Talk:Waffen-SS/Archive 1

War crimes
Why was the Waffen SS wrongfully accused of war crimes? What accusations have been made,

Your question is very broad. The SS as part of the Nazi party was declared a criminal organisation by the Nuremberg trials. In the atmosphere immediately after the war there seems to have been a different attitude prevailing than say 5-10 years later. In the immediate aftermath all SS personnel seem to have separated from 'normal' armed forces and treated differently. In some cases this difference was brutal. There seems to have been a particular focus on identifying war crimes for all those identified as SS rather than gathering information on the war crimes committed by both sides and letting the blame fall where it fell. As a consequence there was a lot of 'smoke' and much less 'fire' generated in the very public hearings of SS members. The distinction between Waffen SS and 'Allgemeine (General)' SS does not seem to have been strongly made during this epoch. This was not helped by the fact that in the early days (pre-1939) the role and parentage of the Waffen-SS (or SS-Verfügungstruppe as it was then called) was political, ethically murky and unclear. This is in stark contrast to its wartime activities. By the late 1950's it was freely admitted on almost all sides that the Waffen-SS (during the war) was with a few well documented exceptions a military unit much like other German units. I cite as an example SS General Kurt Meyer's case whilst he was commanding the SS HitlerJugend division. He was within days of being executed after due process when he was given a life sentence instead. After some time in Canadian and then German jails it was admitted that almost all of the case against him was unsound although the shooting of prisoners war crime had been committed by someone. It was accepted that in Normandy at this time the taking of prisoners was sometimes discouraged by both sides and that he had never condoned or encouraged killing prisoners. He was released in 1954.

In short many many accusations, clear indications of systemic war crimes by two units of non-Germanic SS the Dirlewanger and Kaminski Brigades and the concentration camp unit "Totenkopfverbände" and the rest is generally unclear. Unclear in as much as war crimes were probably committed by both sides in equal measure in many theatres and to choose to emphasise Waffen-SS war crimes under these circumstances was probably a bias at the time. The vitriolic nature of discussions about the 'Eastern Front' suggests that perhaps it should be considered apart from other theatres because it does seem very difficult to get rough agreement on some events. Perhaps now that Russia is releasing internal information from the Soviet period there will be some change in this position. Facius 09:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Totenkopfverbände
Was this not a wholly separate element of the SS, not to be confused with the Waffen SS at all? And in particular not to be confused with the Totenkopf Division of the Waffen SS?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.182.232 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Volunteers/conscripts
Why are the Totenkopf listed twice? Were there to different divisions? Also the last line about service being voluntary until 1944 - does this mean that service in the Waffen was voluntary for ordinary SS members or for civilians? --rmhermen


 * Prior to 1944, the Waffen-SS was an all-volunteer force (freiwilligen) open to all Europeans of "Nordic" ancestry. In that year, the Germans started conscripting into the Waffen-SS, and therefore it was no longer completely voluntary. John

AUS/NZ volunteers
"Later there were the SS Freiwilligenverbände (SS Volunteer Units) from countries and regions such as ... Australia (within the Britisches Freikorps)... the British Empire (Britisches Freikorps)... New Zealand (within the Britisches Freikorps..."

I am removing the explicit links to Australia and New Zealand and replacing British Empire with "Britain and Commonwealth". There were the sum total of 10 volunteers from Commonwealth countries (these included Canadians and South Africans) out of the thousands of Waffen-SS volunteers. Commonwealth should suffice for Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and South Africans. See Talk:British_Free_Corps for more info. Kudz75 05:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Rommel's Memoirs
Hmm... Since he was executed for his part in the July Plot, how did Rommel get time to write his memoirs again? The only books he wrote to my knowledge was Infanterie Greift An (Infantry Attacks) a tactical manual concerning infantry operations on the Western, Eastern and Italian Fronts during World War I.

I think that as a whole, the Waffen-SS organisation was mediocre. The brilliant and relatively blameless exploits of the Wiking, Nord and Nordland divisions (among others) is counterbalanced by the horrific behaviour of the Waffen-Sturm-Brigade RONA and the SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger and the like. Overall, it is difficult to judge an organisation which so greatly varies in quality and behaviour of it's fighting units. --Ansbachdragoner 00:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidentaly, Rommel was good friends with SS Oberstgruppenfuhrer Paul Hausser and always held him in high regard. 20 Jan 2006

Rommel did write his memoirs, they are freely available on amazon.co.uk! I have them at home, he wrote them down at the end of each day during his campaigns in france, and North Africa. This is common knowledge to those who have a decent knowledge of world war 2.

Also, Rommel was not executed. He was allowed to commit suicide.

Indian Volunteers
Are the members of the Indian National Army, a resistance army against Britain formed by Indian POWs and volunteers under Subash Chandra Bose, and trained by the Germans and Japanese confused here as the Indian volunteers of the SS?

See http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=8. Indian volunteers were also inducted into the Waffen-SS, mostly to the 13.Waffen-Gebirgs-Division der SS Handschar (kroatische Nr.1).--Ansbachdragoner 05:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Waffen SS Weapons and equipment
Kurt Leyman,

Yes, they did. The Leibstandarte, Das Reich, Hitlerjugend, Wiking, Hohenstaufen and Frundsberg were equipped on par with the better Heer panzer formations, granted. (although at no time was any of these as well equipped as the Heer's Panzer-Lehr (2 Abts of Panthers and an attached company of Tiger II Bs), the 1.Fallschirm-Panzer-Division Hermann Göring or the Panzergrenadier Division Großdeutschland.)

For the remainder (yes, including Totenkopf) they were equipped with second rate armour and weapons. (see image of Totenkopf ZB30 Machine Gun Team - pretty much speaks for itself). The Totenkopf was, by the time of Kursk, better equipped, but was still inferior to the LSSAH and the DR.

In hope of ending the revert war, please find evidence for the status of SS Panzer/Panzergrenadier divisions below.

Tank numbers for LSSAH during Unternehmen Zitadelle are as follows

SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "LSSAH" (II.SS-Panzer-Korps)

 * 3x Pz.Kpfw.I
 * 4x Pz.Kpfw.II
 * 3x Pz.Kpfw.III (kz.) - 5cm KwK 38 (L/42)
 * 10x Pz.Kpfw.III(lg.) - 5cm KwK 39 (L/60))
 * 67x Pz.Kpfw.IV(lg.) - 7.5cm KwK 40 (L/48)
 * 13x Pz.Kpfw.VI ausf E
 * 9x Bef.Pz.Kpfw
 * 35x StuG 40
 * 21x Marder III
 * 6x Hummel
 * 12x Wespe
 * 12x Grille

SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "Das Reich" (II.SS-Panzer-Korps)

 * 1x Pz.Kpfw.I
 * 70x Pz.Kpfw.III
 * 33x Pz.Kpfw.IV
 * 14x Pz.Kpfw.VI ausf E
 * 34x StuG 40
 * 26x T-34
 * 12x Marder III
 * 6x Hummel
 * 12x Wespe
 * 12x Grille

SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "Totenkopf" (II.SS-Panzer-Korps)

 * 63x Pz.Kpfw.III
 * 52x Pz.Kpfw.IV
 * 15x Pz.Kpfw.VI ausf E
 * 35x StuG 40
 * 8x Marder III
 * 6x Hummel
 * 12x Wespe

SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "Wiking" (HG Süd Reserve)

 * 4x Pz.Kpfw.II
 * 1x Pz.Kpfw.III (kz.) - 5cm KwK 38 (L/42)
 * 14x Pz.Kpfw.III(lg.) - 5cm KwK 39 (L/60))
 * 8x Pz.Kpfw.III(75) - 7.5cm KwK 37 (L/24)
 * 1x Pz.Kpfw.IV(kz) - 7.5cm KwK 37 (L/24)
 * 16x Pz.Kpfw.IV(lg) - 7.5cm KwK 40 (L/48)
 * 1x Bef.Pz.Kpfw

''- from JENTZ, Thomas L. Panzertruppen - The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force - 1943-1945. Atglen (PA) : Schiffer Military History, 1996.''

Note the T-34s assigned to DR, and the abysmal state of the Wiking's armoured component.

During Kursk, the new Panther Ausf D's did not got to SS panzergrenadier units, but the the Heer Panzer Regiment 39 (200xPz.Kpfw.V ausf D), which operated as an attachement to Panzergrenadier Division Großdeutschland.

Above are the strengths of the premier units of the Waffen SS before a major offensive. One needs only to glance at the histories of the secondary formations to see that they were never fully equipped, and often used captured equipment. 7.SS-Frw-Gebirgs Div used repossessed Italian tanks, 17-SS-PGD GvB used french trucks and a large number of StuGs and Marders to fill out it's panzer Abteilung. 11SS-Frw-PzGD was never full strength, and again, StuGs and Marders were used to fill out the panzer Abt.--Ansbachdragoner 00:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the SS Panzer divisions were best equipped before major offensives. But they were also committed to major offensives more often than most units, and so spent more time with the best equipment. It is uselss to compare the actual fighting strength in wartime with the full complement of the division. In general, the best SS divisions were equipped as well as the best Heer divisions and far better than most Heer divisions; it is quite legitimate to say so.

For my contribution, I'd add that Hitlerjugend on June 6th 1944 was at virtually full strength as a reseve formation, with some issues in its antitank battalion. It had one Abt. of Panthers and one Abt. of Pz IV in its Panzer regiment, and two Panzergrenadier regiments at full strength mounted in a variety of vehicles. The only stronger division in the West I know of was Panzer Lehr. The Land 09:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, as i've said before, the 'Best' SS divisions were equipped on par with the better panzer divisions (116th, 2nd etc), although they never could compare to PzGrD GD, the FsPzD HG, Pz-Lehr etc. And remember, that the 'Best' SS divisions made up only a fraction of the 38 divisions fielded. While the Hitlerjugend was superbly equipped before Overlord, the neighbouring Gotz von Berlichingen had to scrounge for civilian vehicles to provide transport to the front. And to call any of the divisions from the 16th onwards anywhere near as well equipped as even the weakest Heer panzer formation is absurd to say the least. For example, look at the histories of the 23rd, 26th and 27th SS Divisions - even though these fought admirably, they were severely understrength and only the Nederland and Langemarck received severely understrength StuG Abteilungs. For a more extreme view, have a look at the 29th and 36th. I know, sometimes it's hard to remember that, although the LSSAH, DR, HJ and Wiking took most of the 'glory', they made up only a fraction of the overall force. --Ansbachdragoner 23:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ranks
There is no page Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel. Where the ranks of the SA, SS, and Waffen SS essentially the same?

Picture text
I oppose a little the text under one of the pictures:

"Waffen-SS Panzergrenadier in Russia. He is wearing an innovative camouflage battledress that was decades ahead of its time"

The choise of words would imply that it was not well liked or even adapted by the SS or that other nations didn't have the same kind of equipment - e.g. the Russians, the Japanese, the Finnish and the Americans sported similar kind of camouflage during the WWII, the americans mainly in the pacific area or among afro-americans in the European theatre (so that no mistakes could be made in the identification of the US and SS troops. //MoRsE 23:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Decades" is quite a stretch. The use of patterned camouflage clothing was fairly common in the regular Wehrmacht, the US Marine Corps, and in elite Soviet units such as snipers, scouts and sappers. Italian and British Airborne forces wore patterned camouflage, as did some US Infantry units. I am certain experiments were carried out by allied forces prior to WW2 also. I think a fairer statement might be that the W-SS pioneered the widespread use of camouflage, that's all. But the whoel article is very pro-W-SS POVDMorpheus 15:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

--To this point, some American infantrymen fighting in hedgerow country were issued the M-2 or M-1942 camouflage suits that so resembled the SS camo that it had to be removed from service. Camouflage as a part of a soldier's standard issue uniform was by the Second World War very common. As early as 1898 British Army units made their own rudementary camouflage uniforms. In WWI, both the Germans and the Allies issued some camouflage, especially to MG teams, sharpshooters, engineers and runners. The Royal Marines were characteristically clothed in battle-dress smocks as well. Suggest the revision "...Russia. He wears his reversible Camouflage smock, uniquely issued to SS troops." 128.83.206.153 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all war criminals
I've been reading some of the articles above and I felt I had to comment. My uncle was killed in the Ukraine in 1944 (aged 20) fighting Stalin's Red Army. He was a member of the 10th SS Panzer Division 'Frundsberg'. To see his name dragged through the dirt by people with a total misconception of who and what the Waffen SS were is disgraceful. Sadly, there are always individuals and units that blacken the name of their comrades and country but then what nation is completely innocent of war crimes?. To allow that to smear the vast majority who have done nothing more than their duty is wrong and shows a total lack of understanding of people and history. Most men in most armies behave with discipline and correctness. Any veteran of World War 2 would say the same, regardless of his nationality. The 900,000+ men that served in the Waffen SS, most of whom never saw a concentration camp, let alone serve in one, were mostly soldiers/volunteers like any other. Engineers, pioneers, signals, tanks, infantry, reconnaissance. The label 'criminal organisation' was given to them after 1945. When they joined it was a legal part of the German Army and was always under the command of the regular German army in the field of combat. Notice their were no Waffen SS field marshals. Just because certain individuals and units in the Red Army raped, looted and murdered their way across Eastern Europe in 1944/45, is that an excuse to condemn the entire Russian army?. Of course not. People should study history and individuals and not tar everyone with the same brush just because they wear the same uniform. My Uncle paid the ultimate price fighting for his country in the Waffen SS. To abuse him and the countless thousands like him that died just doing their duty is appalling. He and the vast majority of his Waffen SS comrades would condemn the crimes commited in their name. --Anonymous


 * While being no apologist, I, for one, think you are completely right, both in general and in the specifics. However, I actually think the article as it stands as of this writing gives a fairly balanced view of the W-SS. War crimes are covered in a separate section, as they should be, allowing for the general military-historical aspects of the W-SS to be described in comparison to other military forces of WWII. I don't see that the necessary inclusion of the war crimes section casts a shadow over each and every soldier of the W-SS. --Wernher 02:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the W-SS was not a part of the German Army (which has it's own war crimes to answer for). They were an entirely separate organization, with personnel transferred freely between the concentration camps and front-line units. W-SS troops were *not* soldiers like any other. if they volunteered for the W-SS why didn't they volunteer for the regular army? During the period when joining the W-SS was a choice, I do not accept the argument that these troops were just like other soldiers.
 * Finally, while it is true that atrocities take place in every army amongst a minority of troops, there is a fundamental difference between the W-SS and most other military units. Atrocities in most units are instances of indiscipline and are crimes, even though most go unpunished. Atrocities in the W-SS were a matter of routine policy. That is what made it a criminal organization, and the judgement at Nuremberg was correct. DMorpheus 15:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting, DMorpheus, you realize that means that the United States Army and Marines are both also criminal organizations under that definition (i.e. atrocities being a 'matter of routine policy')? read the book American Methods by Kristian Williams (published by South End Press). --february 16th. random user

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.0.72.121 (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * That the soldiers of the former Waffen-SS soldiers, actually is a lie was not. They were, in order to express it with the words of the German Bundeskanzler at that time Konrad Adenauer, quite "soldiers like others also (german "Soldaten wie andere auch)". This avowed publicly on 5 April 1951 and 3 December 1952 before the German parliament in its "Honour Explanations for the German soldiers": "(...) The percentage of those, which are really guilty, is so extraordinarily small and so extraordinarily small that thereby the honour of the former German Wehrmacht Abruch does not happen." (1951).


 * Furthermore: "We would like today and before this high house in names government to explain that we all weapon carriers of our people, which frame in the high military excessive quantity honorably to country, to water and in air fought to recognize. We are convinced that the good reputation and the high achievement of the German soldier remained still alive in our people and will also remain. It must be also common task, and I am safe, we her will solve to merge the moral values of the German Soldatentums with the democracy." (1952)


 * Now will be asked naturally here, what that with the former Waffen-SS does not have to do... her became here in particular mentioned. But in a letter in reply from 17 December 1952 the Bundeskanzler explained Adenauer to former Oberstgruppenführer Paul Hausser: "Dear Mr. Generaloberst! Following a suggestion I communicate that honour explanation for the soldiers of the former German Wehrmacht, delivered by me in my speech on 3 December 1952 before the German Bundestag, covers also the members of the Waffen-SS,"... and now come the restriction to you (sig!) ... "fought so far it excluding as soldiers honorable for Germany. They are for me soldiers like others also! With the expression of excellent respect I am her Konrad Adenauer."


 * That proves here clearly that all members of the former Waffen-SS with exception of the KZ guards were soldiers in the context of the armed forces. The soldiers of the former Waffen-SS including the SS Totenkopfdivision (those their roots also in the KZs had) dissociated themselves from the horrible crimes of the KZ security guards. Before the Nuernberger tribunal coined/shaped Paul Hausser the well-known word: "Where the crime begins, stops those comrade shank!"


 * Even Himmler saw the 1942 of the Waffen-SS of slammed shut KZ federations "as independent SS federations, which subordinate only soldier's small book-moderately of the Waffen-SS and whose uniforms carried". Postmann Michael 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What I should have said (forgive me for not being clearer), and what I actually meant, was that the Waffen SS was a legal part of the German Armed Forces. The reason most veterans have given me in the past, was that they wanted to be a member of the elite. As for the comment that the Waffen SS carried out atrocities as 'a matter of routine policy', that has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on the subject and utter nonsense. Most organised crimes by SS units were carried out by Einsatzgruppen or SD(Sicherhietsdienst)/Police units and they were NOT Waffen SS units. They may have had personnel crossing from one unit to others but this was a very small percentage. As I said before the vast majority of the Waffen SS (under the command of the regular German Army) behaved with discipline and did their duty accordng to the rules. And most were held in high regard by men in the regular German Army. That is a fact. Is it right to rubbish the names of nearly one million men for the crimes of a very small minority?. It cannot be right!!
 * I think Molobo has responded to this propaganda far better than I can. Again, the W-SS was not a part of the Wehrmacht. They fought under their operational control; they were not a part of the organization. They were a part of the Nazi party. I say this not to defent the German Army, which also has a terrible record of atrocities, but simply to clarify that the W-SS were not just ordinary soldiers.DMorpheus 14:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * WSS units frequently came under the control under Heer command, and particularly liked it. Such as Death's Head being linked with Manstein's Corps or 11th Army. It is obvious that you have no grasp of what actually happened and are only acting at what the History Channel tells you.

Waffen SS was an ideological organisations.As an organisation it was mainly fighting for Nazi ideals of racial purity, and its indoctrination was of Nazi perceived threats from "bolshevik untermenschen" which included mainly Jews but was extended to other such as Poles and Russians. It was strongly racist and this behaviour showed itself in their conduct towards the perceived "untermenschen". --Molobo 14:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Right, once and for all. The Waffen SS fought under the ultimate control and authority of the OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht) and it's divisions and corps., were always part of a Wehrmacht Army Group under the ultimate command of a Wehrmacht field marshall, let's get that straight for a start. Secondly, as continually refered to elsewhere further down this page, the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) are NOT the Waffen SS, the Einsatzgruppen are NOT the Waffen SS. Therefore, actions (eg. Lidice) and crimes committed by them cannot possibly be blamed on members of the Waffen SS. Yeah, so some members were transferred over the years from one branch to another. That's still not all of them!! My point again is, how can nearly one million men possibly all be held resposible for the actions of a minority?. It's like saying everyone who likes football is a hooligan. It's absurd. To say that these men were just out to murder and commit crimes in the name of 'Nazi ideology' is quite incredible and has no place on an encyclopedia's website. It's uneducated and disgraceful. This page of the Wiki website is to inform people who wish to learn more and understand more about the German Army. I'll say it again, one more time! Most men that served in the Waffen SS did their duty according to the rules and conduct of war and conformed with the strict discipline. To quote the highly respected Waffen SS General Paul Hausser, Where crime begins, comradeship ends...To blame most of them for the wrong-doing of a minority is absurd and an insult to many thousands of young men who lost their lives fighting for Germany. Blame individual units by all means but NOT an entire Army. Anybody who says otherwise, you stick to reading war comics and leave the serious topic of studying history to those people who just wish to learn the truth. For anyone wanting to study the Waffen SS, there are so many books available written by veterans themselves which provide a fascinating insight into what it was really like to be a Waffen SS soldier/officer. Read everybody's opinion, especially those that were there and then and only then can you have a good broad opinion on the subject.


 * The analogy to football hooligans is not valid. There is no "hooligan abteilung" anyone signs up for, so you are correct that it is not valid to blame, say, all young, drunken, male football fans for the actions of a few hooligans.
 * How about the Ku Klux Klan? Undoubtedly there are a few members of the KKK who have never committed a crime. However, many have, and there's no question that anyone joining the group knows exactly what they are getting into. The purpose of the group is criminal. It exists for the purpose of committing hate crimes and spreading a racist ideology. They aren't wearing those sheets to play checkers. Likewise the purpose of the W-SS was fundamentally criminal. DMorpheus 01:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of the Waffen SS was to be an elite arm of the German Army and most men (and women) joined to belong to that elite, NOT to commit crimes. So your suggesting that all those cooks, doctors, nurses, engineers and every tank driver, infantryman and artillery soldier that ever volunteered for the Waffen SS were all criminals were they? and they all joined up to commit crimes?!! Rubbish. They believed that Germany had a right to defend itself against countries that had declared war upon them. For most veterans it was as simple as that and it's nonsense to suggest ottherwise.
 * With the absurdities you are posting I can see why you're surrendering. Again, the W-SS was NOT a part of the German Army. Anyone who wanted to volunteer to defend the Nazi regime, defend the german homeland, or whatever, was free to join the Wehrmacht. Germany was not "defending itself against countries that had declared war on them" they were very busy invading those countries, and committing horrific crimes as they did it. DMorpheus 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't resist one more comment! Quite addictive this! So Britain and France didn't declare war on Germany. You've obviously read different history books to me!!
 * Obviously. Let's consult the list.
 * 1. Germany threatens war in Czechoslovakia unless the Czech's allies agree to give Germany the border area. Britain and France agree. No one labels this the "Franco-Anglo-Nazi Alliance" but maybe we should.
 * 2. Germany invades Poland, which has quite open, public military alliances with Britain and France. As a result, yes, Britain and France honor their *defensive* treaty obligations and declare war. Neither takes any agressive action against Germany. Remember the 'Phoney War'?

Correction: It wasn't that phoney. The RAF began bombing Germany on September 4th 1939 in Kiel and the bombing raids continued and became heavier until Germany began heavy bombing raids itself from June 1940. And remember after Germany invaded Poland, Russia invaded Poland three weeks later on September 17th 1939 and occupied more of Poland than Germany did!!


 * One cannot defend an immoral act by claiming "others did it also". Yes, the USSR invaded Poland...that is in no way an excuse for Germany doing so.
 * The "Phoney War" period is well-named. The name arose *at the time*, that is, people living through the events noticed that very little actual fighting was happening. Compared to what was happening in Poland in Sep 1939, the events in the west were truly phoney. A few very light bombing raids and the Saar mini-offensive were mere gestures. DMorpheus 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't 'phoney' to the poor souls who lost their lives in the raids!!!


 * 3. Germany invades Denmark
 * 4. Germany invades Norway, beating the British to the punch
 * 5. Germany invades Belgium
 * 6. Germany invades the Netherlands


 * 7. Germany invades France. : Yes, France had declared war on them!!
 * Well, see above. France was allied, publicly, with Poland. The alliance was defensive, that is, each agreed to aid the other in case they were invaded. You don't think France simply decided, out of the blue, to go to war, do you? DMorpheus 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, but nevertheless, they still made a declaration of war. From that point on, you cannot expect to be seen as neutral or a non-participant. Even if the alliance was 'defensive', they declared themselves at war with Germany. From that moment, the French government committed itself and its people to a state of war.
 * 8. Germany incapable of invading Britain so they bomb them instead. Read comment above.
 * the comment above is irrelevant to the point. DMorpheus 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9. Germany invades Yugoslavia
 * 10. Germany invades Greece
 * 11. Germany invades the Soviet Union.

And the Ukrainians and Baltic states welcomed them with open arms and joined them including the creation of Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian Waffen SS Divisions!! I do admit that many harsh policies the German authorities imposed began to turn many of the locals against the Germans as well as the Russians.
 * Thank you for acknowledging that the murder of tens of thousands of people, and the destruction of thousands of villages, was "harsh". Again, whatever the initial reaction in some cases, an invasion is an invasion. I have read that the Latvians had their Jewish fellow citizens all rounded up, ready for the Nazis to take away. DMorpheus 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that. The behaviour towards Jews was a disgrace, regardless of the nationality. And let's not just blame 'the Nazis'. It's a matter of fact that local militia and police in the Baltic states needed no encouragement from Germans to carry out these murders and that goes for Belarus and the Ukraine too. Note that of the 70 odd alleged war criminals in the UK facing investigation, there's not a German among them. They're all from the former Soviet States. I read somewhere that the Soviets expelled half a million Jews from their occupied part of Poland and sent them to places like Iran!


 * History has generally concluded, on this basis, that Germany may be considered the agressor in WW2. DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point though

their eternal shame. As for Russia and dear 'Uncle' Jo Stalin, if Germany hadn't made a pre-emptive strike against them
 * "Pre-emptive" ? There isn't a shred of evidence for this, and frankly the argument for pre-emption has been thoroughly debunked DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It hasn't. If you read the biography of the Luftwaffe ace Hans Ulrich Rudel. A massive build up of Soviet forces was observed by Luftwaffe pilots along the Russian/German frontier. They captured about 2 million in the first month or so. Let alone those killed and retreating. What was that lot doing there?


 * Read any serious historian and you will see the pre-emption argument thoroughly smashed. Glantz does it best with a direct response to the Suvorov pseudohistory. DMorpheus 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

, I'm 110% certain that the Soviet Union would have gone West. Don't forget they'd already attacked Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Let's also remember where the Germans found the Polish officer corps. 15,000 of them buried at Katyn. What wonderful allies the Soviets were!! They brought such freedom and culture to Eastern Europe didn't they? How sad it was to see them leave in 1989 when 'the wall' came down!!. Anyway, that's besides the point.
 * Precisely so - I agree with you that this is all completely beside the point. We are concerned here with the criminals of the W-SS, not the criminals of the USSR. DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You still choose to attack the Waffen SS as a whole for the crimes of a few.
 * Nuremburg sets this precendent far beyond my feeble attempt to contribute. DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In a democratic modern day court of law, such a statement would never be allowed.

All those Germans and their Allies involved in crimes against humanity did a dreadful dis-service to their comrades in the Navy, Luftwaffe, Heer and Waffen SS) who fought honestly and gallantly.
 * That's not quite the point, is it? The disservice to their victims was rather more important that the stain on the honor of the German armed forces. It is revealing that this is where your concern lies. As I have mentioned earlier, the Wehrmacht has its own crimes to answer for, but here we are concerned with the W-SS. DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not for one moment going to excuse crimes carried out by a minority of Germany's Armed Forces,
 * Glad to see we agree again DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

it's disgraceful
 * Correct DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

but you have to keep this in context. THEY WERE NOT ALL CRIMINALS.
 * I agree, but the fundamental point is that the organization itself was criminal, and existed for the purpose of committing crimes against humanity. In that context, yes, it is possible some individuals committed no crimes. It is the choice of entering the organization that is, at minimum, suspect. Why did these people not join the Wehrmacht if their real motivation was "defending" their country? Perhaps another analogy is valid. One way of protecting your neighborhood is to become a police officer. Another is to join a criminal gang. Which choice reflects better intentions? DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Some back-side licking judge at Nurnberg WOULD say they were criminals wouldn't he?,
 * It is astonishing that you can insult a mere judge for their *words* while defending the Wafen-SS for their *deeds*. DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, what's astonishing, is that a judge would make a ruling about a million men in one go like that when only a tiny fraction are guilty of anything!! In other words, one's guilty so they're all guilty. And you call that an acceptable ruling from a judge in a court of law? You're having a laugh!! That judge made a statement about the the Waffen SS, my Uncle included. He labelled my Uncle, my dead Uncle, a criminal, a young man who fought and died for his country. That judge, in my humble opinion, was a gutless coward and an utter disgrace to my family. It would be hard to find a more stupid statement in a court of 'law'!! Abuse individuals that have done wrong by all means but when people go around branding hundreds of thousands of men as 'criminals', of whom thousands had fallen in action doing nothing more than their duty, it's the lowest of the low. For a judge to abuse dead soldiers in that manner, he couldn't stoop any lower as a human being than that!


 * I think we've covered that DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is that they were not simply doing their duty as soldiers, they were committing horrific crimes on a large scale. DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. 95%+ of these men did their duty without commiting crimes and how can you possibly say that they joined a 'criminal' organisation, when you label the organisation as such AFTER the event. When they volunteered, this was a perfectly legal branch of the German Armed Forces. It is absolutely laughable to say they joined to commit crimes of any kind. That is not the truth and a total misconception. Thousands of graves being spat on. Disgusting. Like I said, my Uncle belonged to the 10th SS Panzer Division 'Frundsberg', and was killed in action aged 20 and lays somewhere in the Ukraine, and you know what?, if it makes you happy, you keep on spitting on him but he'll always be a hero in my book.


 * No one is spitting on anyone. With all respect to your uncle, what was he doing in Ukraine? The point is not personal in any way, it is political and ethical. My grandfather served in the US Army in WW1. I can honor his memory, as you can your uncle's, without endorsing either his cause or his organization. DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What was my Uncle doing in the Ukraine? The same as Red Army soldiers in Afghanistan, the same as Americans in Vietnam, the same as the Britsh and Americans today in Iraq.


 * There is a high degree of similarity there, and it does not reflect well on any of the agressors. The best that can be said is that all governments were guilty of waging agressive war - which, again, in no way exonerates any W-SS member. A huge and illuminating difference, however, is that the British and US soldiers are not part of organizations that promote atrocities as a routine matter. They have no ideological training beyond defense of their way of government. I took an oath to defend the US Constitution - that's all. That is EXACTLY why you see such an outcry in the USA right now, when the current political leadership has condoned actions that, traditionally, are not tolerated in the United States armed forces. We will not tolerate being "the same as" the W-SS. DMorpheus 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

He and they were doing what they were told. You join the Army and that's the bottom line, do as you're told. You go where they send you. Blame Hitler, Brezhnev, Nixon, Bush and Blair all you like, not the poor guys who end up being buried in these places.
 * That's an excellent point. I agree about 99% of the way, with the only small disagreement begin that Nuremburg rejects the "I was only following orders" defense. DMorpheus 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

But let's conclude with your theory. According to you, the purpose of all 900,000 volunteers of the Waffen SS from nearly every country in Europe, all joined up to maim, murder and commit as many crimes and as much havoc as possible?


 * No, they joined an organization that existed for the purpose of maiming, murdering and committing crimes intended to benefit the political leadership of the Nazi party. DMorpheus 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So, the Waffen SS existed for the purpose of maiming, murdering and commiting crimes. That is so extraordinary a statement as to be laughable and anybody wanting to learn more about the men and the units of the Waffen SS, should view such a comment with utter contempt. I wouldn't insult the intelligence of a primary school child with such nonsense. Never would you find such a ridiculous statement as that in any serious book on this topic.

So, the Waffen SS existed for the purpose of maiming, murdering and commiting crimes''. That is so extraordinary a statement as to be laughable and anybody wanting to learn more about the men and the units of the Waffen SS, should view such a comment with utter contempt.'' Actually anybody who had read statements about foundation of Waffen SS knows that it was created to fight the Bolshevik-Jewish revolution of subhumans thus the very foundation of Waffen SS was dedicated to  genocide based on racial grounds. --Molobo 12:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

''? The same as Red Army soldiers in Afghanistan, the same as Americans in Vietnam, the same as the Britsh and Americans today in Iraq '' Neither Red Army soldiers in Afganistan nor Americans in Vietnam were fighting for "racial purity" or extermination of people that were identified by their leadership as subhuman.Waffen SS wasn't fighting for pure geopolitical goals like those examples but it was fighting to fulfill an genocide program aiming at extermination a whole group of people and nations. --Molobo 12:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

All 900,000+ men from all those diferent countries all joined up to fulfill a genocide program and a wish to exterminate a whole group of people and nations??. What utter nonsense. It's incredible that anybody would think that about so many people. People have various reasons for joining any branch of any army. One very good friend of mine volunteered for the Waffen SS calvary, because a) they were seen as an elite and b) he grew up on a farm and loved horses. It can be as simple as that. He never made it into the calvary but found himself serving in Normandy on a mortar team and was captured after three months front line duty. Today he is friends with many Allied veterans who have no problem with his wartime service whatsoever. Like so many of his comrades, he has no stories of murder, no maiming, no crimes, nothing of the kind, just being a soldier. And there are thousands upon thousands of similar stories but on and on and on people talk about crimes, crimes, crimes like a stuck record, because they're too damn lazy to distinguish between those individuals that do wrong and the vast majority that just do their duty. Has anybody got anything really interesting to say about the Waffen SS. What was it like? the parades?, training?, front line duty?, driving King Tiger tanks, is that really a crime? boring guard duty, is that a crime?, reich chancellory duty? the uniforms? visiting families on home leave? the medical teams, doctors, nurses, tending the wounded, including enemy wounded, is that a crime?. So many, many stories, about soldiers just being soldiers. So many interesting stories from so many men, most of whom haven't done anything wrong at all. Hundreds of thousands of men being verbally abused and their names dragged through the mud because of the crimes of a few and the grubby racial ideas of some politicians. How anybody has the gall to say that, particularly towards those men that have lost their lives in action (some as young as 17), is quite appalling. It really is so sad. Shame on you.


 * When you start standing behind your own posts by signing them, you can begin talking to other people about shame. Till then the stuff you're writing is unworthy of response; it collapses all by itself. DMorpheus 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It would have no bearing on this discussion to you or anyone else if my name was Mickey Mouse!! What's my name got to do with it?. The whole point in all this is you CANNOT tarnish all these men for the wrongdoing of a minority. You abuse men that have lost their lives in war, most of whom have done nothing wrong. That's cowardly. Crimes were carried out by various units across the Wehrmacht and that is a disgrace to Germany. Nobody is disputing that. There were also crimes carried out by units from most countries in World War Two but I don't go around slagging off entire divisions and corps of the Russian, Finnish, Italian, Romanian, US and British Armies because of it. It's utterly ridiculous to incriminate an entire division for the excesses of a platoon or a company. Here's an example, Crime: Some Waffen SS men in one company take it upon themselves to carry out a war crime. Verdict: Label the entire division of 20,OOO men as criminals and deny their widows a war pension!! Is that really Western democracy's justice?, it sounds more like Taleban style justice to me!! The problem is, we're going round in circles here. You obviously have a problem with the entire Waffen SS and everyone who served in it and I don't. So we're going nowhere really. I'm sure you're aware that in 1945 there were individuals in the Red Army that went around gang raping women and girls between the ages of 15 and 50 across Eastern Germany. I've got no problem with the Red Army as a whole or its divisions/regiments/battalions. It would be a nonsense to condemn all of them. I condemn the individuals concerned and am sensible enough to know that most Russians in those divisions would have been appalled at such disgraceful behaviour. The same goes for the Waffen SS. Most people don't go around commiting rapes and murders...regardless of nationality, including Germans!!. And anybody who believes otherwise is no more than a fool. Once again, for abusing my Uncle and the thousands of his comrades in the Waffen SS who commited no crimes whatsoever, shame on you. Jan.12th 2006. Detmold

Though i do not believe that every single Waffen Soldier was going on a killing spree against civilians, they are all war criminals. Even your Norwegian Uncle, since being a mercernary is a war crime and do not gain the protection of serving a nation, many of the Waffen members are criminals. And even though i have heard about decent treatment of prisoners by the waffen it is in the rare instants that happened. Wiking probably has the nicest record of all the divisions, but that is also because they fought on the eastern front where 1) it wasnt expected to be nice, 2) they was constantly in battle and had no time for killing civilians in large scale. DMorpheus, there was not a constant moving around from KZ camps to Waffen. The only known example is up to start 40 when Himmler was restricted to recuit and hence pulled them through the camps. Eicke (from Totenkopf) also is the only officer from a KZ camp to serve as a leader in Waffen, however i know that many of the SS top branch came through Waffen (because of the honour of having served in them) but several of the Waffen officers actually commented their disgrace of this. In the end while waffen might not have been as connected to SS as Einsatz truppen where, they still reported to the same psycho, and as that got the same orders. Try to check the massacres that Totenkopf did in Belgium and France, or Handschar that was only used to round up jews and gypsies. In the beginning many might have joined Waffen because it looked like Germany would win, and most of the horrible things was not known. After 42 however, everyone should have had some idea of the horrible organisation they were part of.. And as a final statement.. Waffen did not answer to OKW, they corridinated their actions with eachother but Waffen answered to the SS Command.--Sneaking Viper 05:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?, I haven't got a Norwegian Uncle!!. He was German and fell in action for his country and then you trash his name. No he wasn't a war criminal and yes, the Waffen SS were ALWAYS under the direct command of Wehrmacht Field Marshalls when on the front line and served as part of regular Army Groups. It's amazing how much utter garbage is written on this page!! Who the hell are any of you anyway to criticise young men who for the most part did their duty correctly. You think you know all about one million people, their thoughts, their actions and then just throw them all into a garbage bin because you're too lazy to distinguish between those few bad eggs and the decent majority. Detmold 23.33, 20th June 2006

''the Waffen-SS was condemned as part of a criminal organisation due to overwhelming participation in atrocities, '' First of all, this isn't true. The Waffen-SS was condemned as part of a criminal organistation because they had close ties to the NSDAP.

And even though i have heard about decent treatment of prisoners by the waffen it is in the rare instants that happened. Pure BS, the Waffen-SS treated their prisoners in the same way other armies did.

Really? In a small Pomeranian village, called Podgaje, detachment of one of Latvian W-SS Div took some (37 as I remember)Polish PoWs during fights in early 1945. All of PoWs were burnt alive. maybe it was stupid of Allied powers, incl. USRR, that they do not burnt to death all German PoWs?--MWeinz 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 Wiking was constantly in battle and had no time for killing civilians in large scale. Leibstandarte was also constantly in battle (except a short rest period in France 1942), that doesn't say anything.

DMorpheus, there was not a constant moving around from KZ camps to Waffen. There was, see my next point.

In the end while waffen might not have been as connected to SS as Einsatz truppen where, The Waffen-SS and the Einsatzgruppen were connected on a routine basis, first you have the camp guards of the Totenkopfverbände that joined Totenkopf. Second, there is a estimate that 43% of all camp guards on a point served in the Waffen-SS, amongst them there was a pretty large number of camp doctors (Mengele served in Wiking). And as a closing fact, there are 6 former camp officers that eventually became Division commanders in the Waffen-SS.

These are only a couple of facts that prove that the Waffen-SS and the concentration camps are linked in a strong way, more than some people want us to believe. The organisation of the Waffen-SS is too complex and sub departments are too much connected to see the waffen-SS as a completly different organisation as the Allgemeine-SS.

After 42 however, everyone should have had some idea of the horrible organisation they were part of.. Do you have any idea of how immense the Waffen-SS was? There served almost 1 million people in the Waffen-SS, you can't talk about the war crimes of "the waffen-ss", because the organisation was too masssive and scattered too make all Waffen-SS members the same.

''And as a final statement.. Waffen did not answer to OKW, they corridinated their actions with eachother but Waffen answered to the SS Command.--'' Too complex to have a short answer: If you talk about Leibstandarte, Das Reich, Hitlerjugend, Hohenstaufen it's NO, you're wrong. Those divisions were as clean (or perhaps dirty is the right word) as some US Army counterparts and have no history of structural war crimes, although Liebstandarte and Totenkopf made too many war crimes to clear those units. The lawsuit against them after the war was completly ligit (how it "objective" the court was is another story). If you talk about Dirlewanger, Kaminski, RONA, Handschar, Florian Geyer, Prinz Eugen, RFSS, and other similar units. Yes, you're right, but they were mostly anti-partsian units, with a structural history of war crimes. Those units answered to SS Command. --Feldmaus

As a professional in the field, I sometimes check these disputed pages from time to time, and found this conversation laughable.

First, DMorpheus, get a grip on your emotions.

Second, author of this article, use real sources from the German archives. If you cant do this, then use respected works published by university presses. Otherwise, dont write scholarly articles, despite your clear expertise and enthusiasm.

Third, everyone keep in mind that the European War changed a great many things within Nazi rhetoric, government, and military structures. The points on propaganda are valid during the 30s, but not so much after 1942. When Barbarossa bogs down, a radical shift in propaganda efforts is made; after all, the "untermenschen" turned out to be pretty good fighters. The several conflicting statements on the rhetoric of 'national defense' vs 'ethnic imperialism via state-sponsored aggrandisement and genocide' are ignorant of the fact that the Nazi Party had to change its line several times during the war. At the outset (invasion of Poland, which activated the Fr.-GBr. defensive treaty and the consequent dispatch of the BEF to the continent) the war was fought very much for the purposes of racial empire. In 1943, and certianly in August of 1944, this policy shifted to national defence. Take a look at several of the recruiting posters and this will become evident. Later posters are unique if they have but one swastika on them.

The debates over if the Waffen SS was a legal body or not are equally as ludicrous. The entire SS was formed as a bully squad that eventually expanded into the war-time SS. As the author has gone to great lengths to say, the entire SS was a government-bred organization and thus quite legal. Nuremburg did not judge the SS as 'criminal' on the grounds of their formation; this is ridiculous. Rather, the SS had behaved 'criminally.'

On the word 'elite,' as a retired Lt. Col, please let me explain what 'elite' means in a military sense. A military formation does not have to be well equipped to be elite. 'Elite' is a quantifier of discipline under fire, not combat effectiveness. Elite forces retain their tactical integrity in overwhelmingly stressful circumstances. The fact that SS units wear special clothes only make them pretty. The fact that SS units deploy MGs from WWI or armour from Holzenheimer Aluminum Factory (yes, that name is made up) only remarks as to their weaponry. Please stop thinking that 'elite' forces are always better equipped or better fighters.

One last point, I am concerned at the level of personal insults being thrown around between the author and DMorpheus. Keep in mind that the author is not writing about "what he likes best about the SS, and what you should too." Chances are you'll disagree with something that is on the website. Doesnt mean its incorrect, so much as subjectified. So please start being adults, or realize that you are not going to change each others mind on how each other feels. This is where the beauty of source materials shine through.

Thw WSS units are always at the direct orders of the Heer, and his commanders ft that mather, in my personal experience, an uncle of mine was in france during the occupation, and the germans, especially those units concerning thw WSS always conducted whith uther respect to civilians, an always responded whit force when attacked by partisans an when subject to attacks by insurgents or rebles, and sometimes by commandos, who, im talking about the SAS an other "special forces" of the british forces, did not conduct them selfs to the rules of war, but thats a subject for antoher time. The experience of my uncle, sorry but i dodnt recall well the name, but it whasent larger than 6000 people, whe was stalling in around the area around champange to learn who to make and destille alchole (he is currently working in Sotol La Hacienda, he is the one how invented the formula an process to make that alcoholic beverage), he was staying in a two storie high hose whit a close relative from there, and a unit of WSS soldiers came to the owner of the house whit an order to use, an my uncle says, to use one single room in the house, and the will pay rent, i think the pay on a monthly basis, too the owner. It was like a regimental headquarters, the soldiers were not alowed to live the room and disturbeb the other residents in the house, and especially the women, the were not allowed ti engadged in conversation, and if a report of any of the residents or townfolk, or even of the soldiers came, about pillaging or a rape or an attapted rape came, the were put on trial an if found guilty, the were shot. The germans never disturbed the residents an anybody an they were respected by the residents an townpeople, my uncle says that his cousins in the house wanted the germans to give the attention, but the soldiers, under stric orders did not disturbed the girls or engadge in any kind of social event or thing whit the girls.

This is just one of the many units that behave during the war. The trials at nuremberg were totally a phony trial, the defence, that is the germans that were on trial, were not allowed to bring there own wittneses and present the evidence that disprobes their innocence, they were not subjected to a fair trial, and thats a shame for international law, ask anyone that has studied well the trial an they are gonna say to you that in fact it wasnt a fair trial, they were only subjected to say evidence of their actions during the war, an in fact it was just paperwork too put the death penalty (on that matter im totally againts the death penalty to anyone). You cant judge a total organitation on the actions of a few individuals, if the WSS soldier had commited any crimes we would had been punished in a severe, even ment death for him to commit a crime againts anybody.

The WSS was like anyother elite organitation in that time, most Marines, paratropers, Rangers, royal marines and commandos, had to be of caucasian desent, or american, british, is just another way to say "we only accepte in our organitation the best man, and that man is the white man, of anglo-slaxon desent, any colour man cannot be accepted because is not fit just because his skin colour". Is truth, the WSS only accepted, germans of aryan desent, blond whit blue eyes, whit some exceptions, but is escense was not to commit crimes, it was the same as any other elite organitation, to get the best man possible and give the the best training and best equipment so that he can defend their nation, in the case of war, in the most effective way.

Another thing the SS was not a thug bang or a cholo band, like you put it, it was created to be the personal bodyguards for hitler and his high command becuase the SA was getting to big and to powerfull, Hitler needed man who he can put hos trust that the will protect their life in case he or anyone close to him was in danger. Your confuse whit the SA and the SS. ErickMuller 6:35 pm 26-05-2007. 128.83.206.153 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Dr. C A Jameson, Lt. Col US Army ret.

Absurd fragment
"A strong emphasis was placed on creating a bond between the officers and men, and officer candidates were made to pass through basic training alongside the enlisted candidates. This created a mutual trust and respect between the officers and men" Shall I give examples of this "mutual trust and respect" in Kaminski unit ? Most of the time they had to force each other not murder one another. --Molobo 13:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Molobo, I realise that you feel very strongly about this topic, so I won't even bother accusing you of NPOV, as that will get us nowhere. Read the history of the Kaminski Brigade before you start using them as an example for the failures of the waffen SS training regime. The Kaminski was never put through Waffen SS Training. Kaminski and his fellow officers never attended Bad Tölz. As such, you cannot use either them, or the Dirlewanger (who were in the same boat), as an example of WSS training. I could say that the majority of the obviously NPOV bs you spit out is absurd, but I do not. Read some books on the subject before you start spouting your History Channel said... rubbish on here. For more information on the Waffen SS training, read Johann Voss Black Edelweiss, Ralf Tiemann/Rudolf Lehmann's Leibstandarte series, Tragödie um die Treue- Kampf und Untergang des III. (Germ.) SS-Panzer-Korps and Im Feuersturm letzter Kriegsjahre: II. SS-Panzerkorps mit 9. u. 10. SS-Division "Hohenstaufen" u. "Frundsberg"  by Wilhelm Tieke, Will Fey's Armor Battles of the Waffen SS, 1943-45  or a host of others. Or you could remain ignorant and opinionated. I realise you wish to portray the Waffen SS as a bunch of Satanic barbarian savages who feasted on the flesh of virgins before dancing on the grave Jan Sobieski, but the fact is that for every unit like the Kaminski and Dirlewanger, there where units like the Nordland, the SS-Finnish Ski Battalion and the 20.Waffen Grenadier Division der SS. --ansbachdragoner 23:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have no emotions to the topic, nor are my emotions important to the article. "The Kaminski was never put through Waffen SS Training. Kaminski and his fellow officers never attended Bad Tölz" I am sorry again, but they are part of Waffen SS and relations in such units are part of its history, furthermore the rather idolised view of "mutual respect" is POV, they were many Waffen SS units and not all of Read some books on the subject before you start spouting your History Channel said... rubbish on here. I read a lot of books don't worry about that, in fact I posses several books dedictated to study of Nazism and its ideology. "For more information on the Waffen SS training, read Johann Voss Black Edelweiss, Ralf Tiemann/Rudolf Lehmann's Leibstandarte series, Tragödie um die Treue- Kampf und Untergang des III. (Germ.) SS-Panzer-Korps and Im Feuersturm letzter Kriegsjahre: II. SS-Panzerkorps mit 9. u. 10. SS-Division "Hohenstaufen" u. "Frundsberg"  by Wilhelm Tieke, Will Fey's Armor Battles of the Waffen SS, 1943-45  or a host of others" Why no books on Waffen SS atrocities and their involvment in Holocaust ? I see you are interested in the subject of this organisation and German military but it seems to me your sources might be lacking in information about war crimes, I had seen several your edits and your work on the subject but these articles despite their detailed information all share a very big flaw-they are done purely from military organisation view and almost never include information about atrocities commited by those units. Or you could remain ignorant and opinionated. Based on your above post It seems you are feeling very strongly about this article and indeed seem to have strong opinions.Your comment isn't actually very appropriate since I contributed info to many of your articles, where information about those units atrocities were lacking.Examples include ,/ In fact I don't understand your anger, since you should be glad that information badly needed in those articles-that is details of those units war crimes against innocent civilians-was added. I realise you wish to portray the Waffen SS as a bunch of Satanic barbarian savages who feasted on the flesh of virgins before dancing on the grave Jan Sobieski Your attempts to ridicule mentioning Nazi war crimes aren't proper.I really don't have to try to portay Waffen SS in any way -Nazi soldiers portayed themselfs far too real by regularly murdering, children, pregnant women in the name of Nazi concepts,and they are enough descriptions of their actions available from survivors. Interestingly I doubt Nazi's would dance on grave of Sobieski-as he was used in German propaganda towards Poles as a symbol of German-Polish cooperation against "hordes from the East". So a rather bad if interesting choice of example that you made.

 but the fact is that for every unit like the Kaminski and Dirlewanger, there where units like the Nordland, the SS-Finnish Ski Battalion and the 20.Waffen Grenadier Division der SS''. '' A bad example since 20.Waffen Grenadier Division der SS is involved with war crimes... Your opinion doesn't reflect reality-Waffen SS was determined a criminal organisation for a reason.In its founding it was to fight not "communism" but "bolshevik revolution of untermenschen".Atrocities in this organisation were the norm, not the exception. --Molobo 08:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Molobo, the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division der SS, which was formed in 1944 mainly using conscription, has not been implicated in any war crimes, as far as I know. Do you have any references that suggest otherwise? While it is true that the Waffen SS was determined to be a criminal organisation thus implicating those who were members of that organsation, Nuremburg explicitly excluded conscripts from that judgement. -- Thomas

I am sorry again, but they are part of Waffen SS and relations in such units are part of its history, furthermore the rather idolised view of "mutual respect" is POV, they were many Waffen SS units and not all of Molobo, So what you're saying is that the Kaminski is an example of the failure of the Waffen SS training regime, despite they were never given any training. The Kaminski was never intended to be a frontline combat unit. As the unit article clearly states, the Kaminski was 'adopted' by Himmler as part of his absurd notion of the Waffen SS becoming a pan-European force I read a lot of books don't worry about that, in fact I posses several books dedictated to study of Nazism and its ideology. Indeed, but do you have any specifically on the Waffen SS? and with discussions on the training, and the philosiphy of the training? I would imagine not. ''Why no books on Waffen SS atrocities and their involvment in Holocaust? I see you are interested in the subject of this organisation and German military but it seems to me your sources might be lacking in information about war crimes, I had seen several your edits and your work on the subject but these articles despite their detailed information all share a very big flaw-they are done purely from military organisation view and almost never include information about atrocities commited by those units.'' Might i point you to the Kaminski Article, or the Dirlewanger article, or the Hitlerjugend division article, or the Totenkopf article, or the Götz von berlichingen article, or the Landstorm Nederland article. Where clear information is available regarding War crimes, I have put this information in. I can assure you that the WIP Leibstandarte article which i've been working on will have quite a lengthy part on war crimes, and i invite you to help out with the writing of this - as long as you provide sources. This discussion isn't about warcrimes, it's about you claiming that the Waffen SS training regime was based on a totally different doctrine than political indoctrination together with a stong team spirit, with no distinctions between officers and men. Also, A: because the majority of Waffen SS units which i have done articles on were not involved in the Holocaust. Where they were, I have mentioned this. Also, you obviously have no idea as to the content of the aforementioned books, as several of mention war crimes and atrocities committed in detail, and Warcrimes/Holocaust is the 'theme' of the Voss book. Based on your above post It seems you are feeling very strongly about this article and indeed seem to have strong opinions.Your comment isn't actually very appropriate since I contributed info to many of your articles, where information about those units atrocities were lacking.Examples include ,/ No, I feel strongly about parts that i've written being deleted and called an 'Absurd Fragment' by you with no proof/references at all. Also, I did not author either of these articles, and was merely stated that an article on a combat formation (1939-1945) of which over 50% is regarding one atrocity which occured on one day, seems rather NPOV. Not saying to remove these references, just to shorten them or to flesh out the combat history. In fact I don't understand your anger, since you should be glad that information badly needed in those articles-that is details of those units war crimes against innocent civilians-was added. I agree with you. And I appreciate your contributions. (as with the Wiking article especially - despite our differences regarding sources) My problem is that you are adding references to obscure warcrimes without providing reasonable sources. And as stated before, Polish school books, or any School books really, cannot be taken for a serious reference. I've seen a school history book which referred to the 1940 German attack through the Ardennes as the Schlieffen Plan! ''Interestingly I doubt Nazi's would dance on grave of Sobieski-as he was used in German propaganda towards Poles as a symbol of German-Polish cooperation against "hordes from the East". So a rather bad if interesting choice of example that you made.'' Interesting. I must admit that i do not know a lot about the History of Poland, and this was the first thing that sprung to mind. A bad example since 20.Waffen Grenadier Division der SS is involved with war crimes... Umm...no, they weren't. Atrocities in this organisation were the norm, not the exception. Agreed, but only is certain units. The Nord, Langemarck, Nederland, Nordland, Wiking, Wallonien, 20.WGdSS etc were all clear of war crimes 'charges'. While this is difficult, as several of these most definitely were involved in questionable actions, these cannot be called War Crimes as they were never tried/convicted of these. --ansbachdragoner 23:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation on foreign numbers
In addition to the link I gave in response to the request to cite sources, Wikipedia's own articles on the waffen-ss units shows that volksdeutsche easily comprised the best part of the waffen-SS. According to George Stein's The Waffen SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War, all 38 units contained some degree of non-Germans and half of the units were primarily non-German.

Essential information that needs to be added
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-accused-organisations-04-02.html Judgment: The Accused Organisations: The SS: Criminal Activities (Part 7 of 10)

[Page77]

Criminal Activities: SS units were active participants in the steps leading up to aggressive war. The Verfuegungstruppe was used in the occupation of the Sudetenland, of Bohemia and Moravia, and of Memel. The Henlein Free Corps was under the jurisdiction of the Reichsfuehrer SS for operations in the Sudetenland in 1938, and the Volksdeutschemittelstelle financed fifth-column activities there.

The SS was even a more general participant in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Through its control over the organisation of the Police, particularly the Security Police and SD, the SS was involved in all the crimes which have been outlined in the section of this Judgment dealing with the Gestapo and SD. Other branches of the SS were equally involved in these criminal programs. There is evidence that the shooting of unarmed prisoners of war was the general practice in some Waffen SS divisions. On 1st October, 1944, the custody of prisoners of war and interned persons was transferred to Himmler, who in turn transferred prisoner-of-war affairs to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Berger and to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. The Race and Settlement Office of the SS together with the Volksdeutschemittelstelle were active in carrying out schemes for Germanization of occupied territories according to the racial principles of the Nazi Party and were involved in the deportation of Jews and other foreign nationals. Units of the Waffen SS and Einsatzgruppen operating directly under the SS main office were used to carry out these plans. These units were also involved in the widespread murder and ill-treatment of the civilian population of occupied territories. Under the guise of combatting partisan units, units of the SS exterminated Jews and people deemed politically undesirable by the SS, and their reports record the execution of enormous numbers of persons. Waffen SS divisions were responsible for many massacres and atrocities in occupied territories such as the massacres at Oradour and Lidice.

From 1934 onwards the SS was responsible for the guarding and administration of concentration camps. The evidence leaves no doubt that the consistently brutal treatment of the inmates of concentration camps was carried out as a result of the general policy of the SS, which was that the inmates were racial inferiors to be treated only with contempt. There is evidence that where manpower considerations permitted, Himmler wanted to rotate guard battalions so that all members of the SS would be instructed as to the proper attitude to take to inferior races. After 1942 when the concentration camps were placed under the control of the WVHA they were used as a source of slave labor. An agreement made with the Ministry of Justice on 18th September, 1942, provided that antisocial elements who had finished prison sentences were to be delivered to the SS to be worked to death. Steps were continually taken, involving the use of the Security Police and SD and even the Waffen SS, to insure that the SS had an adequate supply of concentration camp labor for its projects. In connection with the administration of the concentration camps, the SS embarked on a series of experiments on human beings which were performed on prisoners of war or concentration camp inmates. These experiments included freezing to death, and killing by poison bullets. The SS was able to obtain an allocation of Government funds for this kind of research on the grounds that they had access to human material not available to other agencies.

[Page 78]

The SS played a particularly significant role in the persecution of the Jews. The SS was directly involved in the demonstrations of 10th November, 1938. The evacuation of the Jews from occupied territories was carried out under the directions of the SS with the assistance of SS Police units. The extermination of the Jews was carried out under the direction of the SS Central Organisations. It was actually put into effect by SS formations. The Einsatzgruppen engaged in wholesale massacres of the Jews. SS Police units were also involved. For example, the massacre of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto was carried out under the directions of SS Brigadefuehrer and Major General of the Police Stroop. A special group from the SS Central Organisation arranged for the deportation of Jews from various Axis satellites and their extermination was carried out in the concentration camps run by the WVHA.

It is impossible to single out any one portion of the SS which was not involved in these criminal activities. The Allgemeine SS was an active participant in the persecution of the Jews and was used as a source of concentration camp guards.''' Units of the Waffen SS were directly involved in the killing of prisoners of war and the atrocities in occupied countries. It supplied personnel for the Einsatzgruppen, and had command over the concentration camp guards after its absorption of the Totenkopf SS, which originally controlled the system.''' Various SS Police units were also widely used in the atrocities in occupied countries and the extermination of the Jews there. The SS Central Organisation supervised the activities of these various formations and was responsible for such special projects as the human experiments and "final solution" of the Jewish question.

The Tribunal finds that knowledge of these criminal activities was sufficiently general to justify declaring that the SS was a criminal organisation to the extent hereinafter described. It does appear that an attempt was made to keep secret some phases of its activities, but its criminal programs were so widespread, and involved slaughter on such a gigantic scale, that its criminal activities must have been widely known. It must be recognized, moreover that the criminal activities of the SS followed quite logically from the principles on which it was organized. Every effort had been made to make the SS a highly disciplined organisation composed of the elite of National Socialism. Himmler had stated that there were people in Germany "who become sick when they see these black coats" and that he did not expect that "they should be loved by too many." Himmler also indicated his view that the SS was concerned with perpetuating the elite racial stock with the object of making Europe a Germanic continent and the SS was instructed that it was designed to assist the Nazi Government in the ultimate domination of Europe and the elimination of all inferior races. '''This mystic and fanatical belief in the superiority of the Nordic German developed into the studied contempt and even hatred of other races which led to criminal activities of the type outlined above being considered as a matter of course if not a matter of pride. The actions of a soldier in the Waffen SS who in September, 1939, acting entirely on his own initiative, killed 50 Jewish laborers whom he had been guarding, were described by the statement that as an SS man, he was "particularly sensitive to the sight of Jews," and had acted "quite thoughtlessly in a youthful spirit of adventure" and a sentence of three-years imprisonment imposed on him was dropped under an amnesty. Hess wrote with truth that the Waffen SS were more suitable for the specific tasks to be solved in occupied territory owing to their extensive training in questions of race and nationality. Himmler, in a series of speeches made in 1943, indicated his pride in the ability of the SS to carry out these criminal acts. He encouraged his men to be "tough and ruthless" he spoke of shooting "thousands of leading Poles" and thanked them for their'''

[Page 79]

'''cooperation and lack of squeamishness at the sight of hundreds and thousands of corpses of their victims. He extolled ruthlessness in exterminating the Jewish race and later described this process as "delousing." These speeches show that the general attitude prevailing in the SS was consistent with these criminal acts.'''

Conclusions: The SS was utilized for purposes which were criminal under the Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave labor program and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war. The Defendant Kaltenbrunner was a member of the SS implicated in these activities. In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende, and the members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS. The Tribunal does not include the so-called SS riding units. Der Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsfuehrer SS (commonly known as the SD) is dealt with in the Tribunal's Judgment on the Gestapo and SD.

The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organisation with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter, or who were personally implicated as members of the organisation in the commission of such crimes, excluding, however, those who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who had committed no such crimes. The basis of this finding is the participation of the organisation in War crimes and Crimes against humanity connected with the war; this group declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to belong to the organisations enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to 1st September, 1939. --Molobo 11:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 --Molobo 11:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Please feel free to add this to the Warcrimes section when you get a chance. --ansbachdragoner 02:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
"While it may be difficult now to understand why anyone would volunteer for the Waffen-SS,"

I removed the previous sentence fragment as it violate NPOV, implying the subejective belief that service in the Waffen-SS was undesirable. Captain Jackson 06:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Uniform
''Tangible evidence of their "elite" status was the award of named cuff titles to units of the Waffen SS; while the use of cuff titles was common in many military and paramilitary organizations in the Third Reich, there were few combat units permitted to wear them as a means of identification. Their status was exemplified in April 1945 when Adolf Hitler personally ordered SS units he felt had failed in their duty to launch a counterattack to remove their titles from their uniform. ''

This is BS, the cuff title was just a part of the uniform and as a fashion charasteristic by Hugo Boss and was never given as a form of award. ALL Waffen-SS units got a cuff title or multiple cufftitles (like the SS-Kriegsberichter, who wore a SS KRIEGSBERICHTER cuff title and *UNIT NAME* cuff title). Further more, there is no proof Hitler gave an order to remove the cuff title, it's just an urban legend. --Feldmaus
 * You need to actually read the section in question carefully. "few combat units" of the army were "permitted to wear them as a means of identification." The Kriegsberichter were not 'combat units'. I'm going to restore the first sentence to the article.Michael Dorosh 20:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible Copyright violation
The 'Basic Background' section is strikingly similar, if not identical, to the article from http://www.dasreich.ca/background.html.

Has this copyright holder allowed such a copy of his/her material? --Albert 10:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Waffen SS
I read a book written about Scandanavian Veterans of the Waffen SS. They said that there was no common reason for joining the Waffen SS. Of the 200 or so swedish volunteers the following reasons were given for volunteering for the Waffen SS: Active National Socialists Anti-Soviets (after soviet invasion of Finland) Adventure seekers (difficult to believe today) Financial reasons

In fact one group were tricked into the SS believing that they were signing up for a Swedish unit fighting in Finland. (Hamiltongruppen)

One thing that the majority had in common was that they were almost exclusively working class and from deprived backgrounds.

Furthermore, comments from one survivor of Bad Toltz was that some the Dutch volunteers in the SS were only there to get food (due to a food shortage in Holland).

Some volunteers refused to swear allegiance to the National Socialist party or declare Hitler there Fuhrer.

If you do not believe this read "Svenskerna som stred för Hitler" by Bosse Schön

So I would say that it is not true that the intention of all those in the Waffen SS was genocide.

ODESSA?
The article mentions the underground organisation as if it really existed. Most people (and indeed most other articles in Wikipedia) doubt that the organisation ODESSA ever existed in a formal way. I think that that should be clarified. On the other hand there were several people who were willing to help Nazis to escape Europe. The way it is mentioned in this article leaves the impression that this Organisation existed or at least not doubted. --62.104.148.245 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Put ODESSA Link--71.185.216.25 04:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Criminality of Waffen-SS and "Conscript/Volunteer" status
Reading Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal judgement on "Accused Organizations" ( http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judorg.htm ), there does not appear to be any exception for draftees. I believe that this part of the artcile needs to be corrected.
 * I was wrong, disregard.

Landstorm Nederland
I quote from the article: ''While many adventurers and idealists joined the SS as part of the fight against Communism, many of the later recruits joined or were conscripted for different reasons. For example, Dutchmen who joined the 34.SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landstorm Nederland were granted exemption from forced labour and provided with food, pay and accommodation. Recruits who joined for such reasons rarely proved good soldiers, and several units composed of such volunteers were involved in atrocities.''

This part suggests the soldiers of the 34. SS division were involved in atrocities, this is not correct. it's better if the author can name another unit that is more suitible

WWII as Baltic-German Waffen-SS officer
I am sometimes involved a history research and as I was study my ancestors for my Family Tree I discover that my ancestors has-been in Waffen-SS. My name is Edgar M. Milaskevics [private detective], I do not believe we need to judge person why was involved in WWII, it is in history. In my attention I come across some history, which has not been complete. So I give some extra materials about what I have fined out and plus I ask some person why have been contact with following person.

Person Jazep Maceikevic (lather his change from Jazeps to Jānis to be more Latvian - unofficial) why lived in Rīga, Latvia have been order go to Waffen-SS. His was in WWII as Baltic-German Waffen-SS officer, but after his past it is unknown.

Conscription as “Volunteering”. At first the Germans wanted to win the war without any help. They used Latvians as willing auxiliaries only to perform police and paramilitary duties in the rear. But by the end of 1941 their initial war fortunes received severe setbacks, and they needed real help. Latvian willingness to volunteer, however, had worn off as the German policies became more and more coercive and it became clear that co-operation meant simply following German orders.

[[Image:imag_einberufungsbefehl.jpg] By 1942, patriotic propaganda and financial enticements were used to recruit Latvians into so-called “police battalions”, most of which became front-line units, but some were used at times for suppressive operations behind the lines. By 1943, after the debacle at Stalingrad, Germans desperately needed even more help, and by Hitler’s order of 10 February 1943, a “Latvian SS Volunteer Legion” was created as one of a number of such foreign legions, among which the largest was the Russian contingent. It was neither real “SS” nor “volunteer”. Hitler’s SS of elite guards and executors, adjudged as a criminal organization in Nuremberg, and was reserved for Germans only. The word “volunteer” was used as a devious device to avoid transgressing the 1907 Hague Convention’s rules against conscripting people of occupied countries.


 * Excuse my cynicism, but I doubt seriously that Hitler was terribly concerned with upholding any kind of international Treaty he didn't feel like. After breaking the Geneva Convention and any other Treaty you may find, I don't think he was terribly concerned with keeping in line with that particular one. It might have been a Propaganda Tool, it might be that people actually did volunteer for it (to get back at the Russians) - I don't want to judge that. --Ebralph 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Conscripts received notices that they were “drafted into the Latvian SS Volunteer Legion”. The term “Legion”, on the other hand, helped to create the false impression of a national force envisioned by some Latvian leaders. The Germans would have none of that: the Legion’s units were placed under higher German command and fought in various parts of the Eastern front. About 115,000 Latvian men were enlisted in various German military formations; only about 15% of them as true volunteers.

The Legion was engaged only in military operations against Soviet armed forces. After the war, the Western Allies recognized that the Legion was in no way connected to war crimes, but even today both ignorance and deliberate disinformation about the Latvian Legion abounds, especially as still spread by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Removed weird Sentence
I removed the Sentence: "They stayed in forts known as sheizenheimers. There they would eat, drink, hang out, and talk in their spare time when they werent out fighting." For one thing it doesn't seem up to the Quality of the rest of the articles. For another German spelling is not "Sh" it is "Sch" and I think this is Spam. Please feel free to correct me.

I think the name of their barracks or what-have-you could be useful, but all soldiers eat, drink and "Hang out" (which is not a very formal phrase) and isn't worth mentioning. Perhaps the person who added it was trying to humanize the Waffen-SS and felt he needed to point out that they were in fact functioning members of social groups :P D Boland 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Sheizenheimer is one of those fake-German words. This reads like vandalism.  I hope you reverted it.  Orangemarlin 03:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I put the tag disputing the neutrality of this article. Here are my reasons.


 * 1. There seems to be an edit war that goes back and forth between extremes.  Either the Waffen-SS were criminals who committed atrocities everywhere, or they were heroic German soldiers.  I'm sure there is a little bit of both.
 * 2. There is precious little referencing for the specifics.  The article reads like a poorly written, ill-informed opinion piece.
 * 3. Between the discussion in here and some points within the article, I detect a small amount of Holocaust revisionism.  That's disgusting.
 * 4. There are a number of well-written balanced, but controversial articles in Wikipedia.  Read Evolution or Abortion if you want two.

I think this article demands better historical writing, and less obnoxious lecturing from apologists of either side. The Waffen-SS had a number of provable instances of war crimes. But it was also a well trained elite army group. The reality is that was a lot of both.

By the way, specific examples of "Gerhardt Schmidt" was my great uncle and he joined because he wanted to be in an elite group smacks of what I hear all the time from Germans. "We didn't know." Interesting, but not very useful to this article or its discussion. An encyclopedia doesn't care about personal stories, unless it's a biography. What your great uncle did with the SS is not provable, lacking references, and adds nothing to the article. OrangeMarlin 17:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Waffen-SS headed by Hausser not Himmler?
The article leads off by saying that Heinrich Himmler was the head of the Waffen-SS…while certainly that makes some sense insofar as he was the overall head of the SS, but was there not some individual who could be more accurately identified as in charge of the Waffen-SS alone, for example Paul Hausser? Or was he more just one of several senior commanders along with Sepp Dietrich and others, so that no one can truly said to have been *solely* head of the Waffen-SS?Critic9328 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Himmler, in his position as Reichsführer-SS, was the nominal commander of the Waffen SS. In 1944-45, he (however incompetently) commanded Army Group Vistula. Hausser, Dietrich, Eicke etc, while commanders, never held any 'overall' command of the Waffen-SS. --ansbachdragoner 00:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Article problems
I have place four tags on this article. Two were placed in August, 2006. Without sounding like a threat, I intend to ask for Administrator intervention if it is not brought up to quality standards of Wikipedia. I personally feel this article should be merged into some others, but I will reserve opinion to see if it can be brought up to quality standards.


 * 1) WP:NPOV This article lacks a neutral focus.  It has several comments that seem to form an apologetic tone for the Waffen-SS.  However,  with appropriate discussion, I could be convinced that the tone is neutral.
 * 2) WP:OR This article reads like original research. It lacks references and verification of what is asserted.  For an article of this importance, there should be a citation for nearly every paragraph.
 * 3) WP:LEAD The lead section is too long and does not introduce the article in a few sentences. It combines the history of the Waffen-SS, it's organization, and few other extraneous items, which belong in separate sections.  Please see the Wikipedia Manual of Style to improve this article.

I am not an expert on the Waffen-SS (except for being short a huge number of family members thanks to the SS), so I could not either write this article in an NPOV style, nor am I a historical expert on this part of the Nazi regime. However, I have a strong interest in WWII history, and this article falls far below many of the others in Wikipedia. I would suggest a rewrite with references. Orangemarlin 05:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree this is well beneath the standards of quality of other WWII-era articles. However, I disagree this article should not be an article on its own. The Waffen SS was a de facto branch of the german military (althought in paper a Nazi party organization). We devote pages to such branches. The article today is a piece of crap, but we will make it better by changing its contents, not merging into unrelated information.--Cerejota 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion that it be merged is contingent upon the quality of the written piece. If I had time, I have dozens of references to rewrite it.  I'm hoping someone who actually doesn't get nauseous by seeing a swastika and/or the SS symbol on a page would rewrite this atrocious heap of dung.  Read the discussion page here if you really want to see how bad the quality is.  Too much original research in this article.  Well, maybe you can do a rewrite...hint.  Orangemarlin 05:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I cannot understand why as in general WikiProject Military is of great quality. I'll see what I can do, time to hit the books. :D--Cerejota 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of dead soldiers
It seems that Bleh999 likes to add pictures of dead German soldiers to Wikipedia articles. These photographies don't enrich the articles in any way. Everybody knows that soldiers (can) die at war. Pictures of uniforms, equipment and personalities would be more informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.89.65 (talk) 10:02, June 4, 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting your editing, as this allows to try and reach consensus. If you have a desire to contribute to wikipedia, please consider opening an account! That way our conversations would haave more permanence. If you are concerned about anonimity, rest assured that user accounts are as anonymous as you want them to be.
 * On your comment, I must say I disagree. Almost every encyclopedia, and definitely most news sources, publish photographs of war casualties as part of their coverage. Furthermore, this picture actually enriches the article: it allows a much more livelier graphic description of events around the Waffen SS than staged pictures. Photographs such a s the one you have removed, enrich wikipedia and definetely belong whenever they are relevant. In fact, an article about the Waffen SS with out a picture of them dying in combat would be a glaring ommision, in particular if such photographs are published in other sources, as is the case here. --Cerejota 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The image in question is on the de.wikipedia.org article about the waffen SS, and was not uploaded by me. So I felt that if they have it on the German article why not here? Bleh999 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Cerejoa and Bleh999 you are both wrong, a picture of a dead soldier has nothing to do with the Waffen SS, of course the SS, as every army, had losses. But a picture like this has nothing to do with a sientific article on this topic. You can use a photo of a mass grave like in the german wikipedia. You can add photos of equipment or weapons they used, or far better add picutres of notable SS leaders, like Heinrich Himmler or Sepp Dietrich. And Bleh999 just because it is on the german wikipedia it must not mean that it is good. I am from germany and i can say that in the german wikipedia articles related to the Third Reich are very often 'devatated' and 'supported' with images like theses because most germans have a strange feeling on their past. Some people think it should be forbidden to talk about the Third Reich and because of this a few month ago someone erased all pictures of nazi general in the german wikipedia. Or on the other hand why is there not a picture of blown up marines in iraq on the page of the us marine corps? M. Krohn 20:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because a random picture of dead soldiers doesn't really tell anything scientific or factual to a reader, but it can distract the reader through emotional response. Pictures of dead soldiers are in generally appropriate only in a few cases in any encyclopaedia; the foremost of these cases are if they have died through a particular way, which needs to be illustrated, or if they were notable people while alive.  Sometimes it may happen that a particular picture involving dead soldiers becomes famous in its own rights.  (Consider Iwo Jima photography.)


 * There are various number of WP:POV-centric people, however, who seek to associate particular wars, or war in general, with pictures of dead soldiers. The latter are inherently sorrowful, perhaps even repugnant to people of most cultures; the former aren't.  Thus, some pacifists, and some opponents of particular conflicts, have found it convenient and useful to their causes to plaster the war dead photos in many locations, thus bolstering the idea that their pet peeve is particularly murderous.  It should be obvious how such agendas tend to go against Wikipedia purposes.


 * Of course, some propaganda services overcompensate. Consider, for example, the US Military, which has banned any photographing of even closed, flag-wrapped coffins of returning militarymen.  This is certainly just as bad in general, preventing normal discourse; however, this is much more important in political discourse than in Wikipedia.  Since there are very few places in Wikipedia where such photos would be appropriate in the first place, any over-overcompensation in order to neutralise this overcompensation would only amplify the problem. Digwuren 21:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think dead soldiers mean anything, unless it adds to an article. I can imagine a picture of the Battle of Gettysburg probably adds to enormity and violence of the battle.  Normandy landings would do the same thing.  But a random dead soldier?  It's just bad.  BTW, the US government doesn't allow pictures because they are trying to censor the truth, in other words for public relations.  Don't let the people know how many young men and women have died.  Orangemarlin 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the tags on the article
I want some input concerning the tags placed at the top of the article. Can someone please explain to me what parts of the article they think need citations, which parts they think are not neutral, etc so that I can attempt to improve them. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I put them there. The whole thing is unreferenced and reads like original research.  The lead, some of the sections like war crimes are clearly POV towards the SS, it sounds like this branch of the SS were made up of innocent soldiers--hardly.  The writing is not encyclopedic.  In all, if it weren't an important historic article, it ought to be deleted and rewritten.  If that happens, then it only becomes one of those frightening articles about the Nazis, instead of a poorly written and reference frightening story about the Nazis.  Orangemarlin 05:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I plan to improve the article, so perhaps you could be a little more specific. What sections specifically are problematic? How are they problematic? Examples would help as well. Also tell me what specific assertions need citations. I've got a better idea. I want you to go through the entire article and add a Fact tag to each sentence you think needs a reference. Do that by placing at the end of each sentence you think needs a reference.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're kidding right? Every sentence is a claim about something, and it isn't referenced. Orangemarlin 05:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well we can't reference every sentence. Just add that tag to the most doubtful sentences that you think need a reference and I'll see if I can find any.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to help improve the article but I will need you go tag at least a few things that you believe really need citations. I'll look for the citations and if I can not find any I will remove the content.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The ref tags might take up more bytes than the article itself. Simply pointing to a website is not providing sources.  If you really want, I'll  tag everything needing references, but I doubt you'll be happy with how the article looks.  Thisd sentence is partially sourced, and partially questionable, "After beginning as a protection unit for the NSDAP leadership, the Waffen-SS eventually grew into a force of thirty-eight combat divisions comprising over 950,000 men"  No, the SA began that way, then the regular SS, after the SA was disbanded (recall the night of the long knives?); and where is the proof of 38 divisions and 950K men? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can find a source for that. What I wanted you to do was add a fact tag to the moth troublesome aspects of the article and I would take care of them first and then we could move on from there.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

the reason why this article has been pouncing between extremes
I've fixed the header according to facts and provided EB as the ref. The mixup has started on WP from the moment on when someone missed to point out that the Waffen-SS had 3 subunits. Hope it's more clear now and that you can take it from here. I also updated the related pages...--Termer 06:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Termer, I reverted your good faith edits to the article. First, EB is a lousy reference, because it is a secondary source.  It's like Wikipedia itself.  Second, you place your edits above the tags which is not appropriate.  Third, the information, though well written, doesn't belong in the lead, but belongs elsewhere.  Your edits, of course, are still in the history.  Maybe we can rework them to a short one paragraph for the lead, and place the detail elsewhere.  But let's find better references.  Orangemarlin 16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree; there is nothing wrong with using Encyclopædia Britannica as a source. This does not invalidate the other reasons why your reversal may be proper, which I have not reviewed in depth. Digwuren 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orangemarlin, calling EB a lousy reference, or even -like Wikipedia itself is an opinion, not a fact. The fact is Encyclopædia Britannica is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias, unlike for example WP itself. The last might come true one day though but so far it's a long way to go. Now, I placed the tags under the facts, from a "secondary" source or not, because those were referenced or sourced for verification. The neutrality of the section would have been hard to dispute. Since you obviously had a problem (please correct me if I'm wrong) with the controversial subject, the listed countries from where the people joined the The Waffen-SS Verfügungstruppe, I'm going to leave that out and simply state the facts according to the organization of the Waffen-SS + the 1941 announcement. Leaving the individual cases for future editors to sort out later on in the article. Please feel free to disagree with the proposed compromise but since this article is stuck, we'd need to move forward somehow. Thanks!--Termer 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. added another ref By Matthew Thomas, National Maritime Museum, London. Please let me know if more refs are needed. Removed the fact of foreign Verfügungstruppe from the new suggestion for the header.--Termer 08:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Termer, I just reverted your edit. Make sure you take a look at WP:LEAD before changing the lead section again, and please don't propose suggestions directly on the main article, use the talk page instead. Thank you, and good wiking. --Nkcs 03:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nkcs, please in the future don't question other editors intelligence! Since I'm not the first one here you're asking to look at WP:LEAD; the second, as the new header was  compatible with the guidelines, the suggestion was simply about removing the controversial subject, the names of the listed countries the foreign unites originated from, I can't take the line you've used several times  as a serious explanation for reverting sourced and referenced header back into not referenced, sourceless, disputed etc. one. Since your edit is based on an opinion, not on the facts, I'm going to move forward with this article and restore the header according to the facts ASAP. Please have references and sources handy, not opinions, to back up any possible future reverts or edits. Thanks.--Termer 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. The current headerThe Waffen-SS (German for "Armed SS", literally "Weapons SS") was the combat arm of the Schutzstaffel. is factually incorrect since the Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV) of the Waffen-SS was not a "combat arm" but the unit guarded concentration camps. The combat arm was called the Verfügungstruppe (SS-VT)

PPS. I'm hoping nobody is forcing me to completely rewrite the article in response to the tags, since I really don't care about the subject that much, it would be good to see some collective effort here regarding the issues addressed on the tags. Thanks--Termer 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How am I questioning your intelligence? My comment was intended to point you out to an established guideline, in this case regarding how we usually write lead sections for our articles; same with suggestions, a better place to propose them would be here instead of the main article. I do realise your willingness to help us and add new information, but please make sure you include it properly; in example, a lead section that includes twice the article's name in bold, mixes history with the unit's internal organisation, and states highly inaccurate translations such as Armed Protective Echelon like here is certainly not compatible with our standards. Nonetheless, relax and please don't take it personal, everyone makes mistakes. --Nkcs 22:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nkcs, surely you question someones intelligence by pointing out guidelines that are based on  common sense. And sorry, I don't have a slightest idea, who are you talking about while referring to "us"? Regarding your concerns about inaccurate translations, please take those to the encyclopedia mentioned in the  provided source. For now I'm going to follow the WP policy "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor" and going to revert the header according to provided refs. Please, in case you think anything needs a clean up, feel free to help but removing properly cited facts from the header, I'd have to interpret as WP:Vandalism. Thanks!--Termer 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's done, hope someone will take over for now and clean up and ref properly the next section the Origins and move the tags downwards accordingly and so on until the whole article is cleaned up and refd. like needed.--Termer 07:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Can you adequately explain what on Earth has your intelligence have to do with our guidelines? This is unbelievable. I do believe it's my humble duty to inform you the way and manner we write articles here, and I properly did it with all due respect and civility. If you fail, or don't even try, to understand the guidelines and policies I carefully told you about, I'm afraid you're at the wrong place. You are thoughtlessly showing your ignorance by telling me that such an outrageous, innacurate, and erratic translation can be considered worthy to be included here. Vandalism? The very same policy you pompously mentioned disagrees entirely with you, and given that vandalism is a "is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" I will civilly ask you to at least know what vandalism is before you try to lecture someone about the subject. And if you can't tell sir, I took great offense by your arrogant tone and your nonsensical comments, and I do strongly suggest you to change your behaviour if you wish to stay here. --Nkcs 05:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nkcs, please don't bite newcomers. Termer may be a like rough, but he's full of sincere desire to improve Wikipedia, and most of the time, he succeeds rather well &mdash; both are more than can be said of certain other participants. Digwuren 10:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nkcs, since it's a second time I'd need to respond to the same questions, I consider your previous post an attempt at trolling. Therefore FYI, I can't respond to similar questions any more later on. But only to any issues that are directly related to improving the article. Thanks!--Termer 06:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * please stop questioning other editors intelligence by "carefully telling here" about how to "understand the guidelines" of WP.
 * exactly about who are you talking about while referring to "our", "we write" etc.? But since you brought this "we" up once again, have any of those "we" that you're speaking for completed any articles that have been listed on the main page of WP? If not, I am humbly willing to offer my assistance including the article under the discussion here.
 * please take your concerns about "outrageous, inaccurate, and erratic translation" to Encyclopedia Britannica.
 * regarding WP vandalism, please do not attempt to compromise the integrity of WP by replacing sourced and referenced text with unverified and false facts, the reason this article has been tagged in the first place.
 * for the last section, unfortunately I can't respond to comments that are personal in nature.

Pictures of dead soldiers
How does it come, that in nearly every article on world war II, wehrmacht, ss and so on are pictures of dead soldiers. can't we get better picures suited for the topic? i mean i understand the desire to show that during war people die, or that war crimes occured, but this site at least wants to be an encyclopedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.145.106 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)