of Nazism makes the same point about the origins of the SS insignia. However Mr. Clarke passed away some time ago.Ayon707 (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I used "hearsay: in a colloquial manner, we are not a court of law, and not all text is born equal. An email is not a book is not a magazine.  Any 12-year-old can convincingly fake an email, but unless they own a sophisticated printing press, they're not churning out books.  We sometimes even reject books if they are self-published, because the pay-for-print firms doesn't have the level of editorial error-checking that we require. Please read and understand  WP:reliable sources and WP:Self-published sources before continuing this conversation from a standpoint of ignorance of our policies.  You can certainly choose to disbelieve what I'm telling you, but all that's going to lead to is someone removing information you add to the article for not being properly sourced. Your choice.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and many of the people who express WP:FRINGE viewpoints have appropriate degrees - it doesn't make their opinions any more acceptable to Wikipedia. We go with the mainstream, what the majority of the experts say.  Maybe the majority are on your side, frankly, I don't know, I'm just trying to school you on how things work around here, which you seem resistant to, but, believe me, you're not going to get your stuff into the article unless you conform to those policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your tone now suggest you are taking this personally. Not sure what you mean by 'we' on Wikipedia? As far as I understand it this is open to anyone to edit of they abide by the rules? None of the titles I've referred to are self-published? As a matter of fact courts of law are where definitions of subjects such as the nature of hearsay are established, but that's not relevant to the conversation. This is about accurate information on Wikipedia. This page contains inaccurate information I have repeatedly given this page more reliable sources of information as to the true origins of the insignia. It has already been noted that the original source material used for this particular section of the contains no references, so its claims cannot be checked. I therefore submit to you the same point I've always made - change the word Armanen to Germanic so that it accurately reflects the origins of the insigniaAyon707 (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally? Yeah, a little, since I keep trying to give you infomration that would be helpful to you, and you keep spitting in my eye. Look, I've only been editing here for 11 1/2 years, so obviously you know much better than I what is and what isn't acceptable on Wikipedia.  So ignore me, I really don't give a shit, since you apparently want to be ignorant about how the place works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I give up! I suspect that if I even produced a hand written document from Himmler himself saying 'we didn't use the Armanen runes' it would still be not accepted! Those of us who study the Runes know this article is wrong. I've highlighted this error to other students of the Runes, so don't be surprised of this article gets edit by others. But I won't be posting anything more. Ayon707 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One last try to get you to understand, then I'll let others deal with this. If you think that the information you're offering is accurate and factual, then you should certainly try to get it into Wikipedia. Wikipedia always wants to be as accurate and factual as possible.  But to get the information in, you  must  follow the policies I've outlined to you, as it will not get in any other way.  Even then, if other editors disagree, and have citations from experts which contradict your information, you need to convince them that the views you are attempting to add are those held by mainstream academics, and not simply the views of one person, no matter how qualified they may be. You have to reach a WP:CONSENSUS with those other editors, which may involve including several different views, and pointing out that experts disagree on the subject.  That is, for better or worse, the way Wikipedia works, and  that  is what I'm trying to get through to you, not that you should stop trying, but that you need to go about it in a specific way.  I hope you understand that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved from article
The following unsourced information was moved from the article:


 * KALTENBRUNNER was not the highest ranking SS Officer surviving.  Three SS Obergruppenfuhrers { Generals } promoted to Oberst Grippenfuhrer rank { Colonel General } outlived him, one being Sepp DIETRICH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7541:c500:69c0:2d6d:83f0:9168 (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have checked this out and it looks like Sepp Dietrich as SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer in the Waffen-SS definitely had a higher SS rank. Kaltenbrunner was Obergruppenführer in the SS. Dietrich was Waffen-SS and Kaltenbrunner was regular SS. Perhaps that is the distinction? Regardless, I have removed this statement from the article. Please let me know if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What should be said is: Kaltenbrunner as Dept. head of the RSHA (and an Obergruppenführer) was the highest ranking SS member to be brought before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. BTW - Kaltenbrunner held that rank in both the Allgemeine SS (general-SS) and Waffen-SS. Also, to answer your query, the higher rank of SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer was only given to four men. One honorary, not Waffen-SS; two Waffen-SS and one, Polizei. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, Dietrich was also brought to trial, but not at that first big trial at Nuremberg (Dietrich was tried by the U.S. Military Tribunal at Dachau and in a second trial elsewhere). I think it might be too much information for the lead or for a photo caption, and to include it might give the reader that the Nuremberg trials were the only trials. Do you have a suggested wording that is not too detailed for the lead ? I am drawing a blank, that's why I thought taking it out might be a good option. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As it reads now: "Ernst Kaltenbrunner was found guilty of crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg trials and hanged in 1946"; does not explain why he was singled out, so it needs to be removed or we could say something like this: "Ernst Kaltenbrunner the highest-ranking surviving SS main department chief, was found guilty of crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg trials and hanged in 1946." With that said, at this point I would just cut out the Kaltenbrunner sentence. Not needed. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your suggested wording is okay and have added it in two places (I left it out of the photo caption). Because of another edit conflict I left in the phrase "at the time" which I think is okay to leave in; I have no strong opinion on that either way. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Schutzstaffel. 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/20160415103955/http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,5232713,Nikt_nie_chce_osadzic_zbrodniarza.html to http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,5232713,Nikt_nie_chce_osadzic_zbrodniarza.html

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) 03:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusion of this entry on the "SS" and the entry on the "Reich Main Security Office (RSHA)"
This entry on the SS states, "Additional subdivisions of the SS included the Gestapo and the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) organizations." While the entry on the RSHA states, "The SiPo was composed of two sub-departments, the Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo; "Secret State Police") and the Kriminalpolizei (Kripo; "Criminal Police")"

This isn't merely a quibble. Was the Gestapo under the SS, or was the Gestapo under the RSHA? The SS was a Nazi Party paramilitary while the RSHA was a German governmental office. It requires explication.LAWinans (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

changes in organization after Heydrich
Besides the obvious replacement by Kaultenbrunner, I think the article needs more details about the mid-level changes he brought about after he took over. Wasn't there also some changes in the regalia? 50.111.29.156 (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares about the regalia accept Nazi-fans. If you have Peter Black's comprehensive biography on him, you could add a few sentences about whatever "mid-level changes" he instituted. There might be a little from Longerich in his work on Himmler. Whatever gets added will be evaluated accordingly against the academic literature to ensure it's appropriate—particularly given the general sensitivity of this subject matter.--Obenritter (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

German is difficult
"Chef des Sicherheitspolizei und SD"94.191.158.204 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ¿Que? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what we have? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. Reaching back to my high school German, perhaps it should be "Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und SD." Any native speakers handy to check on this? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und SD << is what it should be. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris is actually correct. Never noticed it before...sometimes historians (native English speakers) get this stuff wrong, even in their books. You can verify the correction on the German Wikipedia .--Obenritter (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve taken the liberty of adding a second little fix. SD, being short for Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service), is grammatically masculine, so the full term should be Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD. Cheers ⌘  hugarheimur 17:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts, WP:STRONGNAT WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOSNUM
I have tried to change the presentation of a single convert template to bring it into agreement with my understanding of WP:MOSNUM. This was first disputed by Diannaa, presumably in good faith believing that WP:ENGVAR applied to unit presentation. It doesn't, but the confusion sometimes arises because unit presentation and English variety are both affected in the case of WP:STRONGNAT – strong national ties to a specific English-speaking country. Thus, an article about a US-specific topic would be written in US English and use US customary (metric) unit presentation style; the latter part is not true of an article about a general topic which just happens to have been written in US English and keeps that style per WP:RETAIN. What I've just described here is broad Wikipedia-wide consensus as outlined in the WP:MOS.

Now, this simple copy-edit has been twice-reverted by Toddy1, in both instances giving emotive and unhelpful edit summaries which do not attempt to relate their reversions to the MOS. Instead, they have used needlessly emotionally charged language like "written in foreign" and, bizarrely, "the view that UK measures relating to world war II are metric, is one that only fanatics hold". I would suggest that we have a MOS in the first place to avoid this sort of thing. In any case, this article is not about the UK during WW2; it is about a German paramilitary organisation during WW2. If UK WP:STRONGNAT applied, the article should be rewritten in British English, if nothing else. But I take it that Toddy1 is not actually arguing for this, and if they believe the article should not be brought into alignment with the consensus expressed at WP:MOSNUM, they are invited to provide a relevant topic-specific reason why. Otherwise, I would appreciate the involvement of a third party to interpret the relevant MOS sections. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would someone prefer the Imperial units on a subject related to (continental) European history, where the Imperial system has never been in use? I don't understand the dispute. Azerty82 (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My reading of these edit summaries is that Toddy1 does not like the use of the metric-first style, which is preferred by the MOS in this context. You are correct that the principle of least astonishment would suggest we don't use imperial-first unit presentation about parts of the world where imperial units are rarely or never used – this is broadly what MOSNUM says. Moreover, since a lot of English-speaking countries do use the metric system (is Toddy1 really going to tell the Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Irish, and Canadians their metric road signs are "written in foreign"?) their point does not even make sense. It reads like a parody of something a xenophobic English person would say. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The section in question relates to the murder of British prisoners of war. And yes, of course it should be written in British English.  Toddy1 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RETAIN, if the article started in US English and does not have strong national ties to another English-speaking country, US English spelling and grammar should be kept. A broad goal of the WP:MOS is to maintain consistency within articles; arguing that one section of an article, taken in isolation, has strong ties to the UK will only create inconsistency in style, and I see no justification for this reasoning anywhere in the MOS. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be okay if I use metric units in History of United Kingdom every time France is mentioned? By you logics, should we also use British spelling every time Britain is mentioned in History of the United States? Azerty82 (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)