Talk:Waffen-SS/Archive 2

Cleanup
I have gone through the intro and origins trying to remove material that is about the SS, and very interesting, but irrelevant IMHO to evolution of the Waffen-SS. I have done this to shorten the pieces and to keep a tighter focus. Apols to the contributors of great material that i hope is on the SS page instead.

I have also tried to strictly enforce chronology and remove the comments about the future SS or past SS that occurred often in the text. I have tried to move the material if it wasn't duplicative.

I have tried to remove the duplicative material from these two sections.

Please forgive but this was getting rather long-winded and 'bitty' reflecting a the many informed people who have contributed in many places. Facius 12:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

War crimes
From Polish Wikipedia (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podgaje_%28wojew%C3%B3dztwo_wielkopolskie%29) :

"W trakcie walk o Wał Pomorski w 1945, w miejscowości Podgaje walczący po stronie niemieckiej żołnierze łotewscy z grupy bojowej "Elster", wchodzący w skład 15 Dywizji Grenadierów SS (1 łotewskiej) dokonali zbrodni na 32 żołnierzach Wojska Polskiego z 4. kompanii 3. pułku piechoty 1 Dywizji WP, którym najpierw skrępowano ręce drutem kolczastym, a następnie wprowadzono do stodoły i spalono żywcem."

During the fight for Pomeranian Wall in 1945, in the village called "Podgaje" (<-- Poland) the Latvian soldiers from the group called "Elster" (Kampfgruppe Elster) which was a part of 15th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Latvian), SS-mans of that division performed a war crime on polish prisoners, burning alive 32 soldiers of Polish Army from 4th company 3rd regiment infantry 1st Division 1AWP in a barn tied up with a barbed wire.

I'm sorry for the bad translation...but I think that you will understand it.

Proofs :

1,0 1,1 Majewski Ryszard: Waffen SS. Mity i rzeczywistość. Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, Wrocław, 1983, s. 247. ISBN 83-03-00102-7.

2,0 2,1 Zawilski Apoloniusz: Polskie fronty. Oficyna Wydawnicza Volumen, Warszawa, 1996, s. 463 (tom2). ISBN 83-86857-23-4.

Grzelak, Stańczyk, Zwoliński: Armia Berlinga i Żymierskiego, Warszawa, 2002, ISBN 83-88973-27-4

Polski czyn zbrojny w II wojnie światowej. Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej, Warszawa, 1988, s.531 (tom 3). ISBN 83-11-07038-5.

--Greetings &#91;&#91;User:Krzyzowiec&#124;Krzyzowiec&#93;&#93; (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

War crimes against the Waffen-SS
It appears fair to mention that members/POWs of Waffen-SS units were the frequent object of summary executions and other atrocities either by regular allied troups or so-called "résistance" members regardless of personal responsibility, especially on the Eastern front or in the Balkans. The article should be extended to account for this aspect. --Meudonnais (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In doing so, attention should be paid to the issue that SS personnel, not being regular soldiers, were not obviously covered by the Geneva Convention on the law of war, as well as the recurrent use of ruses by SS troops who feigned surrender far more frequently than they actually captulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.222.148 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ]

Well, let's talk about them. On the Eastern Front the German army calculatedly starved, froze or shot 3 million Russian POWs on the first year of the war and liquidated Russian Jews in 2 years, used mass murder as a means to fight partisans and executed any communist party member civilian or military. The courtsey was returned with feeling. After Canadian POWs were murdered the 12 SS Div, the Canadians stopped taking SS prisoners. The US Army stopped taking SS prisoners in retaliation of the Malmedy massacre. And what is that with the peculiar use of the phrase "so-called resistence fighters"? Methinks I detected Neo-Nazism in the air. Chin Cheng-chuan

Actually, Meudonnais does have a point, just because war crimes were commited by the SS, does not mean we should attempt to minimalize or perhaps even not cover war crimes commited by allied soldiers. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.49.13 (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement about Waffen SS participation in the Holocaust.
It should be noted that it is untrue to say that the Waffen SS did not participate in the Holocaust while the so-called "regular SS" did. Aftering being wounded, a great many Waffen SS men were assigned duty as concentration camp guards in the rear during their recuperation periods. They would then rotate back to their front-line unit after fully recuperating. For more on this, please see Charles Sydnor's "Soldiers of Destruction." 76.111.6.4 (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

regarding the caption of the recruitment poster
"Vollendetes 17tes Lebensjahr" means you are 17 years old, not 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.83.13 (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. This phrase means the day when someone turn 17. --78.51.106.248 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Descriptors
The descriptor of "Third Reich" as a country has little validity. Units of the Waffen SS raised in conquered territories were raised, deployed, commanded and supplied by the structure of the German state. The postage stamps of that era indicate 'Deutsches Reich' and the railway 'Deutsche Reichsbahn'. The term 'Drittes Reich' is and was used as a political term to describe a period of a distinct form of German aspiration to

1. emulate a previous era of influence and control of disparate ethnic/language groups by a pre-eminent nation (that is the Holy Roman Empire) and

2. an era of aggressive 'unionising' of German speaking states by Prussia/Otto von Bismarck via wars with neighbour nations (Denmark, Austria and France).

The "Country" should, I feel, read 'Germany'. The inclusion of a "Garrison/HQ" is surely superfluous, as is "March", "Anniversaries","Colors", "Nickname" and "Motto". Himmler was its C-in-C. In Britain the Queen is a patron of many organisations including the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) but she doesn't run any of them. I detect an emotional, even glorifying overlay to this article rather than a rigorous objective summation. Gr1bble8s (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is terrible and written in incredible poor taste, but Third Reich is considered accurate historical vocabulary. As in: First Reich-Holy Roman Empire

Second Reich-The German Empire/Imperial Hohenstauffen

Third Reich-Nazi Germany

I agree the "motto" and the "nickname" should be ommitted from the box. -Chengchuan Chin

I don't believe anyone referred to the Holy Roman Empire as the "First" Reich or Bismarckian Germany as the "Second" Reich until the Hitler era. Historian932 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

SS' tatoos
The article must have a link for SS' tatoos.Article about SS' tatoos: [] and [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agre22 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem with following statement
"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."

Is there any proof for that statement? Many warcrimes were committed by mostly German-Units, like Totenkopf. Who very often joined the SS because of its ideology and not "because of food, pay or accomodation". And they often proved excellent soldiers though they were indeed involved in many atrocities. Therefore I strongly doubt that this statement is true, that rather "unmotivated" soldiers committed more atrocities than ideologically motivated/convinced SS-soldiers.

87.176.204.247 (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC) German, Freiburg

this quotation sounds like a bit of a whitewash
''Many Latvian "volunteers" were actually conscripted after February 1943, even though Nazi propaganda claimed that they had consented to join the Waffen-SS (Latvian Legion 15th and 19th Divisions). The Nazis called these Latvian conscripts volunteers in order to avoid the 1907 Hague Convention rules (which stated that citizens from occupied countries could not be conscripted by occupying forces). However, prior to February 10, 1943 some Latvians actually did join these divisions as volunteers but the vast majority did so not for Nazi ideals but because they wanted arms and financing to liberate their country from the Soviet occupation that began in 1940. Therefore, amongst themselves they referred to their divisions as the "Latvian Legion" (in a fight for national self-determination) rather than as Waffen-SS fighting for Hitler.''

that needs so much citation its not even funny. 'the vast majority'? 'amongst themselves?' can we get some statistics on what proportion joined 'not for nazi ideals but to liberate their country from the USSR'? Obviously there must be a document showing entrance polling concerning motivation for latvian SS members, otherwise the author wouldn't have made such a baseless assertion... ... .. right? 76.16.46.233 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Right reason for creation?
The article states that the SS was formed because of Hitler's "unease" with the "size and strength of the SA"...I thought it was because he wanted an absolutely dependable group of men based in each town/city in Germany that would protect him when he drove around giving speeches (this is before he had achieved any political power, and communists would attempt to break up nationalist meetings). Historian932 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

POV in this article
IMHO this article along with a number of others to do with the SS/atrocities/holocaust should be locked down. It is such an emotive subject that people constantly edit it without paying enough attention to grammar, good English, the context of their contribution w.r.t. the rest of the article, and most of all POV issues. This is bad for the reputation of English Wikipedia and the quality of its articles. Surely there is a better way of dealing with articles containing contentious issues. I can imagine this would apply to Arab-Israeli issues even more.1812ahill (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious TH Flaherty Ref
The Biblio section contains the following entry:

Flaherty, T.H (2004). The Third Reich:The SS (1st Edition ed.). Caxton Publishing Group. ISBN 1 84447 073 3.

The Caxton Publishing Group website shows no evidence of TH Flaherty or his book. Neither Google Books nor Amazon.com list the it. A Library of Congress (which, by law, should list every book published in the USA) search returns 'Invalid ISBN'.

This reference underpins a great deal of the article. Unless someone demonstrates the book is real and credible, and corrects the reference with a valid ISBN, I will procede with deletion.Dduff442 (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

--Found it via ISBN link on wiki. Publisher is Time Life Books, not Caxton, and title is wrong. This is a spectacularly obscure title, from a non-academic source. Better sources than this are needed.Dduff442 (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correct book cite, Dduff442. I corrected it in the reference section. This book was number one in a series on the Third Reich first published by the editors of Time-Life books in 1988. I read this book years ago and it is not a bad source; a good introduction type book. However, articles like this can always use more detail and better sourcing. Kierzek (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Time-Life books are not necessarily obscure, and in many ways they can be considered popular encyclopedias. In terms of academic sources, I was surprised to see Heinz Hohne's work left off the bibliography, along with other more recent works on the Waffen-SS (all of which are academic). Citing a Time-Life book is really no different than citing Osprey titles.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the HJ Motto?
The sidebar to the right of this page has an entry under "Motto" which seems to state that SS men were given an HJ dagger upon their graduation. I think this is a case of faulty reference in English, in that the author intended to say that all HJ members received a dagger upon their HJ graduation day. (I suspect that they received their daggers well before that.) In any case, is this really relevant? It has nothing to do with the SS motto, which is correctly stated. I think this information is confusing at best, and possibly wrong. In any case, it should probably be removed.Rkieran (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)rkieran
 * The SS DID present a dagger, but it was not in any way linked to the HJ (which of course refers to the Hitler Youth). If the dagger is going to be discussed, it's important that the correct reference be used.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the dagger reference. The motto also appeared on belt buckles, so limiting it to any dagger is incorrect.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Having read your Waffen SS webpage I have come across the comment upon the Malmedy Massacre. Having read a couple of British and American books on the subject, plus one Belgian book by Gerd Cuppens, including webpages from Willy Alenus and Henri Rogister, I consider it totally irresponsible and in no way supported by facts to declare that 90 GIs had been murdered at the site. 72 + 12 bodies of GIs had been recovered from mid-January to March 1945 within a radius of 250 to 500 meters from the Five Points Road Crossing. All known witnesses' statements considered with a minimum of investigative sense do not support a massacre: for instance that most GIs had fled into some nearby woods after having survived the first shelling of the U.S. convoy and would therefore neither qualify as having been taken prisoner, leave alone having been massacred in the process. Most bodies appear to be those of fallen soldiers. Individual acts of murder still remain unsolved by normal police procedure standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.235.64.76 (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Having read on your Waffen-SS page that ca. 90 U.S. soldiers have been murdered by SS-troops at Malmedy I was truly astonished that any such irresponsible and unsupported views would still be published. Most British and American publications on the matter in question have voiced at least some doubt on the matter, some take an even more outspokenly pro-German view. Some Belgian authors have almost come to the point of denial and keep only some doubts alive, pertaining to individual acts of murder in the aftermath of a brutally stopped, attempted escape of U.S. GIs. Belgians who saw what happended and who exchanged their knowledge immediately after the events were never called up as witnesses at the Dachau trials. One said that most (that is more than half, maybe about 40-50 men) of the American survivors of the first shelling of the U.S. convoy fled into nearby woods. This clearly disqualifies them from having been taken prisoners in the first place and to have been massacred as a consequence, either through machinegun fire or murderous, individual pistol or rifle shots afterwards. About 20 men of a route marking detail (see Rogister) and 35 latecomers (Sgt. Bechtel) out of 152 men of the 285th FAOB's complement never arrived at the scene. Ca. 36 prisoners from other U.S. units had arrived there on German vehicles. According to W.Alenus, G.Cuppens, and H. Rogister another ca. 54(?)GIs had had left the scene alive. How many of those had actually been prisoners? Two Belgian witnesses speak of between 13 and 28 killed GIs in the "killing field". It must be assumed that the 72+12 bodies recovered between mid-January and March 1945 had been killed in action except the 13 to 28 mentioned by either one of the two Belgians. All bodies were found near the road crossing and up to 250 meters (72 bodies)to 500 meters(12 bodies) distance from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buchorn (talk • contribs) 22:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Having read on your Waffen-SS page that ca. 90 U.S. soldiers have been murdered by SS-troops at Malmedy I was truly astonished that any such irresponsible and unsupported views would still be published. Most British and American publications on the matter in question have voiced at least some doubt on the matter, some take an even more outspokenly pro-German view. Some Belgian authors have almost come to the point of denial and keep only some doubts alive, pertaining to individual acts of murder in the aftermath of a brutally stopped, attempted escape of U.S. GIs. Belgians who saw what happended and who exchanged their knowledge immediately after the events were never called up as witnesses at the Dachau trials. One said that most (that is more than half, maybe about 40-50 men) of the American survivors of the first shelling of the U.S. convoy fled into nearby woods. This clearly disqualifies them from having been taken prisoners in the first place and to have been massacred as a consequence, either through machinegun fire or murderous, individual pistol or rifle shots afterwards. About 20 men of a route marking detail (see Rogister) and 35 latecomers (Sgt. Bechtel) out of 152 men of the 285th FAOB's complement never arrived at the scene. Ca. 36 prisoners from other U.S. units had arrived there on German vehicles. According to W.Alenus, G.Cuppens, and H. Rogister another ca. 54(?)GIs had had left the scene alive. How many of those had actually been prisoners? Two Belgian witnesses speak of between 13 and 28 killed GIs in the "killing field". It must be assumed that the 72+12 bodies recovered between mid-January and March 1945 had been killed in action except the 13 to 28 mentioned by either one of the two Belgians. All bodies were found near the road crossing and up to 250 meters (72 bodies)to 500 meters(12 bodies) distance from it.Buchorn (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Censorhip of posted Relevant Facts to improve Article by Wikipedia numbskulls
To think that Wikipedia allows a Nazi sympathizer as an "Editor" to delete unsavory details of Hitler and his Waffen SS that were the personable twisted logic of Mein Kampf in a Uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.164.2 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no 'censorship', and no evidence of a 'Nazi sympathizer'. Your post was deleted because this talk page is intended for discussions about improvements to the article, rather than as a general forum for debate about the Waffen-SS. If you have any concrete suggestions for improving the article, based on reliable sources rather than your own opinions, then you are welcome to post them here. If you post off-topic comments, or insults directed at other contributors, they will be deleted. This is normal Wikipedia practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, it was deleted per: WP:FORUM. Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Heni
I restored that conscripts did not swear formal allegiance. Heni's text says nothing in this regard. Additionally, Heni's position is that commemoration of the Waffen SS glorifies the Holocaust. For example:
 * "What have the Latvians learned from history and the Shoah?
 * "Apparently not much, when they continue to praise convicted mass murderers like Viktor Arajs."

Commemoration of the Waffen SS (in this case Latvian Legion) has nothing to do with Arajs or praising any actions of Nazi collaborators in the Holocaust. Please feel free to include such (regretfully, inflammatory and baseless, but all scholars are entitled to their opinion) contentions in contemporary reactions to commemoration. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that even Vsevolod Merkulov in wartime correspondence to Kalbērziņš, secretary of the Latvian communist party, confirmed the Latvian Waffen SS were conscripted. Russia in its post-Soviet anti-Waffen SS pronouncements chooses to forget that part of Soviet history. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A quote from Heni is below:
 * "''Members of the Latvian Legion had to swear an oath on Hitler himself and against the “Bolshevik enemies” of their “homeland.” The German reads: “Ich schw¨are bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, dass ich im Kampf gegen die bolschewistischen Feinde meiner Heimat dem Obersten Befehlshaber der Deutschen Wehrmacht, Adolf Hitler, unbedingten Gehoram leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit fur diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen” (Sturm 2001: 45).
 * I remove the statement that has been added under a false pretext.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re Arajs, another quote from this source says:
 * "Viktor Arajs is the best known Latvian killer and commander during the Shoah. On July 1, 1941, SS-Brigade General Dr. Walter Stahlecker asked Arajs to establish a Latvian “Hilfssicherheitspolizei” (auxiliary police group). Arajs was leading a group of Latvian armed forces who killed, alongside the Germans, 13,000 Jews from the Riga ghetto on December 8, 1941.3 The so-called “Arajs-commando” was officially called “Lettische Hilfspolizei bei der Sicherheitspolizei” of the German “Einsatzgruppe A der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD.”4 The commando was known all over Latvia, including their blue autobuses with the drunken killing men inside.5 In the summer of 1943 the group—now a battalion—was included in the Latvian Legion.6 Arajs was trained in SS training camps in Germany, such as F¨urstenberg and Berlin-Charlottenburg. 7 In November 1944 he became “Sturmbannf¨ uhrer” in the 15th Waffen-SS-Grenadierdividision, after participating in an SS seminar in the “SS-Junkerschule,” Bad T¨ olz, Bavaria, and was responsible for several killing actions in Jelgava, Daugavpils, Liepaja, and Riga. In 1979, the “Landgericht Hamburg” (the district court of Hamburg) sentenced Arajs to life in prison."
 * The linkage with Latvian legion is obvious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Heni/Sturm are incorrect. Only the first 300 of the Latvian Legion were forced to swear allegiance, none thereafter. I suggest you desist from accusations of "false pretext". I'll have to go back to find the source.
 * What Arajs did and whatever his purpose was unrelated to the Latvian Legion in 1943 after the Holocaust had come and gone. Do not conflate them. Heni's piece makes it clear that his only concern is that the collaborators of 1941 were still around in 1943 and, as such, found their way into the Latvian Legion. Heni's position boils down to the meme that the purpose of the Latvian Legion was therefore to continue to perpetrate the Holocaust and that commemoration of the Latvian Legion is a fascist celebration of the death of Jews. This is polemics, not scholarship. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt first Latvian Legionaries were forced to swear allegiance, because they all were devoted Nazi. With regard to others, I provided a source, whereas you respond just with speculations. Prove that the source is wrong. I doubt you will be able to do that because oath was a necessary procedure in most armies. Definitely, they could not start their military service without taking some oath (either a standard Wehrmach oath or the SS oath). --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You provide content from a blog which carries on about Arajs contending his crimes against humanity are not just being denied or ignored but glorified. That is an opinion . Find me any source that is not an opinionated accusation of that, but rather a survey of mainstream Latvians that confirms they do, indeed, glorify Nazis, Arajs, and the achievements of the Holocaust when they commemorate the Latvian Legion.
 * You can read the contemporary report (issued 1944) of the Latvian diplomatic Legation regarding the Nazi occupation during 1943 here, section on the Legion also available here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The source provided by me is the Journal for the study of antisemitism, not a blog.
 * Regarding your sources, they tells that 300 volunteers took the oath, but they do not tell that the others didn't. I do not believe the Germans would allow their military (not auxiliary) personnel to avoid taking the oath. A volunteer/draftee/conscript is deemed to start his military service from the moment he has taken an oath, and the Germans were very sensitive to such formalities.
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Note on the matter: Davies, Norman (1998), Europe: A History, Harper Perennial , ISBN: 978-0060974688; "...recruitment drive for three Latvian divisions of the Waffen-SS. The men swore an oath 'to struggle against Bolshevism ' and 'to obey the commander-in-chief of the German armed forces, Adolf Hitler'." (see Appendix III, pp. 1326-7). Kierzek (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Even the German Wehrmacht swore complete personal loyalty to Hitler, however the Baltic Legions swore to obey the CiC of the German armed forces against Bolshevism only. --Nug (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, the point is, no personal oath to Hitler as is indicated in the infobox. @Paul, I did not find the texts you cited in the journal, perhaps I am mistaken on that, I did find them in Heni's personal online blog. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The text of the oath can be found here (page 159, ref 2). Norman Davies may serve as an independent confirmation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that it was in the footnote.
 * That oath looks to translate correctly to the Latvian, which was to swear an oath solely in the fight against Bolshevism, not to Nazism—and which is not the normal SS oath. I believe that conclusively negates the contention that the Latvian Legion's purpose was anything other than to engage against the Red Army, the first military force to invade Latvia. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Words, words, words." We have your words against the words of two reputable authors (Davies and Heni). Please, stop this nonsense.
 * Regardless of the Latvian Legion purpose, his contribution was not limited with fight against Bolshevism. Heni provides clear examples of war crimes committed by the legionaries. Moreover, one don't has to forget that during WWII fighting against Bolshevism was fighting against the Allies. Yes, I agree that during Cold war era American Senate commission recognized that Latvian Legion's activity was not directed against the US, however, the US were not the sole Ally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Latvian Legion's activity was not directed against Britain either. Chuchill's view of the Bolsheviks is well known, from the biography on Churchill by Piers Brendon: "one might as well legalise sodomy as recognize the Bolsheviks" and "Kill the Bolshie. Kiss the Hun." --Nug (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you mean that Churchill was anti-gay and anti-Communist? In any event, we deviate from the subject of our discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) @Paul, please desist your WP:SYNTHESIS to tar and feather the Latvian Legion as war criminals. They were not. The pre-Legion/non-Legion units who were collaborators are dealt with separately elsewhere on those topics. As for my alleged conflicting with sources: We're done here. Do not insist again that "fighting the USSR", the first invaders of the Baltics in collusion with Hitler equals "fighting the Allies". And don't ridicule me again. With that action you have permanently exhausted my well of WP:AGF with regard to your participation on any subject matter touching upon Latvia and the Baltics. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) WTF? Davies is correct and does not conflict with what I state.
 * 2) Heni is not reliable on history, as you know from the discussion you initiated on reliable sources.
 * No. We are not done. Whereas I agree that, as my RSN request indicated, Heni and Davies are not reliable, Lacis, which, according to the same RSN thread, is a reliable source tells the same, namely, that they took an oath. Therefore, I see no problem here. With regard to other changes made by me, I made them not based on Heni or Davies, but on other sources, which are reliable. Therefore, I see on problems with these my edits, and I respectfully request you to withdraw your baseless accusations. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done on the Latvian Legion and its oath.
 * Not "not done":
 * On the oath (infobox): this requires a notation that in the case of Latvia et al. the oath was limited to combat against the re-invading USSR.
 * Your first Repa edit (addition): your text inappropriately morphs and conflates the foreign (including no mention of conscription being involved) Waffen SS units with the German originals. Different units. Different oaths. Different purposes. Not acceptable as written. As for official allegiances, I think we've already proven we need better sources than journalism and its ilk. I suggest replacing Repa with a more scholarly source.
 * Your second Repa edit (removal): you quote Repa when it suits you and delete it when it does not. As this is simple reportage, Repa is sufficiently reliable. Your removal is not acceptable.
 * I updated the infobox. I see your other proposed content is not the current version, so this might be a good point for a break and deescalation (my perception only).
 * Lastly, regarding the oath, I'd just mention that the German military oath is properly characterized as an oath on Hitler: "Ich schwore bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Fuhrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler,...". VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Paul, please point out where the same thread on Davies and Heni dicusses Lacis. A search with my browser doesn't find "Lacis" anywhere on the page. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I meant "Lumans", not "Lacis". The discussion I am talking about, is this one. In connection to that, let me point at the following. I see you accepted the viewpoint of Fifelfoo, a user whom I also respect. However, if you accept his viewpoint regarding this particular sources (Heni, Davies and Lumans), why did you rejected his opinion on the Black Book of Communism during the discussion about the Mass killings under Communist regimes article? That strongly resembles a double standard mentality and seriously undermines my belief in your good faith. Maybe, that is a good time for you to re-consider your opinion on the BB?
 * Regarding Lumans, he writes: ""Latvian apologists also claim that, contrary to common SS practice, the Latvians excluded standard National Socialist ideology from their training, and, in contrast to Waffen-SS, Legion units provided Christian chaplains for spiritual care. Nevertheless, Latvians swore personal oath to the Fuhrer...", and only then he writes about a struggle against Bolshevism. In other words, he writes about "apologists", who attempt to separate Latvian Waffen-SS from Nazism, but he does not endorse this idea. Clearly, they took an oath to Hitler, and Lumans' "nevertheless" does not allow double interpretation. (Interestingly, the oath contained no mention of the USSR, and the word "Bolshevism" in the oath could allow usage of Latvian SS-mans against Yugoslavian, Italian or French partisan forces. However, we deviate from the main discussion.)
 * Let me also note, that I deeply respect Lumans' attempts to clear Latvian history from nationalistic stereotypes. However, as Geoffrey Swain ("Latvia in World War II by Valdis Lumans" Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 6 (Sep., 2007), pp. 1057-1059) correctly noted, "the problem is that Lumans remains loyal to some of the myth-makers of Latvian history." Therefore, even this meticulously written book should be treated with grain of salt: whereas Lumans' refutation of nationalistic stereotypes should be trusted, we must keep in mind that the book still reproduces some of them.
 * In summary, we have a reliable source that says that even Latvian SS-men swore an oath to Hitler, and, by the way, the oath contained no explicit mention of the USSR ("Bolshemism" ≠ USSR). Therefore, I remove the statement added by you as incorrect and misleading. Feel free to add to the text the explanation about Latvian Waffen-SS. And do not forget the word "apologists".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, now the formulation "Allegiance: Adolf Hitler, in cases limited to combat against the USSR" starts looking strange (this discussion would indicate that this qualifier only applies to foreign volunteers, right?)... If there is a disagreement about the right way to qualify this field, wouldn't it be better to drop it instead? After all, infoboxes are for completely undisputed and clear information only, aren't they..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, it is important to explain that Waffen-SS was a Hitler's own military organisation, and all Waffen-SS members, both German and foreign, took an oath to Hitler (although this oath could be different in some particular cases).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re Repa, it was not me who added this source. Initially, it was used to support the following statement: ". In the 1950s and 1960s, Waffen-SS veteran groups successfully fought numerous legal battles in West Germany to overturn the Nuremberg ruling and win pension rights for their members. " That was simply incorrect, because the BBC article contained no such facts. Regarding the rest, I disagree. Waffen-SS was not a multiethinc force initially, it was created as a racial pure, German Hitler's personal guard. Only due to the desperate need in additional troops did Hitler decide to include non-German nationals into Waffen-SS. Therefore, it is necessary to give a definition of Waffen-SS in a historical perspective, what I have made.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The lede was changed back to convey the progression of the Waffen-SS with cites and rv of lede section which does not match the stated cite (BBC article). Kierzek (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I haven't noticed my edits were reverted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The regular Wehrmacht also pledged obedience, soldiers are required to obey their superior officers, there is nothing extraordinary about that. The point of difference with the German Waffen-SS is that they pledged loyalty to Hitler while foreign conscripts did not, instead pleading obedience like regular Wehrmacht. The fact of the importance of "loyalty" is shown by the German Waffen-SS motto: "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" or "My Honor is Loyalty". --Nug (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really see why everything about oaths cannot be explained in the article text, with all necessary qualifiers, probably with examples of the oath text. The removal of fields from the infobox (or the infobox itself) doesn't affect that and seems to be a great way to avoid fruitless fights. It worked reasonably well in the articles "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" and Byzantine Empire (Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 10), why wouldn't it work here?
 * Oh, and one more thing: what happened with Waffen-SS and its oaths after Hitler's suicide..? That's something that might also be worth mentioning in the article... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Paul, on the (Latvian) oath, it's not an oath "on Hitler", we have the oath verbatim--as opposed to the German military oath which can (correctly) be characterized as such. You can state the Latvian oath has been called an oath on Hitler, that is all. More to the point, there is obviously more than one oath for the Waffen SS, at least one of which swears nothing with regard to Germany or Nazism or personal allegiance to Hitler (recognizing him only as commander of the army--and let us not forget the Latvian Legion were conscripts despite your IMHO POV lobbying elsewhere).
 * As for Bolshevism <> USSR in the case of the Latvian Legion, your contention is simply ludicrous.
 * Lastly, as I've indicated, on "apologist", Lumans has his own lack of objectivity, and not as Swain indicates, I find Swain less objective. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lumans clearly says about "Hitler", and about "apologists". Re lack of objectivity, the only lack of objectivity found by Swain (who is a prominent author writing about EE) is the existence of some residual nationalist myths in the Lumans' book.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Others, I am open to suggestions on how to best represent oaths, clearly, the infobox simply stating a personal oath to Hitler is misleading. At a minimum, an extensive reference is required--if the Latvian Legion had its own separate oath, I suspect this case might not be unique. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think we need to tell about personal oath to Hitler in the infobox (and currently the infobox contains no such statement).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the infobox states "allegiance" and that term is defined either as "the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign" or "loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like". As we know foreign conscripts did not pledge loyalty, but obedience, so it cannot be said they owed allegiance to Adolf Hitler or even Germany. Even forced slave labourers can be obedient without being loyal. --Nug (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The situation with foreign Waffen-SS members is complicated by the fact that many of them had an opportunity to become German citizens, and the oath was a step towards that. I know that Latvian legionaries were not allowed/didn't want to become German citizens, however, that was not the case for others. This is the article about Waffen-SS as whole, do you remember that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "many of them had an opportunity to become German citizens", where did you imagine this Paul? Himmler issued a directive in 1941 that excluded German citizenship to foreign legionnaires who he explicitly indicated were not SS men and forbade them to wear SS runes. See The Waffen SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War, 1939-1945 by George H. Stein. --Nug (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1183. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Kierzek (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of "herrenvolk"
Can we change it to "Herrenvolk"? All other German nouns in the article are compliant with German grammar (capitalised first letter), apart from this one. Makes it look kind of odd! FerociousFranky (talk)
 * The capitalization is fixed. Kierzek (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Was Nuremberg unsympathetic to conscripts before 1943?
The quote at the end of the intro "An exception was made for Waffen-SS conscripts sworn in after 1943" begs the question I gave in the title. Would it be correct to change that to "An exception was made for Waffen-SS conscripts, who were sworn in after 1943"?

And to be clear, I'm assuming that there were no conscripts before 1943. AngusCA (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Quotations
Do either of the two quotations recently added by User:Jonas Vinther belong in the lead? Or perhaps later in the article?
 * -- Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

After consideration I agree the first not does not belong in the lead, but perhaps later in the article as you said, although I would not have added the new one if I didn't believe it should be in the lead. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A contributor seems intent on adding quotations from former Waffen-SS members to the lede. I would ask that per WP:BRD such changes be discussed rather than edit-warred over. As I made clear in my edit summary, I feel that such quotes are undue, and add little to the article anyway. That former Waffen-SS members will attempt to minimise or justify their behaviour is hardly unexpected - but it adds little meaningful content to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that any Waffen-SS survivor would do anything to justify or excuse their actions, I just added a simple example of that. Like I said earlier, I agree that that one should probably not be in the lead, but the new one should. But of course this is just my opinion. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh well... I guess all my contributions and says are completely non-important and "more of less useless"... Whatever. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you think it actually adds to the lede in terms of meaningful information concerning the Waffen-SS? This is a single statement, from a single individual, made after the event in circumstances where veracity has to be questionable. It says nothing about the Waffen-SS as a whole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy and Diana, especially the above position raised by Andy. It is anecdotal evidence that does not belong in the lede, nor the Nuremburg defense that offers little to introduction.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In the position that I find myself in, I'm going politely hide my irritation and not make any future edits on this page. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is probably best. This type of editing does not add to WP, only detract. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Logo
The recently removed logos appear to have been taken from recruitment posters such as can be seen here and here. In fact the description for image File:Logo-WaffenSS.jpg states "self-made, cut from a recruitment poster". If you could please clarify why this has been removed that would be great. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Diannaa that is why I reinstated the old logo you mention from 2008. I am not a photo use expert, but did not see a problem with it. Kierzek (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will re-add it, unless some reasonable objection is brought forth in the near future. And if one looks at the "logo file", it shows that the image is used on many other world Wikipedia sites and in many articles therein; without objection. [User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Dianna and Kierzek. My objection to the logo is that while it might well have been cut from a poster, what source supports it as the logo of the Waffen SS ? We are using it in the infobox, which indicates that it was an official logo, like the divisional symbols. The fact that the lettering was used on a recruiting poster doesn't, IMO. If the Waffen SS had a logo, other than the sig rune (which of course was shared with the rest of the SS), I'm not aware of it, and I don't believe using this file as "the logo of the Waffen SS" is supported by reliable sources. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The most appropriate image that represents the Waffen SS is probably the Waffen SS version of the Hoheitabzeichen with the left-facing eagle and wings tapering to a point, introduced in 1938, but there may be other options of actual badges or symbols. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly what image are you talking about, Peacemaker? -- Director  ( talk )  08:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * File:SS Hoheitszeichen.jpg Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This one? With or without the black background? I suggest opening a thread on COM:GL/I and requesting an SVG version. -- Director  ( talk )  09:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, a pic of a Waffen SS soldier could be used instead of a symbol, as there were few differences between SS insignia and Waffen SS insignia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your original suggestion would be fine, if we had a decent SVG version. It seems to be a unique eagle design used by the Waffen SS.. (that looks uncomfortably like a US colonel's insignia :P) --  Director  ( talk )  09:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Preemptive addition"? I just added the Sig runes so the entry doesn't stand empty while there's discussion.. -- Director  ( talk )  12:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter? The Sig runes alone are indicative of the whole SS, not the Waffen-SS specifically. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. As I said, I added the image so the article's infobox doesn't stand empty in that regard. Its accurate in a wider sense. More to the point, will you be requesting a vector emblem at Commons? -- Director  ( talk )  12:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that it is not accurate in a specific sense, and this is an article about the Waffen SS, not the SS in general. We are not the only ones discussing this, I am interested in the views of Diannaa and Kierzek, and wish to build some consensus on the appropriate image for the infobox. There's no deadline. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of the discussion as to the "one official logo and slogan" of Nazi Germany which took place on that board (there was none). I agree that the Waffen-SS logo removed cannot be said to be "the one" official logo but it was a common representative logo which was used. I don't believe we should use the regular SS sig runes, nor the SS-VT version. We could make sure to label the one used as a representative logo or symbol. We are not going to find a "one" official logo. Now, I know one of you will say, what about the Waffen-SS sleeve eagle/Hoheitabzeichen. The problem with that is it was a sleeve uniform insignia only. It that our only option herein? Kierzek (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe we should not use something copied off a recruiting poster when we have the sleeve eagle, which is distinctive. Another option I flagged earlier is to use a pic of a Waffen-SS soldier. There is nothing that says we have to have a logo there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * your thoughts? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the image from the poster may not be an official logo after all. I like the sleeve eagle idea, or perhaps a soldier or group of soldiers wearing the distinctive insignia. The sleeve eagle does not seem to be exclusive to the Waffen-SS -- Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a soldier or group of soldiers would be best. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go with the sleeve eagle, so a "soldier or group of soldiers" is okay with me. Kierzek (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a few suggestions to get the conversation started. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to go with some ordinary soldiers rather than a notable individual, the one of the soldiers receiving awards would be good, shows the distinctive insignia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not keen to have one that shows smiling people, and the ones depicting more famous people have potentially undesirable political baggage. Photo "f" would work for me. Alternate choices: "a" or "c" -- Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say: f, g or h; in that order. Kierzek (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * f. works for me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sex dolls
Do you people think it's worth mentioning that Himmler, in 1940, introduced sex dolls for the Waffen-SS as a way to combat Syphilis at the front? I have a source here from The Huffington Post. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. Sounds pretty marginal. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It is not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

source that poles remained banned
"jews and poles remained banned" - can anybody confirm this?--212.118.232.148 (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, considering the fact that the Waffen-SS was a great multi-ethnic organization, and that the German Army had some Jewish soldiers and officers, I, also, would like to have someone confirm this. I have also heard in a BBC documentary that poles boosted the German conscripts in later 1944. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is patently untrue. See for example Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust, pg 321. The Polish government has admitted that Polish citizens- including ethnic Poles- served with the SS. It is an absurd lie to claim that some conception of Poles being 'sub-human' prevented their being employed in German fighting formations. The lack of Polish formations was simply a result of the ideas, misguided in my view, that the German leadership had regarding Polish fighting capabilities. 203.109.214.95 (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Entry requirements
This article has virtually no info on the super strict entry requirements of the Waffen-SS. I have sources which claims that out of every 100 applicants, only 7 were accepted. Furthermore, Dietrich insisted that all members had to be mature, between the ages of 23 to 35, in superb physical condition, and have a perfect ancestry record. All this could be fill out a section of its own. I'd like someone else's take on this. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. I will see what I can find in the books that are available locally. --- Diannaa (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have some sources from World Media Rights to backup the claims I just made above, but if you can find academic sources that would obviously be much better. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not academic sources per se, but fairly high quality books: Longerich's biography of Himmler; one called "Hitler's Master of the Dark Arts", which is written in a sort of a folksy tone but contains accurate information; and "Army of Evil: A History of the SS" by Adrian Weale. I will pick them up when I go to work on Monday. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, but actually I did mean books with "academic sources". :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well back from vacation. There are a number of good books on the SS in general and Waffen-SS, as well. I list some in my user page library. Weale's book is very good for a "newer history" book and Lumsden and McNab also have good books on the subject. Just remember that the requirement's for the LSSAH were even more strict than the regular Waffen-SS in the early years (you mention Dietrich, Jonas, so that would relate to the LSSAH requirements). Kierzek (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Perhaps I confused the entry requirements for the Waffen-SS with the ones of the LSSAH. Oh well, will relook at the sources related to the subject I have at hand and get back to you. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of Flaherty | Time-Life Book as source
Has Flaherty ever been discussed as reliable? It appears that he's not a historian (nor a scholar). In addition to The Third Reich: The SS, he's also written:

Amazon link to author page
 * The Way of the Warrior (American Indians)
 * Vikings: Raiders from the North (Lost Civilizations)
 * Mafia (True Crime)
 * True Crime serial killers

At best he writes 'popular history' and his book could well be a redundant tertiary source. He's referenced 23 times on the article's page.

Thought on this? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was discussed briefly before. The man is the Time-Life Books Managing Editor or was. I got the book years ago and frankly it is like a reference guide/introductory book; it gives a good overview for general readers and I have compared what is written therein to other works in cross-checking and vetting events and information. It is not a "low-quality history book", but on the other hand it is not the same as say:


 * But it is not meant to be either. I would compare it more to the works such as:
 * But it is not meant to be either. I would compare it more to the works such as:
 * But it is not meant to be either. I would compare it more to the works such as:
 * But it is not meant to be either. I would compare it more to the works such as:


 * As someone once said: "Citing a Time-Life book is really no different than citing Osprey titles". A fair statement. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone once said: "Citing a Time-Life book is really no different than citing Osprey titles". A fair statement. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone once said: "Citing a Time-Life book is really no different than citing Osprey titles". A fair statement. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone once said: "Citing a Time-Life book is really no different than citing Osprey titles". A fair statement. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone once said: "Citing a Time-Life book is really no different than citing Osprey titles". A fair statement. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Update to HIAG section
Hi, I've made considerable revisions to the linked article HIAG. I would like to update the HIAG section in this article to the lead from the HIAG main article as follows:

HIAG (Hilfsgemeinschaft auf Gegenseitigkeit der Angehörigen der ehemaligen Waffen-SS, literally "Mutual aid association of former Waffen-SS members") was a lobby group and a revisionist veteran's organisation founded by former high-ranking Waffen-SS personnel in West Germany in 1951. It campaigned for the legal, economic and historical rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS, using contacts with political parties to manipulate them for its purposes.

HIAG's historical revisionism encompassed multi-prong propaganda efforts, including periodicals, books and public speeches, alongside a publishing house that served as a platform for its publicity aims. This extensive body of work – 57 book titles and more than 50 years of monthly periodicals – have been described by historians as revisionist apologia.

Always in touch with its Nazi past, HIAG was a subject of significant controversy, both in West Germany and abroad. The organisation drifted into right-wing extremism in its later history; it was disbanded in 1992 at the federal level, but local groups, along with the organisation's monthly periodical, continued to exist at least through the 2000s, possibly into the 2010s.

While HIAG only partially achieved its goals of legal and economic rehabilitation of Waffen-SS, its propaganda efforts led to the reshaping of the image of Waffen-SS in popular culture. The results are still felt, with scholarly treatments drowned out by a large amount of amateur historical studies, memoirs, picture books, websites and wargames.

---Section ends---

Since this is a copy paste from the lead of the article, it currently contains no citations. I will provide detailed citations as this new content is introduced into the article. I would also like to replace the image as not relevant to HIAG's activities. Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * With RS cites to go along with the text, I don't see a problem with it. I know you have done a lot of work on the main HIAG article page. George Stein's classic work I know addresses the subject. I would change the wording of one sentence to :"The results are still felt, with the scholarly treatments being out-weighted by a large amount of amateur historical studies, memoirs, picture books, websites and wargames." Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks okay to me. Please be sure to provide the required attribution by mentioning in your edit summary that the material is copied from another Wikipedia article. See WP:copying within Wikipedia for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kierzek & Diannaa. I updated the section − please let me know if anything looks out of order. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

List of nationalities in the lead
I don't believe this long list of nationalities is not needed in the lead, especially as we get down to the "15-20 volunteers" from the U.S.A.:


 * Foreign SS units were made up from men in Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium (both Wallonia and Flanders), Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Galicia, Georgia, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russia (including Cossack and Tatar, Turkic SSR Republics), Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, Independent State of Croatia, Asian Regiment, Arab Regiment, USA (15-20 volunteers) and a small number of British troops.

I suggest moving it into the body of the article as this level of detail is not needed in the lead. Would like to hear what others says. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * the number of nationalities should be mentioned in the lead, including a few of the largest contributors. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The nationalities are a bit tricky, as many of these countries were occupied, such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium (both Wallonia and Flanders), Denmark, Estonia, Galicia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Russia (including Cossack and Tatar, Turkic SSR Republics), Ukraine. In addition, the "volunteers" were sometimes misled to the nature of what they were signing up for. Separately, as many as 1/3 of Waffen-SS 900,000 members were ethnic Germans from the occupied countries, IIRC. In the territories annexed to the Reich they were granted to German nationality; as such, they were not nationals of their country of origin any longer.


 * Due to the recruitment quotas within the Reich, the Waffen-SS personnel office had to, in effect, reach for recruits in the occupied and unoccupied territories. Related to that, some (most?) of the foreign legions which started the war serving with the Wehrmacht were transferred (unilaterally, IIRC) to the Waffen-SS towards the latter part of the war (i.e. the French, the Cossacks, etc). So the multi-ethnic nature of the Waffen-SS was mostly due to the exigencies of the war, rather than to the so-called pan-European unity.


 * How about something general to the effect that "in addition to German nationals and Volksdeutsche, the Waffen-SS forces comprised those who had been recruited or conscripted from among the nationals of Nazi-occupied Europe. Nationals of the Nordic countries were the most numerous contingent, with the Baltic states providing the highest number of recruits relative to the size of their population". I can provide a citation from Vol. IV of the Germany and the Second World War. The above discussion comes largely from the chapter on the Waffen-SS from the volume, although it's been a while since I read it, so I may have to adjust the wording. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds eminently sensible. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. BTW-certain sections are well cited, but others need additional cites. It is close to being a B class article but needs some tweaking and additional cites. If you gentlemen can help out, that would be good. Kierzek (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You might like to have a look at Gottlob Berger to see if there is anything in that article that would be useful in this one. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea; I see you put a lot of work into that article. Kierzek (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What the...?
There seem to be some confusion here? The intro says: "nations considered by Nazis to be "sub-human" like ethnic Poles or Jews remained excluded". I find this very hard to believe: I have sources from BBC that says that Waffen-SS divisions, particularly in 1944-45, had been boosted with Czech and Polish conscripts. Also, the German Army did indeed have many Jewish soldiers. Around 150,000 people with Jewish blood or ancestry would eventually serve in the German Wehrmacht, those included: 2 field marshals, 2 full generals, 8 lieutenant generals, and 5 major generals, and some of these would be awarded The Knights Cross. To name a few famous-Jews-serving-in-the-German-Army: Anton Mayer, Werner Goldberg, Helmut Wilberg, Walter Hollaender, Bernard Rogge, Paul Ascher, Horst Geitner who received the Iron Cross 2nd Class and Silver Wound Badge, Hermann Aub, and of course Emil Maurice.

I'd like someone else's opinion on this. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding Poles etc in the Waffen SS, please cite your source. As for 'people with Jewish blood or ancestry' serving in the Wehrmacht in general, that is not the topic of this article (though I note that you are being somewhat selective in what you say about the matter: Werner Goldberg for instance was expelled from the army in 1940 because of his Jewish ancestry). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the sources, it's a Ningus-Martin/BBC documentary called "Secrets of World War II", it's available online. Regarding Goldberg, he might have been dismissed in 1940, but that was in 1940: one year of active service. Also, I totally forgot to mention Erhard Milch, he was a field marshal, Görings deputy, and of Jewish decent. And also, Goldberg was just one example, unless you can explain all the others I mentioned, I will remain convinced in that belief. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jonas, this article is about the Waffen-SS, not the German Army. Your comment above provides information about Czech and Polish conscripts in the Waffen-SS, but not Jews. Do you have information about Jews in the Waffen-SS? If not, the information about them should be restored. You should also restore the information about the Poles and compare and contrast the BBC source with the Polish one. Deleting it is inappropriate. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, my point in mentioning the German Jews in the German army was to prove that people besides "Aryan Germans" did indeed fight for Germany, which is not commonly mentioned or believed. Besides, the Waffen-SS is famous for being multi-ethnic and multi-national military force, so I find it hard to believe that Poles and Jews remained banned, especially since the sources I have prove otherwise. Some people still deny that any non-Germans fought for Germany. |here Here is the link to the Ningus-Martin/BBC sources. I firmly believe the delete-editing I have done is entirely good faith. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please stay on-topic. This article is not about the Wehrmacht, or about what people 'believe'. If you have sources which state that Jews were knowingly permitted to serve in the Waffen-SS, please provide them. And please note that we cannot cite material uploaded to YouTube unless it has clearly been uploaded by the copyright holder (in fact, you shouldn't even link on talk pages). If you can find a legitimate upload, please give an indication of where in the video the relevant section is - it isn't reasonable to expect people to watch the entire episode to find it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On topic is Waffen-SS, not Wehrmacht. I'm pretty familar with the multi-ethnic aspect of the Waffen-SS having written four FA articles on non-German Balkan Waffen-SS divisions. I am reverting the edit because the deletion does not properly address the concerns that your contention covers only Poles, that the sources on the Poles should be compared and contrasted, and no source has been produced regarding Jews in the Waffen-SS. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You guys are more or less just repeating each other in defriend formulations. Also, I actually just wanted someone to confirm that Poles and Jews remained banned, didn't try to prove you defriend, but merely said I found that hard to believe since I've always been under the impression Poles were allowed, and since many Jews served in the German Army, which is not known for being a multi-ethnic or multi-national military force, it didn't quite make sense. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to be reading or comprehending what we are saying. And so far as I know, "defriend" only has a meaning on Facebook, not here. Do you mean "different"? If you make a bold edit and are reverted, the matter comes here for discussion, which is what we have been doing. The policy is WP:BRD. Without putting too sharp a point on it, your "impressions" and what you find "hard to believe", are essentially irrelevant. What you need are reliable published third party sources per WP:RS]. If you have one or some that say that Jews served in the Waffen-SS, produce them. If not, [[WP:DROPTHESTICK. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Correcting grammar is childish and a sign you have run out of meaningful things to mention. I'm not going to feel intimidated because you correct my grammar. Also, I have again and again emphasized my points which is, not surprisingly, being more of less neglected. I'm going to tell you the same thing I tell other users in similar situations: do whatever you feel is best for Wikipedia, I don't care because I know I have my heart and mind in the right place and is making a difference on Wikipedia. All edits I have done and will do in the future is done solely in the belief it's good faith edits. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No intent to intimidate. Just follow WP policies and we'll get along just fine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing I want more, friend... Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Waffen-SS being part of the SS, there was always the question of "applying SS standards" (which included being of "Germanic or species-related blood" for so and so many generations) as opposed to boosting the numbers.
 * It certainly was out of the question that Jews, half-Jews, or (I guess) quarter-Jews could have served in the Waffen-SS. That some may have served in the (State-run, not party-run) Wehrmacht is no disproof of that.
 * As for Poles, the question is less easy. It was officially a disputed question how to classify the Slavs. In the sense of the Hereditary Farmers Law (of 1933 or so), Slavs, for instance, were to be treated just as Germans. However, some did call the Slavs sub-human, afterwards. I wonder. I wouldn't exclude, especially given that foreign volunteers or pseudo-volunteers usually were drawn into the Waffen-SS rather than the Army, that some Poles may have been drawn into it too. (Ethnic Poles from Masuria, East Prussia, certainly served in the Wehrmacht.)--2001:A60:152E:C701:8155:84E7:A0D2:461F (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As for Jews serving in the SS I know factually of only one. Don't remember his name and I don't really care enough to look it up (I'm only adding to this discussion and don't care at all if it's added). I saw this on a documentary on Netflix. He worked for the SS office that wanted to revise the "glory" of Aryans, whatever that office was called. I'm 99.9% positive though it was not the Waffen-SS though. All this Jewish SS officer wanted was to find the Holy Grail and only Himmler's SS would fund him - but the SS did not know he was Jewish. Here's my 2/5th's of a nickel about what Vinther said above though: making all these statements about Jews in the Wehrmacht seems misleading in this discussion since we're talking about the SS. Solri89 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

SS were not soldiers
After I opened up this page to learn more history, the first thing that pops up is that pic of SS guys and the caption calls them soldiers. As an actual Veteran Soldier I take great exemption to the SS being called honorable in any way! Besides the fact that they were not soldiers. They were a paramilitary force of (opinion here -->) thugs! The Waffen-SS may have been trained as soldiers but they were not part of the Wehrmacht. Not only is it factually misleading but it's also insulting to real soldiers of any country, be they enemies or allies of my nation, to call them such. I do believe I would be justified in removing that word from this article but for the sake of those who would take exception to doing so without discussion, I post it here first. Solri89 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find you will not have consensus for that edit. They are referred to as soldiers in every academic text I've ever read on the subject. We call them what they are called by reliable sources, not based on opinion. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you were discussing most members, in a general sense, of the Allgemeine SS, you would have a such stronger argument, Solri89. But as for the Waffen-SS, I have to agree with Peacemaker67; he is correct that is what the RS sources state; which we must follow, not any WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's fine with me but I did not state opinion, I stated fact. Just because there is consensus on a subject, that does not make it fact.  Even this article states they were a paramilitary force.  The German government itself, after the war, stated they were not Wehrmacht soldiers.  So please refrain from stating your opinion that what I said is opinion because that's your opinion and your opinion is wrong.  And that's a fact!
 * Like I originally said, I started to read this article to learn so could you please elaborate on why you (Kierzek, I mean now) seperate the Waffen-SS from the Allgemeine-SS in this context. The Waffen were trained like soldiers, I understand that, where the Allgemeine were not.  Overall as SS though, all 3(?) corps(?) (is that correct to refer to them as corps?) were not part of the Wehrmacht.  Or is that the basis for your statement, that the Waffen-SS were trained and used as a field force?  I assume you're an intelligent individual, so please understand I'm asking a question and not attempting to be merely argumentative with you.   Solri89 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. Out of curiosity, I looked at the section in the book by to see how they treat the Waffen-SS in their discussion on the differences between Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS troops (from pp. 290 – 316). My results are below, arranged in the order of frequency of appearance on these pages (I'm using WSS for "Waffen-SS"; all instances of "SS" are about Waffen-SS): All other references appear once:
 * SS man/men (13)
 * WSS men (5)
 * WSS soldiers (3)
 * SS troop(s) (3)
 * WSS members (2)
 * Men from SS division [name] (2)
 * WSS fighters
 * Elite National Socialist troop
 * Nazi soldiers
 * SS ranks
 * Elite troops
 * Himmler's soldiers
 * SS soldiers

I returned most of most of my other Waffen-SS books, but it appears * predominantly uses "Waffen-SS men" (see this Google books preview and put Waffen in the search box instead of Hausser).

So my inclination would be to use "Waffen-SS men" or "Waffen-SS troops" based on what I've seen in sources so far. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. In my personal opinion (yes, I said opinion - this is the talk page) I would never refer to anyone in a paramilitary organization as a Soldier because factually (here come the screaming nay-sayers) no one in such a group is a Soldier. Soldiers are members of a nations military, specifically - Army. But personally I couldn't give a rats behind if others referred to such individuals as soldiers. Except for the SS! They were dirt scum who deserved all the hell they went through upon being captured after the war. They dished it, they deserve it. As a Veteran myself I would always show respect to an individual who picks up a weapon and fights for what they believe, even if they were my enemy, whether they fought as a military member or not. But not the SS! They could've joined an honorable organization as the Wehrmacht was before the war (they committed as much atrocities as the SS after the war started) but even in that case I would still give them the benefit of the doubt that they fought and served honorably. But the scum who joined the SS instead of the Wehrmacht whether they were Waffen or one of the other types of SS could have only joined (assuming they joined voluntarily) for personal rewards of power to impress a couple of lunatics at the top echelon of that criminal organization. Or they were psychopaths from the get-go themselves. They were pure dirt that even cockroaches would look down upon them. I hope I'm not mincing my words here. Fu**ing rapist murderering cowards! The whole lot of them! If I ever had the displeasure of actually meeting one nowadays I'd spit on him, kick him and smack him like the little expletive he is! And no I wouldn't care that he'd be 90+ y/o now! They didn't care about beating and murdering 90 y/o's. And no, I'm not Jewish. My ethnicity is one of the few non-Aryan groups they tolerated and attempted to ally with. Solri89 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, if I get banned from posting on Wikipedia's talk pages for what I just wrote - so be it! No one, no one, and I mean NO ONE should ever be "nice" to that group just to conform to the rules of society! Remember, that's what they did! Conformed with their leaders to be part of the whole. And we all know how that turned out! Solri89 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * K.e. I must disagree, There are many RS books that refer to them as "soldiers". To list a few: Soldiers of Destruction: The SS Death's Head Division, 1933-1945 by Charles W. Sydnor not only refers to them that way in the book title but throughout the book. Another, Valhalla's Warriors: A History of the Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front 1941-1945 by Terry Goldsworthy; as he states, "this military formation was peculiar in that it was integrated into the overall system of violence that was the SS...[and was used as] a political tool" (page 3). That is why it was a "defacto" fourth branch of the German military. As to your query Solri89, after the war in Europe started and by 1940, men were drafted into either the Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS. There was a separation in general terms between the Allgemeine SS (general SS) and the military trained Waffen-SS; although there were Waffen-SS units employed in Einsatzgruppen killing groups (and sub-groups) and Waffen-SS men were known to rotate in and out of KZ camps. As George Stein states, "by 1940 Waffen SS had become the official designation for the combat units of the SS" (p. xxx); and that is the difference I was driving at above; they were the military combat branch of the SS, where the Allgemeine SS was not. As for your "personal opinion", I will not comment, but to say, the Wehrmacht was not as "honorable" as many have been led to believe and we are not being "nice" to any Nazi group; only relating what the cited RS sources state. Kierzek (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not get me wrong, I don't think anyone here is pro-SS. I just really don't like what they were all about. I understand why most, even those who understand they were a paramilitary organization, would refer to them as "soldiers". Most likely due to the fact that of what else would you call them? Obviously, to me, the term "Soldier" is a term of honor. It is only to be reserved for a nations military. And honor is something the entire nazi state did not have. And I did check the WP rules, and the talk page is meant not just for attempting to obtain consensus but also for opinions. I just hate them and everything that whole party stood for. I did notice though that absolutely no one jumped to defend, not specifically them but the usual attitude that's given when a "rant" is posted. The fact that no one has fills me with pride for the human race. As everyone who's reading this knows that if someone made a similar statement, let's say about the old Soviet Union, numerous people would've came to their defense or at least the defense of WP to consider such talk as taboo. And no, I didn't make that statement to "see" what would happen. I just despise them as any decent human would. About the old USSR, I just used them as an example. I have no bad feelings to that old regime. They just had a totally different political viewpoint than most of the rest of the world. As far as your point, that's what I thought you were getting at. It's just obvious to me you have more detailed knowledge on this subject so I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I just happen to disagree with the use of that term to describe them but understand why most people would describe them that way. Two more questions though for you. KZ? And you said the Wehrmacht was as honorable as people were led to believe... Did you mean "not as honorable"? Or is there something I have learned in the past which I was misled about concerning the Wehrmacht? Please explain. Solri89 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * By the end of the war a significant proportion of the Waffen SS were illegally conscripted foreigners, such were the losses sustained by the German military. The reason these conscripts ended up in the Waffen-SS was that Wehrmacht would only conscript ethnic Germans. In what way were these conscripted soldiers more dishonourable than Wehrmacht conscripts? --Nug (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Read again. I did state if they voluntarily joined the SS.  I know the SS did forced conscription from 1943 on. Solri89 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Solri89: I made a scriveners error above (which I have now fixed); I did mean "not as honorable", just typing too fast. As for KZ, that was a German abbreviation for Konzentrationslager (Nazi concentration camps). Kierzek (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool! I learned something new today! Thanks! I always wanted to learn German just cuz of their fascinating history, going back to when they were betrayed by the Roman Consul Carbo in 113 B.C. (Not positive about that year) I've always been fascinated by history. Thanks bud. Solri89 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Commanders section
I wanted others opinions as to "Commanders" section. It is subjective who is and is not included and all are already discussed to some degree in the article. I was thinking of removing it, but wanted to hear from others first. Kierzek (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it should be limited to corps commanders and above. That is an objective test and all corps commanders are likely to be notable per WP:SOLDIER. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. Kierzek (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It also avoids opening it up to others who, whilst well-known and in some cases very active after the war, were not senior commanders (I'm thinking Kumm and Peiper etc). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since no one else has commented I went ahead and changed it accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Waffen-SS. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v6/a18/cu14v6a18.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Strength and Structure in infobox
Since there is clearly an edit war going on I thought we should post something to talk and discuss before more changes are made.


 * Strength: In the infobox, just my opinion, but I think a short statement of peak strength (IIRC, 38 Divisions) made sense. That was how it looked until recently. Now it's going back-and-forth with strength at various points in time. That's useful in the article, of course, because it shows how the W-SS started pretty small and got huge. In the info box I think it is just clutter. I look forward to hearing other opinions.


 * Structure: The Waffen_SS were a part of the general SS and never, ever, ever a part of the regular armed forces under OKW. W-SS combat units often came under the operational control of OKW units but that is a very different thing. I believe we do our readers a disservice by implying that the W-SS were a part of the regular Wehrmacht structure.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not needed in the info box; unneeded verbiage; second, the cite used for divisional numbers is not WP:RS in the end; third, DMorpheus2 is correct the OKW only had field operational command and the W-SS was never a part of it; the W-SS was a branch of the SS. Kierzek (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: The editor in question (Special:Contributions/SWF88) has been edit warring across multiple articles, such as World War II casualties, Wehrmacht, 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, Brandenburgers‎, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the mention of 38 divisions is enough for the infobox, as it shows the maximum strength. The lead should state what the starting and final strengths in total numbers were. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Strength
Is it being disputed that 900,000 men served in the Waffen-SS? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't; it is a commonly cited estimate. Kierzek (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Italicisation of Waffen-SS
It was noted at another place a while ago that this article doesn't italicise Waffen-SS. It seems to me that MOS:FOREIGNITALIC says a good rule of thumb is that WP does not italicise foreign words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online. I have searched Merriam-Webster Online for Waffen and Waffen-SS and neither word/combination appears. It therefore seems that Waffen-SS does not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English, and should be italicised. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember having a discussion on it a year ago. It was decided not to do so, given it is commonly known and used in English language RS books and sources for this specific organization. While I am all for using italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not currently used in English and am also against making up or using English translations which are not commonly found in RS works, in this case, I believe non-italicise for the word is acceptable. Kierzek (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about the translations, they aren't helpful. But surely the usage in reliable sources about this subject is "specialised English", which is exactly why Merriam-Webster is suggested as a rule of thumb for italicisation? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything to add to my thought, but to say Luftwaffe is a similar situation. I don't believe it needs to be in italics anymore either, for the reasons stated above. But I await comments by others. . Kierzek (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Chicago Manual of Style says to only italicize if the word is likely to be unfamiliar to the reader. It suggests perhaps italicizing the first usage only if a familiar foreign word is used repeatedly throughout the work. I checked several books I have on hand here and none use italics for this word. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)