Talk:Uniforms and insignia of the Schutzstaffel

post 42 ranks
One friend noted that this page is lacking of mention of the post 43 ranks such as "Panzerobergrenadier" and the like. Perhaps this should be noted somewhere, as from 1943 on a Schutz would be not called as such in most Waffen SS services.

Page open for business
I hope everyone is enjoying this page. Comments and suggestions (as well as edits) will be appreciated. Husnock 6 Nov 2004


 * The page is great -- most certainly a Wikipedia article to be proud of, as regards width and quality of information. I only have a couple of gripes:


 * 1) I absolutely think the article should be renamed (moved) to "Ranks and insignia of the SS", since that designation of the Schutzstaffel are what most people (=readers) are familiar with (many wouldn't even know that the spelled-out name was the full name of the SS). Yes, we should educate readers, but that goal is no doubt achieved when they are lead to the articles on the SS.


 * 2) Would it be possible to move the sections following the tables below the tables? Or, as an alternative, to get some space between the final table and the text on the right?


 * Hmmm, that should be enough nitpicking for one day. :-) --Wernher 22:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that comparing the Wehrmacht title Generalfeldmarschall with Reichsführer is wrong.

Hitler made a lot of Generals to marschalls, specially after the spring 1940 campaign. The last who got this title was the commander of the seventh army, wich became surrounded by the red army at Stalingrad (today Volgograd; pre-1917 Tsaritsyn) in november 1942, general Paulus. He got his marshall-staff (or pole ?, not sure of the english word) send to him by air in late january 1943. Since no other german fieldmarshall had been captured alive before Hitler ment that Paulus should kill him self rather than surrender. He thow choose the latter and survived the war, returning to GDR (by choice it was said) soon after death of Stalin. Before he died in 1956 he had a lecture at the east-german police academy where he told about the Stalingrad situation. He claimed that it was not just that Hitler prohibited him from trying an outbreak - but also that it was an impossible thing to try without knowlidge of the entire situation, wich he did not have. By the sacrifice of the 7:th army the german troops from Kaukasus could retreat without them also beeing trapped. Anyway, while there were dozens of fieldmarshalls in the army "Reichsführer der SS" was one man only - Heinrich Himmler. Therefore I mean the comparing between SS and Wehrmacht must be /Pontus Eriksson -User:JPEriksson 12May09
 * 1) Oberführer.................... Generalmajor
 * 2) Brigadeführer................. Generalletnant
 * 3) Gruppenführer.................	General
 * 4) Obergruppenführer.............	Generaloberst
 * 5) Oberstgruppenführer...........	Generalfeldmarschall
 * 6) Reichsführer der SS........... N/A....(H.Himmler only)


 * That would be 100% incorrect and would be reverted if you tried it. Waffen-SS officers wore shoulder insignia which directly matched regular army rank.  The "table" you created simple has the wrong ranks.  -OberRanks (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tables, merge messages, title
Great points you made up above. If you can figure out to make the charts look nicer, please share the knowledge. My knowledge of tables is very limited and the format is copied over from other articles.


 * It seems we are both equally proficient with tables, then. :-) I'll see if I can get some help among the table-wise to fix this. --Wernher 18:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also removed the merge messages, since the SS unit insignia page I plan to expand into a very large article. What you see there is merely a starter page. I tried playing with it, and having such info on this article, but ran into spacing problems. I take my experiance from Fleet Admiral which was at first a very large combined article but was broken down into several, more extensive, separate entities.


 * Ah, it suddenly dawned on me that SS unit insignia is another thing altogether than SS rank insignia. Oh well, my mistake (a so-called "braino", I'm afraid...). No problem at all, then. --Wernher

As far as renaming, SS rank is already redirected to this page. I would not rename this page, since there isn't really anything wrong with the title. There would be no harm in redirecting from the article title you mentioned.


 * I won't dispute this for the time being, but my opinion is still the same. Note, for example, that the general article on the SS is called just that -- due to the facts that 1) the use of the acronym "SS" to mean the Nazi German SS is very much more well-known than all other uses (e.g. the US Secret Service); and 2) as I mentioned above, "SS" is the more known designation of the Schutzstaffel (at least in English-speaking contries and in Scandinavia). --Wernher

Those are my thoughts...Thanks for the input! Husnock 6 Nov 04


 * You're welcome! --Wernher

SS Unit Insignia Update
Major updates underway on the SS unit insignia article. -Husnock 20Nov04

Rank articles complete
Every primary rank now has an associated article. Still working on SS Officer Candidate ranks and the older title ranks (Staffelfuhrer, Stabsscharfuhrer, etc). A noteworthy day in thie history of the this article -Husnock 30Jan05

!!ARTICLE FINISHED!!
Break out the fireworks! This article is completely finished! All tables are complete, all SS ranks and equivalents have associated articles, and all pictures have been uploaded. THE ARTICLE IS FINISHED. But then, on Wikipedia, is any article ever really finished. I hope everyone enjoys reading this article as much as I have enjoyed working on it. Thanks as well for all those who helped with information, pictures, and table formats. Hats off to us all. -Husnock 7Feb05


 * Hmm, we really should have the ranks' official abbreviations as well... Anybody feel the calling to do the work of reseaching and including them? :-) I found a list in this article: "Belzec Perpetrators -- An overview of the German and Austrian SS and Police Staff" (www.deathcamps.org/belzec/perpetrators.html) . I'd say that a good place to put the abbreviations would be right below each rank in the tables. If nobody else does it, I guess I'll do it myself. --Wernher 6 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

Ranks of S.S.-Sturmbannführer and S.S.-Obersturmbannführer
According to an article on the Flags of the World (FOTW) website, a Sturmbann was a battalion in the S.A. Hence, given that the vast majority of S.A. rank titles were used in the S.S., perhaps it would be more appropriate to translate the names of these ranks into English as "Battalion Leader" and "Senior Battalion Leader". (I have posted a similar comment in the appropriate article for the ranks of the Sturmabteilung.) -Christopher Crossley, 22 August 2005 12:14 (UTC)
 * The literal translation of the rank is "Storm Unit Leader" Sturm=Storm, Bann=Unit, Fuhrer=Leader. The German word for Battalion is pronounced ba'ta'ion.  Sturmbannführers did command battalions, but that is not the literal trnaslation of the word. -Husnock 15:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Reichsführer-SS
It's somewhat strange how Reichsführer-SS is the equivalent of Generalfeldmarschall, as their was only one Reichsführer-SS but many Fieldmarshalls, and Himmler was certainly considered superior to almost everyone in the Third Reich. Is it sort of like the military police, when an MP with the rank of Corporal can in some instances tell a Lieutenant what to do. I imagine regular German Army Officers would have been fearful of even a low ranking member of the Gestapo.
 * I don't really think Himmler was equivalent to a Generalfeldmarschall. He held ministerial rank, so like Göring was probably senior to ordinary field marshals, but it's the closest equivalent, being a unique rank. -- Necrothesp 19:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Himmler certainly would never take orders for Goring and told plenty of Field Marshals what to do.  I've changed it to be the equivalent of Reichsmarschall. -Husnock 02:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The rank of Reichsführer-SS is not the equivalent of Reichsmarschall since the latter rank was specifically given to Georing by Hitler (June 1940) in order to establish a clear line of succession from Hitler to Georing in the event of Hitler's untimely death.  Further, before the establishment of the SS rank Oberstgruppenführer (in 1942, and after Georing's appointment to the rank of Reichsmarschall back in 1940), the rank of Reichsführer-SS was much more likely the eqivalent to Generaloberst rather than Generalfeldmarschall.  The Wehrmacht was quite jealous of their place and position in German society and considered the SS (and much more so the SA) to be inferior organizations to itself.  These factors, individually and combined, do not support the idea that the rank of Reichsführer-SS was ever equivalent to Reichsmarschall.  I agree that Himmler (and the rank of Reichsführer-SS) were ministerial, but people like Albert Speer (and others) were also ministerial and they did not hold equivalent ranks of Reichsmarschall. Coldwarrior 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The SS was originally a part of the SA and thus used much the same ranks and insignias as the SA. Even in those early days, Himmler created the position of Reichsführer-SS for himself. This was not a rank but a title he used to distinguish himself as the commander in chief of the SS. This is also the reason why all other ranks within the organization has the prefix "SS-" (like SS-Standartenführer) while Reichsführer has it as a suffix (-SS). While the SS was a part of SA, Himmler was wearing a SS-Obergruppenführer collar and he was also junior to the SA-leader Ernst Röhm. Röhm wore the same kind of collar that Himmler later used when the SS became an independent organization.

Himmler was not the only official person in Germany to hold the title of "Reichsführer" although he was the most famous one. The leader of the Hitlerjugend was appointed Reichsführer by Hitler, a title that later was changed to Reichsjugendführer. The same situation was for the Reichsarbeitsdienst, a title initially referred to as Reichsführer der Reichsarbeitsdienst, but later changed to Reichsarbeitsführer.

In the early days of 1930's Germany, Himmler was junior to Göring. Göring created the Gestapo and in his capacity as deputy führer he did indeed issued many orders to the SS. One example is the Wannsee-conferense, where the "final solution" was decided. The conferense was a direct result of Göring's order to Himmler's deputy, Heydrich, to solve the "jewish-problem" once and for all. Later, as Göring fell from Hitler's grace, Himmler stepped in and became the second most powerful man within Germany.

Regarding Himmler's rank compared to the military, it all depends on the timeperiod in question. During the early years when SS was a part of the SA, Himmler was "only" an Obergruppenführer or General. Later, especially after Hitler's appointment of Himmler to grand minister of the interior, Himmler would outrank any military person except Göring. For a long time, Himmler and Göring "competed" for the position as the no 2 in Germany. The armed forces of Germany, especially the Army (Wermacht), never recognized Himmler as a general no matter what kind of pressure Hitler used trying to change this. Of the two, only Göring was accepted as a real general (and later marshal). During 1944, Hitler appointed Himmler commander in chief of the home army. This career did not last long though, as the general-staff of Wermacht refused to take orders from Himmler. Hitler had no choice but to replace Himmler with Göring, although Hitler was very suspicious of Göring.

81.132.57.143 (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Alister As the above is unsigned at the bottom, I thought I should differentiate and add my name to the front, as well as the end, of my post. Anyway, to comment on a point you made, the 'armed forces of Germany' IS the Wermacht, being comprised of the Heer (Army), Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. Hope this helps. 81.132.57.143 (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Alister

Non-existent SS ranks
I have been reverting several edits to this article regarding non-existent SS ranks. The first such revert was that an Oberfuhrer in the SS was equal to a Brigadegeneral in the Wehrmacht...there was no such rank in the WWII Wehrmahct. We also have reverts of Bewerber and Anwarter to the early 30s ranks, as these ranks did not exist until the later 30s with Bewerber first created in 1942. Last, but not least, there is no source that I know of which states there was a rank higher than Reichsfuhrer. "Oberster Reichsführer" is now up for deletion. If I am wrong about any of this info or reverts, please advise with sources. I have already talk paged the user who was making these changes. -Husnock 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Double Columns on Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS
I have reverted the use of "Wehrmacht Equivalent" and "Waffen-SS equivalent" in the SS-General section since it seems redundent. The Waffen-SS used regular SS ranks, like Untersturmfuhrer, Hauptsturmfuhrer, etc, but Waffen-SS Generals would act a suffix to thier regular SS ranks to form such titles as SS-Obergruppenfuhrer und General der Waffen-SS. This is actually explained in the article. The point is, Waffen-SS Generals didn't have or use Wehrmahct like ranks, they used them as a suffix to thier SS ranks. It is also for this reason that I removed the title Allgemeine-SS from the column listing the SS ranks, since the Waffen-SS used them too. -Husnock 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Waffen-SS ranks
Husnock-Stop revert my edits. You write not correct and not exact data! If you do not know Russian and German language-it your problem. The Soviet military ranks of the period of the second world war and their equivalence are written on many sites and in many books, especially in Russian. To not trust them at me there is no reason! German ranks SS and their equivalence are written on many sites and in many books including in German. According to them-Der Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel it's a the highest title and a rank in SS. This rank had no special uniform, because had it only Hitler. To challenge them silly! Tt1 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your points. 1) There are no Russian ranks listed on this page 2)"Der Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel" does not appear in any text or source of World War II that I have ever read including original German documents form the SS (and I have studied the SS since 1986) 3)Per Wikipedia policy, disputed edits and unsourced information can be removed.  Your use of sockpuppets and edit warring only weakens your position and could lead to article protection. Provide a valid source, photograph, or other such document.  Otherwise your insertion of non-existent and non-factual ranks into this article will continue to be reverted. -Husnock 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What you wished to tell speakin-There are no Russian ranks listed on this page gof-I have not understood?-Roitr 21:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is correct. There is not a column on the page which addresses Russian ranks.  This is in response to the statement "The Soviet military ranks of the period of the second world war and their equivalence are written on many sites and in many books, especially in Russian".  That is not disputed, I only say that there are no Soviet military ranks liste don this page. -Husnock 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oberster Reichsführer (Disputed)
I have (once again) removed this rank from the article. I have never seen a source or document which states to its existance. I ask the User (and his many anon IP sockpuppets) who keeps putting this rank into the article to provide a valid source. From my end, its a non-existant rank that is not supported by established WWII texts or even SS documents from the Second World War. -Husnock 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected this article and added in the data about Hitler's supposed titles. But they should NOT be in the tables since there are no German sources or documents that show they ever existed. Over on Comparative military ranks of World War II, all we have seen are Russian websites and original research for a few veteran groups.  I think however the changes in place now will cool some of the fire.  I will add verified soruces (textbooks, etc) at a later date.  Hopefully, another edit war will not begin. -Husnock 01:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

For Husnock. Heinrich Himmler appointed to himself der oberste SS-Führer in February. See German source CHRONOLOGIE-Der Zusammenbruch: Vom Abkommen von Jalta bis zur Kapitulation-Mittwoch, 14. Februar Chronik 1945. For Oberste SS-Führer see also SS - Umstrukturierungen 1930 - 1945, SS - Organisationsstruktur 34-45, ss-aufnahmekriterien-und-aufnahmeritual, Dokumente zum Nationalsozialismus-Tt1 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be fine if that's what they actually say, but they don't. The first article merely says that Himmler was the highest SS leader. It's using the term as a description, not as a rank. It doesn't say he was appointed to that rank at all - it says he organised tough resistance on the Russian Front, nothing about him being appointed to any rank! The other articles don't mention the term at all. What are you trying to prove by quoting articles that don't mention the rank? -- Necrothesp 00:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with Necrothesp. The websites above are very interesting, but say nothing about there being a supreme SS rank called "Der Oberste SS-Fuhrer" or "Oberste Reichsfuhrer", etc.  In fact, they pretty much deny it.  In addition, is Tt1 now saying that Himmler held this rank?  I thought the entire point of the argument was that *Hitler* held this supreme SS title.
 * As stated before, I think the current revisions speak to Hitler's status in the SS. He was, as the Fuhrer, by default supreme commander of every Nazi organization including the SS.  As he held SS Membership #1, he was also senior SS member by senority, if not by rank.  The SS membership number system is something that a lot of other miltiary historians get confused about, i.e. your memerbship number was sometimes just as important as your rank.  A Gruppenfuher with membership number 1155687 was not as well respected as an Oberfuhrer with membership number 415.  It had to do with the "Old Guard" concept.  -Husnock 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?
Is this article ready for unprotection yet? It's been fully protected for six days now.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I unprotected a while ago it per the comments above. -Husnock 17:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. It was still listed on Protected page (I removed it) so I was just following up on it.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oberführer
As far as i know there was NO Wehrmacht equivaltent for this rank. "Since Brigadeführer was rated equal to a Generalmajor, and Standartenführer to an Oberst, Oberführer had no military equivalent and became regarded as a senior Colonel rank." (See: Oberführer.) So as you see Oberst can't be an equivalent to Oberführer. --Yoto (German Wikipedia) 83.135.82.35 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was indeed an exact Wehrmacht equivalent for "SS-Oberführer": "Oberst". This can be seen e.g. from the Waffen-SS shoulder boards, which show the same pattern as a Oberst. When it came to e.g. orders in combat, a Waffen-SS Oberführer had the same seniority as a Wehrmacht Colonel, inside the Waffen-SS however a Oberführer would obviously take precedence over a Standartenführer. So we could roughly say that the SS split the rank of Colonel into upper half and lower half for internal purposes, but to the outside they still were both "Oberst". Also, a Oberführer was not considered a General Officer Rank, the lowest SS General officer rank was "SS-Brigadeführer [und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS]". I recommend to change the article accordingly...

Thufiruk 18:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of "Haupt"
There are several meanings for "Haupt" so I ain't sure if "head" is the right translation.

Some of the meanings are for example: head, main, chief, primary, principal, general, central, leading.

So a Hauptsturmführer could maybe be a Main Storm Leader, a Primary Storm Leader or something else.

My english ain't that good, that's why i don't want to change the article, 'cause I don't know what's right. But I hope that you can manage it. --Yoto (German Wikipedia) 83.135.82.35 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Luftwaffe & Kriegsmarine ranks
I also have some equivaltent ranks of the other two military units. You can put 'em into the article if you like. --Yoto (German Wikipedia) 83.135.82.35


 * Your table shouldnt really be on a talk page. See Comparative military ranks of World War II -Husnock 16:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, but there were one or two SS-ranks that aren't mentioned in the article. And it showed that the Reichsmarschall was even higher than the Reichsführer-SS. So I hoped it could be a little help.
 * --Yoto (German Wikipedia) 83.135.82.35 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation Changes
I have reverted the recent changes to the translation column. The present translations are based on sources from World War II texts that are referenced in the article. Chief among the problems is that "Oberst" does not mean "Chief" in German. It translates as either "Colonel" or "Supreme". There were also other changes to the article such as introducing a translation spelled "Casndidate" and stating that Sturmhauptfuhrer meant the same thing as Hauptsturmfuhrer when the words are clearly shifted. This article has been too carefully worked to allow such slipshot translations into the text. Thats how I feel. -Husnock 23:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Husnock, but "slipshod" (note the correct spelling) is not the appropriate term here. Your German is simply not good enough to make such an assertion.  "Oberst" is a military rank and is a derivative of the word "oberster" (corresponding noun: der Oberste"), meaning "uppermost" or "highest" or "chief".  Turning to "Haupt", as a noun it means "head", but as a prefix to another noun it means "main" or "chief".  Your alleged translations of these respective ranks are simplistic and do not reflect the correct meaning of the German words used to concoct them. You would not translate "Hauptstadt" (meaning: capital) into "head city", would you?  Or "Oberstdorf" (a famous wintersport resort in the Alps whose name means "uppermost village" or "highest located village" into "colonel village", would you?  But maybe you would.  Sincerly, Cosal 14:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't "my German" that is not good enough, I am not the source of this translation. It's the acceptable translation of the ranks out of the sources for this article.  Every text book and reference I hav eon SS ranks says the translation of Oberst is Colonel and that the translation of Head is Haupt.  If it were Chief, I believe the translation would be "Chef".  Reverted once again.  Please provide a source for your trnaslation if you want to change this well established article. -Husnock 05:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I thought I had made obvious before, these are not necessarily "acceptable" translations. A proper translation needs to translate a word within its context and take account of its meaning in the original language. That is why it makes no sense to continue to insist that "Oberst" means "Colonel" and nothing but "Colonel".  Yes, as an army rank "Oberst" is the equivalent of "Colonel".  But when "Oberst" is a prefix to a compound noun it means "supreme", and it is correctly translated in this manner in other military contexts, such as "Oberste Heeresleitung".  Likewise, "head" can be "Haupt" and vice versa, but "head" also means "Kopf".  Conversely, "Haupt" as a prefix to a compound noun does 'not mean "head" unless it specifically refers to the German meaning of "Kopf" such as in "Haupthaar" (meaning scalp hair).  In all other cases it means "main" or "chief" or "uppermost".  "Hauptgipfel" is the "main summit" of a mountain, not the "colonel summit", "Hauptstrasse" is "main street", not "colonel street", "Hauptstadt" is "capital city", not "colonel city". The article may be well established, and I do not dispute that.  But some of the translations shown are very poor and the article deserves having better ones. The fact that someone in the past came up with these inadequate translations is not sufficient reason to insist on their immutable right to remain in this article or for your claim to infallibility on this issue. Cosal 17:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Source for presenting the Totenkopf as “coat of arms”
What is the source for presenting the Totenkopf as the “coat of arms” of the SS? I didn’t even know the SS had a coat of arms, but if it did I would assume it was the SS runes. Please provide the source; if there is none, and this is merely someone’s assumption, then the flag/coat of arms gallery should go. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 11:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:OberRanks argues that there’s nothing wrong with the presentation of SS symbols in an article on SS ranks and insignia; I do not disagree, but those symbols should be presented appropriately and in context, with attributed explanations about their usage and meanings. The SS flag and death’s head that have been removed, are not presented in such context; moreover, I (for one) doubt their authenticity: the flag’s proportions are off, for one thing; and the death head was used in two instances: on SS service hats and collar (right) insignia for members of the Totenkopfverbände. Steps also need to be taken to ensure that the death's head presented is that of the SS, and not that of Hussar regiments or the Panzertruppen of the Wehrmacht. In haste, Jim_Lockhart 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Its a minor point and not worth fighting about. The original edits looked like someone who just didnt like the SS, since the caption was "removed inappropriate symbols".  As stated, nothing wrong with having SS symbols in an article about the SS.  But, yes, they should be accurately explained. -OberRanks 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deeper explanation of reason for creation of new titles?
The article begins:

"The ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel were a paramilitary rank system used by the SS to differentiate that organization from the regular German armed forces, the German state, and the Nazi Party..."

Does anyone know of a more specific reasoning than this? I read one time that creating new ranks was done in an effort to combat the hierarchicalism that was thought to be implicit in the use of traditional titles like "sergeant", "general", and so on...but also that maybe it was part of the larger National Socialist effort to Germanize the language, since traditional military ranks come from French (they originated during the Napoleonic era).

Anyone else have the answer? Critic9328 02:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting those insignia pictures back in this article
I would like to open the floor to a discussion regarding restoring the six to seven insignia images which were deleted out of these article. The raze about these being stolen appears to have past over and most of the people who had major problems with this article seem to no longer be active on Wikipedia. For my own part, I never stole any of those pictures and most of them came off a CD from College Park which is where the SS records are kept and which is where I did my graduate level work (i.e. how I came into possession of the CD). I do however agree that some of the images on that CD also showed up on other people's webpages but as they are simple designs (pips on black background, etc) I see no copyright problems. I can create such images in Windows Paint and re-post them (I actually did this for a different website) but I do not want a problem to again occur. If we do re-upload what tag should be used? Opinions are most welcome. -OberRanks (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would certainly like to see those insignia graphics back, but I do not know the legalities as others seem to know (if they indeed do know something about that at all). Why are the existing insignia graphics supposedly fine but the ones that were removed not?  My own view is that they were all fine (no copyright infringement) but again, I don't really understand the original motivation (legal details) for removing them in the first place. -L.Smithfield (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The debate at Commons about deletion is here. Kelly  hi! 00:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Butseriouslyfolks meant well (I guess) but was the driving force behind a massive purges of all the images I had uploaded under my old account User:Husnock. These deletions were made without much discussion on BF's own authority as an administrator. I don't personally agree that this should have gone down that way but what's done is done. The Commons discussion also opened up with the statement "copyvio not NARA" even though I had explained (many times) that I got these from a CD in College Park. I don't blame anyone for deleting these though since I think now that the people in College Park probably collected them from other websites so maybe this was all for the best. I do have an idea, that is to get a single picture from College Park of all SS insignia which will be so general and not so graphic intense that it can not be said it was stolen from any other webpage of source. I can then back it up with an e-mail from a nara.gov account that will state they were the authors. I think that should solve the problem. -OberRanks (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope someone will put up some pictures of the SS-insignias -- as well as the insignias for various other Nazi-organisations (like SA, Hitler-Jugen, NSDAP, and others) which also have been deleted. -Koppe 18:10, 21 June 2008 (CET)

Fuehrerprinzip?
But the RAF/RCAF (British Royal Air Force) used the ranks of Squadron Leader, Wing Commander, Group Captain the same way and earlier--to indicate the size of the unit that the rank-holder was presumably capable of leading.71.175.189.23 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Major article Revamp
I have just finished a major article revamp and rewrite, cleaning up the months and years of image deletions and duplicated material. I intend to add even more mateiral over the next several months. Hopefully, this can one day become a featured article. -OberRanks (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice job. The article is much improved. One thing which would be nice, assuming free/fair use images are available, would be comparisons of the SS eagle with the Wehrmachtsadler and the Party/SA/Early SS cap eagle. Solicitr (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SS-VT collar tabs
Currently the article reads

In all, there were three possible numbers: SS(1), for members of the Deutschland Regiment, SS(2) for Germania personnel, and SS(3) for members of the Das Reich Regiment. These insignia would survive throughout World War II and were kept in use after the three original regiments had expanded to brigade and division strength.

With regard to the third regiment I believe this to be incorrect. At the start of the war the SS-VT consisted of four regiments: LSSAH (no number), SS-VF-Standarte 1 Deutschland, SS-VF-Standarte 2 Germania, and SS-VF-Standarte 3 Der Fuehrer. This last was recruited in Austria after the Anschluss and was not ready to take part in the invasion of Poland. During the Sitzkrieg the three numbered regiments were combined into the SS-Verfuegungsdivision, which over time would be renamed Reich and then Das Reich, and numbered 2 (after 1 LAH and before 3 Totenkopf drawn from the SS-TV)Solicitr (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds right. I always get confused what the 3rd one was. -OberRanks (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove external photo link?
I'm not crazy about the link "Uniform of a tank leader with the rank of an Obersturmbannführer of a combat force of the SS-Totenkopf-Division." This is a repro uniform which is bad in several respects; even if we ignore the very postwar rubber-soled boots, the dual Totenkopf patches are all wrong. TK-Div personnel (by regulation) wore rank on the left collar like all SS men.* There was a very unauthorized practice by a few SS tankers to imitate the Army Panzertruppe and wear skulls on both collars, but these were Army-pattern skull pins, not embroidered SS TK's (I don't believe I've ever seen a legit left-hand TK collar patch). I'm also not crazy about the mismatched cap insignia, although one can't say with certainty that it never occurred. [*Even the Polizei Division once it was formally merged into the Waffen-SS]Solicitr (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont like the link either. -OberRanks (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Done.Kierzek (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Query on new material
The security forces of the SS, such as the uniformed Gestapo, and the Sipo and SD troops which were part of the Einsatzgruppen, were also all considered part of the General-SS even though many of these persons (especially in the field) wore uniforms nearly identical to the Waffen-SS

I'm leery of calling Gestapo and Kripo "security forces of the SS" and especially "all considered part of the General-SS." In fact Himmler was fiercely opposed to granting blanket enrollment of policemen into the SS; he made it clear when the Polizei-division was merged into the Waffen-SS that its Orpo personnel were *not* to be given SS membership except through the standard application and background-check process. Even at the end of the war many Gestapo and Kripo personnel were not enrolled in the SS; and though in some circumstances they wore SS uniform, they did so with police shoulderboards to mark their status as cops. SS membership was a formal status which did not necessarily apply to everyone who worked for Himmler. Solicitr (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to tweak and change as needed. The main point is that the security people with the RSHA and Einsatzgruppen typically DIDNT have Waffen-SS rank - yet they wore similar grey wartime uniforms.  The whole "explaining the two ranks" was the main point of that large addition. -OberRanks (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Adjustment to rank development needed?
Currently the article at least strongly implies that the SS was coming up with its own ranks and rank insignia independent of the SA prior to 1934. But this isn't the case; the SA, much the larger organization, was the one creating new ranks for its ever-expanding membership, and the SS followed along; even if the SS had become de facto independent on an operational level, administratively it was still part of the SA and even funded from the SA budget. Solicitr (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

After a little more reading, it seems we also should place some more emphasis on the Stennes Revolt in 1930 and its aftermath, which effectively made the SS independent of the SA. In particular, Hitler's assumption of the title of Oberste SA-Fuhrer and his promotion of Himmler and Daluege to the new rank of Obergruppenfuhrer ensured that they outranked every SA officer including the Stabschef, none of whom ranked higher than Gruppenfuhrer; simultaneously the SS leader of each Gau was promoted from Oberfuhrer to Gruppenfuhrer.Henceforward the SS reported directly to Hitler and not Wagener or Rohm. Solicitr (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good point - they were part of the SA back in the early days and the ranks were connected. I'm sure editing the article to reflect this shouldn't be that difficult. -OberRanks (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good edit Solicitr. I have not checked as I am at work but do the other articles of Stennes and Daluege now need additional work as to the revolt in question. I can check tonight if no one else gets to it first. Kierzek (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem. The article on Himmler gives his year of promotion to Gruppenfuhrer as 1930 and to Obergruppenfuhrer as 1933; Daluege didn't reach Grfhr. until 1 July 1932 and and Ogfhr until 1934. Is there a source for the claim they were promoted to Ogfhr as early as 1930? I think some research and cleanup is needed. Solicitr (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Photographic evidence of Himmler wearing his early uniforms with the number of leaves is probably where those dates come from. I also have a book called "photographic History of the Reichsfuhrer-SS" that gives his dates of rank.  Another thing to remember is that in the early days of the SS all you had to do was throw on oak leaves to say you were in charge.  Exact dates of rank and titles were not so strictly enforced until after the Nazis came to power in 1933.  Also, from 1929 Himmler called himself Reichsfuhrer and thought of himself as an equal to the SA Chief of Staff, even though the SA Supreme Command didn't.  Himmler probably didn't pay much attention to what his exact SA rank was -  in his mind he was the Reichsfuhrer.  Anyway, I have several sources for this and will do the research.  This actually seems more like a problem for the Heinrich Himmler article than for this one although there is some cross over material. -OberRanks (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes sense; Himmler in practice could do whatever he wanted. I expect that he wore three leaves by virtue of being Reichsfuhrer whatever his paygrade was.  Is there a dated photo of Heini wearing three leaves with a pip, the insignia of an Ogfhr?  And what about Daluege? It might be the case that  in 1930 Ogfhr was a 'special appointment', a title and not exactly yet a rank, that Hitler could make, to reflect Himmler's and Daluege's authority over multiple Gruppen each- which pretty much makes it a rank.Solicitr (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Tweak to Diebitsch
Adjusted because he didn't actually join the SS until '33. The old text implied he was already an Ofhr. Solicitr (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

SA-Gaue
To my knowledge there was no such thing as an SA-Gaue. The SA started out using Brigaden and Gruppen. The SS had the Gaus for a short while before they became SS-Oberfuherbereiche. Need to change the article to reflect this as it currently states the SA had the Gaues which wasn't ever the case (as far as I know). -OberRanks (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the Oberfuhrerbereiche weren't created until 1929, and I think that to avoid confusion we need to rework the section which currently tries to lump together (A) the SA reorganization into Gruppen and (B) the SS structure, which all fell within a single SA-Gruppe (my bad; I wrote it). Solicitr (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Axis History Factbook, the SA as of 1926 was organized into "Gausturme" comprising Brigaden; by 1931 it was Gruppen comprising Untergruppen (no Brigaden). They don't have a TOE for 1928 but I'm certain it was that year the Gruppen were created, superseding the Gaue or "Gausturme.".


 * The SS-Oberfuhrerbereiche were Himmler's way of creating a higher command structure within the confines of a single Gruppe, and without promoting anyone above Oberfuhrer. Solicitr (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Group Leader
According to Mark Yerger's Book "Allgemeine-SS", the accepted translation of Oberstgruppenfuhrer is "Supreme Group Leader". Various other texts, among them, Encyclopedia of the Third Reich refer to the rank as "Colonel Group Leader". This should be accurately stated in the article using a reference note I feel. -OberRanks (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI to all users, the recent revert of this material appears to be connected with a possible Wiki-Hounding issue. I've reported the matter here. -OberRanks (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are two "accepted" translations, why are you picking one and applying it without citation? Alastairward (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether we use "supreme" or "highest;" both are equally good (or bad) translations. The most literal translation would actually be "uppermost." But since Oberste SA-Fuhrer is universally translated "Supreme SA Leader" that does nudge the scales.


 * However I would only give very, very grudging consent to the nod to "Colonel Group Leader" and the perpetuation of a mistranslation, which, although it and the equally egregious "Colonel-General" have appeared often in print, reflect nothing more than some long-ago body's apparent ignorance of the fact that the German rank equivalent to colonel, Oberst, means "highest" or "uppermost" or "supreme", i.e. the senior officer in the regiment. I would just as soon "Colonel-General" and "Colonel Group Leader" be left to die an ignominious death. --Solicitr (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the past few years, most of the serious texts translate this rank as "Supreme Group Leader". The "Colonel Group Leader" thing came out of a variety of British texts from the early 90s. I would vote going with "Supreme Group Leader" and leave it at that. -OberRanks (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OberRanks, lets go with SGL. BTW- I agree that Schiffer published books can be a very good source overall, but I have found R. James Bender Publishing and J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing (books) to be even better. Both, as you may know, have websites according. Kierzek (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a disagreement over what the sources say, we don't have to take just one. A footnote or double listing of the translations could and really should be added to reflect this. Alastairward (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Group Leader it is. -OberRanks (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on, are you saying that there are multiple translations but only one is being chosen? Alastairward (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The modern translations, such as Yerger's work "Allgemeine-SS", state "Supreme" as do most of the current German translation texts. It is the older texts from the 1990s and before which list the word as "Colonel" since Oberst, in its form as a noun translate as a military rank. Yerger and other modern day SS historians have clarified that the SS usage was more along the lines of using the term "supreme" rather than the rank of colonel to fit in with the paramilitary nature of SS rank titles. The echelon therefore arrives as "Unter" (Junior) "Ober" (Senior) and "Oberst" (Supreme) for the modifiers to the rank titles. For this reason, having Solicitr's rank chart state "supreme" is the best possible translation. -OberRanks (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, OberRanks. Further, as you guys know, Wikipedia, like history is a matter of consensus in the end. Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a reasonable compromise at work now. Alastairward (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Solicitr (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Stray Table
On my browser, the above table causes a screen error- mainly there is HUGE amount of white space between the bottom of the table and the next section of text. These titles are also covered in the 1932 section and later on in the WWII section. -OberRanks (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mine has not shown to have a problem but I can't speak, ofcourse, for others. Kierzek (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No screen error on my browser either. Alastairward (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be working on Internet Explorer. Firefox is where the problem is. -OberRanks (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also works fine in Opera. I left it in (after correcting its errors) because it gives a nice quick reference to ranks which otherwise are scattered through the text, and a snapshot of the transitional stage when the SS was largely but not entirely independent of the SA. Solicitr (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

While the screen error no longer persists, the table should somehow be merged with the text. It looks very out-of-place in its current location and apepars to "jut out" from the section before the next section of text begins. Anyway we can fix this? -OberRanks (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about now? --Solicitr (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! -OberRanks (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reichsarzt-SS
The article doesn't event mention this title, which on de wiki has a dedicated article (de:Reichsarzt-SS)... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that was the SS Surgeon General, one person who held it was Ernst-Robert Grawitz. It was primarily a title, not a rank.  By all means, write the article about it. -OberRanks (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Final SS Ranks 1934-1945
Could some one somehow delete that annoying phototgraph in the table?--Der Spion (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what photo you are referring to. -OberRanks (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Remove Photo
could someone please remove that annoying photograph with the caption "A concentration camp SS-Scharführer wearing a late war gray-green uniform. The silver-gray braid on the collar was used by all SS non-commissioned officers" which has been placed right in the table! thank you in advance!--77.180.221.99 (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem must be with your browser settings. It's fine on my screen. Solicitr (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about browser settings... I have the same problem with it making large parts of the ranks table unreadable I'd move things around to alter that if I even knew how. --Svartalf (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree the problem must be with your computer settings. The article page displays fine for me, as well. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

German Military ranks and titles & MOS
The reason I have reverted certain edits is herein explained: The MOS as to military terms does set out the difference between nouns and proper nouns; ranks and titles. With US ranks it is easier to make the call on whether something should be in caps or not. With german ones, especially Nazi Germany, it is more delicate. First, it should be noted that all of the major books concerning german and SS ranks use caps all the way through. See for example:


 * Lumsden, Robin (2000). A Collector's Guide To: The Waffen–SS, Ian Allan Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-7110-2285-2
 * Lumsden, Robin (2001). A Collector's Guide To: The Allgemeine – SS, Ian Allan Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-7110-2905-9
 * McNab, Chris (2009). The SS: 1923–1945, Amber Books Ltd. ISBN 1906626499
 * Mollo, Andrew (1997). Uniforms of the SS, Collected Edition Volumes: 1–6. Motorbooks Intl. ISBN 1859150489
 * Yerger, Mark C. (1997). Allgemeine-SS: The Commands, Units and Leaders of the General SS, Schiffer Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-7643-0145-4.

So per Wikipeida MOS one can argue, "accepted proper noun, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources". However, I believe in being more flexible and believe that many recent changes could be said to meet Wikipedia MOS. The problem with the germans and Nazis was that many of their ranks were also titles of position. So they would be proper nouns, such as: "Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich, 20 April 1942 (und Panzer-Generaloberst der Waffen-SS". It would be like saying, "The Duke of York" or "Reichsführer-SS". Kierzek (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Simpler reason: in German, all nouns are capitalized. Solicitr (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I always knew Solicitr you know the German language better than me. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How are the uniforms of the Reichssicherheitsdienst or Sicherheitsdienst described?
These descriptions are missing from this article.

I noticed while watching the excellent BBC documentary on Auschwitz, that the actors in the dramatised scenes wore a mixture of uniforms. Some wore the M1936 tunic, the classic SS grey but others wore lighter grey jacket/tunics with white shirt and black tie, plus jodhpur-style riding pants. It was hard to work out at first but I noticed that SD men wore the later style of uniform. Whereas the SS-TV along with, I guess, Allgemeine SS, wore traditional service uniform with buttoned-up collar.

Likewise a good selection of properly researched uniforms was on show in the German film Downfall. Again it appeared the SS guards in the Fuhrerbunker, all wore slightly modified uniforms that distinguished them from a "ordinary" Waffen SS soldier. Any thoughts?


 * Yes, it was a mess, wasn't it? The "regimented" Third Reich was always characterised by non-uniformity in uniforms!  Basically, by the time Auschwitz was built the SS-TV, the camp guards, had gone over entirely to the same uniform as the Waffen-SS, almost but not quite identical to the Army M36 and its variants (in actual practice Waffen-SS men were often issued Army uniforms with SS insignia; differences were very minor).  On the other hand, members of the SD and other branches of the RSHA (including, in Poland, the Gestapo) wore the grey open-collar uniform appropriate to their status as Allgemeine-SS rather than Waffen-SS.  I'm not sure what 'lighter' tunic you're referring to, unless it's the white summer jacket- but that was de-authorized by that date. Could it be that some SS officers privately purchased gray linen summer tunics like the one Stauffenberg had?  But then I'm confused by the jodhpurs, which as far as I recall only existed in black for the SS. Just guessin', but were these Army-pattern uniforms with stone-gray breeches, which by contrast made the feldgrau blouse look lighter?


 * Another guess- could these in fact be green-jacketed Orpo, Ordnungspolizei? Did these light uniforms have contrasting cuffs?


 * As to Downfall, I'm not sure. I would be wholly unsurprised if Hitler's personal retinue weren't visibly distinguished in some manner, and that would be worth including in the article if a source could be found. Solicitr (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Table?
Personally I think the section on the uniforms should be seperated from the rank/title issue because it is very, very confusing. Rather than copy how about a table? Someone with more knowledge than me could fill in the details but as an example:

Then all the relevant agencies could be included. In fact you could have sub branches, ie Allgemeine SS also includes: Office of the Reichsführer-SS, Head Administrative Office, Head Operational Office, Reich Main Security Office (RSHA), Economics and Administration Office, Office of Race and Settlement (RuSHA), Main Office for Ethnic Germans (VOMI), Office of the Reich Commissioner for Germanic Resettlement (RKFDV), Courts Office, Personnel Office, and Education Office. Did they all wear the same uniform or were there variations? What about the other branches the SS-TV, Waffen SS, or paramilitaries? I think this article needs this kind of distinction. The makers of cinematic films have been able to achieve that, so why not we?

I can do tables but knowing what is the correct info to put in them, I will leave to the experts. But I see tables as concentrated information centers: visual aids that put whole paragraphs of complex details into clear, concise and definable forms. There is no need to go back and forth because the material is all there in one place.

So any thoughts? Personally and this is why I have taken my time to convey my thoughts, have found the current article to be long and confusing with too much tautology, and of vagueness purpose. Is this article about the uniforms of the SS or the rank structure. I would propose that uniform design came about as a result of the rank structure, not the other way around. Combiining the two subjects in one article has left me unclear, hence my suggestions.

Article class
I'm not going to change the assessment because this isn't my area, but start-class? This article is massive, surely it deserves better. (Good work all involved by the way.) &mdash; Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   19:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusion in the ranks
The image on the left shows that there was some sort of rank restructuring in the SS before the end of WWII. The top row shows one style and the associated rank insignia against a bottom row that has similar ranks but different insignia design. However the article section does not link to this image or explain when the changes occurred.

Take this 1940 image of Reinhard Heydrich, the legend says he is wearing the uniform of an SS-Obergruppenführer, but according the table of "final" ranks he actually appear to be wearing the insignia of an SS-Brigadeführer. Somewhere between 1940 and 1945 the SS changed the system. But this article is far too poorly written/arranged to explain when the change happened, or why? 86.178.233.88 (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The changeover took place in 1942, and needs to be clarified in the article. The image caption is wrong.  In this photo Heydrich is wearing the (pre-42) insignia of a Gruppenfuhrer.
 * You can tell the "old" and "new" insignia apart because the 1942 forms had very straight "fronds" radiating from the corner, whereas the old ones were curved. Unfortunately, the table "Final SS Ranks" only includes the post-42 generals' tabs; IIRC this is because all the pics of the old-style collar tabs were nuked by the copyright-enforcers a couple of years ago.Solicitr (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Solicitr is correct. The SS rank tables last changed in April 1942 and that is the final table shown on the bottom. Kierzek (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the photo caption on Wiki Commons. Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The deletions based on "copyright" were a sad chapter both at this article and Wikipedia. There was an unfortunate group of editors who I think, based on a lack of anything better to do, rampantly targeted articles and purged hundreds of images. They knew where the line was and would always justify the deletion with some corner of Wikipedia regulations, thus ensuring an undelete request would never pass. However, some of the deletions were very ridiculous. The one that comes to mind clearly were some papers on the Adolf Eichmann article obtained from the National Archives. I recall at one point there was an editor who actually said we needed not only permission of the archives but also the German government and Eichmann's family. Funny thing is the stunt backfired. There was actually documentation at the archives, signed by both the West German government in the 1970s and Eichmann's next of kin in the 80s releasing any and all material about this SS service. That is just one example of what we saw going on a few years ago. Sorry to go off on the rant, but it is a lesson to us all to watch these image licenses and give no one any reason to delete them. -OberRanks (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oberführer; equivalents
It is unreasonable to show UK Brigadier as equivalent to this rank, when USA Briagadier-General is show as equivalent to a different rank, since both the British Brigadier and the USA Brigadier-General are both NATO O6 (USA style O7) rank. Probably the confusion is caused by not understanding that the SS split the Army Wehrmacht, Heer) rank Oberst into two, since the the oberführer rank is is also incorrectly shown as having no Heer equivalent. I have therefor changed this table to eliminate the none equivalents for oberführer and move the brigadier to the right place.  Michealt (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in the past: Oberführer had no military equivalent and quickly became regarded as a senior colonel rank. Yerger, 1997, p. 235. This distinction continues in historical circles with most texts referring to Oberführer as a senior colonel rank. Yerger, 1997, p. 235; Miller, 2006, p. 521; while some others state it has a military equivalent to a British Army brigadier. McNab, 2009, p. 186. That is what the WP:RS sources state. OberRanks is correct. Kierzek (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Crazy rank, even seventy years ago. Maybe alter the chart to have Oberst spaced evenly between S-Fhr and O-Fhr to cover both ranks.  Beyond my Wiki formatting knowledge, I'm afraid. -OberRanks (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Bad Article
You people should be ashamed of yourselves, writing about the uniforms and stupid little badges that these killers wore. I know I could be "blocked" (oh no!) for removing some of these pictures, but thats all they are, fetish pictures for the neo-Nazis who love the pretty little black uniforms. My granduncle was at Auschwitz and he had a cousin who died at Treblinka. This is so sick having an article about the uniforms of killers. I will be watching this and I will take this article down. I know how to shift ip addresses and have friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center who can help me with pressure against Wikipedia to stop these articles. Burn in hell, Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.34.7 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Still, this is an historical book (encyclopedia). People want to know what happened then, and Wikipedia is the place to go. There is little point in taking the article down. It doesn't change history. If you want to know about Treblinka, for example, that article is there also. Surely you wouldn't want someone to remove that! Wallie (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki policy actually allows for removal of comments like the one above and the tone of it (especially the second to last sentence) is really skirting on the no legal threats rule. Talk pages are for improving articles, not proclaiming how bad they are. Since there has been a response, though, the section should stay in. -O.R.Comms 13:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

To IP-user. Do you suggest writing thoroughly about the SS is the same as sharing their ideas ? The uniforms are used in films and documentaries and on pictures of the time. I would argue that it's especially important just due to the Holocaust. Any other parts of SS you suggest we must not write about ? As a parallel - A wide majority of historical experts who have read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" usually states something like this "It's too bad so few actually read it" at the time as well as for the future. Censorship just make matters more interesting to some, and it's far better potential neo-nazisits find our neutral and rather dull article, than at an other, glorifying perhaps, website. Boeing720 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Overly detailed article
I added tag to the article; please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the tag as necessary. This is a complex subject and everything in the article right now is sourced, referenced, and needed to provide a complete overview of this topic.  The only thing we could possibly do is split the article into separate works covering the time periods (i.e. "SS uniforms of the Second World War", "Early SS paramilitary uniforms", etc).  I don't see otherwise material being removed from this article in any other way. -O.R.Comms 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Except for edits for concision which could be done, I agree with OberRanks. This article should be detailed due to the subject matter it covers. Kierzek (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Next year after...a certain book might be published...there could be a possibility of creating an article just for the uniforms of the Allgemeine-SS. The General-SS system of collar patches, cuffbands, and sleeve diamonds is an extremely complicated affair which would be outside the scope of this article and would warrant an article of its own. -O.R.Comms 19:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I restored both tags -- the page contains many uncited passages and could stand a trimming (i.e. of said uncited content). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The citation tag needs to be taken out and "citation needed" added to specific areas which there are problems. The article citation tag was up for nearly three years with no discussion as to why it is there or what the problem was.  As for the other one (overly detailed), please advise what could be trimmed.  The technical nature of this subject makes all of the material relevant.  That tag is also frequently misused and generally requires consensus and a course of action proposed to move forward on it. -O.R.Comms 14:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I stated my opinion above so I don't really want to be redundant; with that said, it could use a small trim and cites added, but certainly this is a page/article which calls for great detail due to the subject matter it covers. I do believe that the section, "Uniform design and function" is somewhat redundant to that of the section "Uniforms designs and styles" and its sub-sections and information from the one, which is not repeated, can be transferred to the other in the appropriate places. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

At the end of the day, this article really needs to be split up for uniforms between the major SS branches, mainly Allgemeine, Waffen, and well as probably Totenkopf and possibly also the Secret Police and Germanic-SS. The early SS uniforms from the 20s and early 30s, before significant branches started forming, can be covered here on this article. That is a major project and one in which I can't really get into right now with other obligations. But anyway, that's my two cents. -O.R.Comms 18:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

lowest ranks ("privates")
Mann - was a Private, Schütze wasn't actually a higher rank, but "priviligated Private" (not only in SS, Waffen-SS and the Wehrmacht/Reichswher, I'm pretty certain, they also was used in the Emperor's military, during WW1. Perhaps even older than so.) But fair enough, they fit within this scope too. Boeing720 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Special uniforms
The description of formal dress has been given a no citation tag; previously, no citation was necessary because the description was accompanied by a photograph: how did that get deleted? In fact, the key illustrations of the brownshirt and black uniforms have been removed too. All three are legit and have (or had) the appropriate copyright info attached Solicitr (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

SS Helferinnen
What were their uniforms like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.165.198 (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

SS-Gruppenführer
Is there a list of people who held the rank of SS-Gruppenführer? Thanks. Zerotalk 07:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)