Talk:Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts/Archive 2

Format
My suggestion would be to follow the structure in Hale, since he wrote a book on the subject, and then include in prose any other pertinent observations supported by sources. Something like this:


 * Finland:
 * Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS

Between 1,000 to 3,000 Finnish recruits served in the Waffen-SS. After training, the Finnish Volunteer Battalion was attached to the SS Regiment Nordland of the division. About 430 Finns who fought in the Winter War served within the SS Division Wiking division since the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. In spring 1943, the Finnish battalion was withdrawn. During that same timeframe, the Wiking's SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment Nordland was removed to help form the core of the new 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland. They were replaced by the Estonian infantry battalion Narwa. (or perhaps a bit shorter)


 * Would that work? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you guys think about the above suggestion? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of giving less information, given this is a list and readers can click on the links for more information. Kierzek (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that, for example, Finland section becomes:


 * Finland: 1,000
 * Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS ?

I think it's reasonable approach, if I'm reading correctly. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading through the page again, I believe the consensus is to do away with listing the country. We need to list the divisions and the units which formed the divisions or if they were never formally given a division name, then list the brigade, legion or unit with the make up of men and estimate numbers of men.
 * Something like this:

33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French)

Former units: Total served: 20,000(Stein|1984|p=136) What do you think guys? Kierzek (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism
 * 8th SS Volunteer Sturmbrigade France


 * I believe my original reservation on using the list by country was because the list looked "coat-racky" and OR, with "hanger-on" units, etc. It looked like the original editor trying to create an impression of the "pan-European crusade against bolshevism", or at least that's how it appeared to me when I first encountered the article.


 * I don't see issues using the country listing now after consulting Hale and we have an RS to base the list on. But I'm open to other interpretations. If using Hale, the list would be drastically reduced anyway -- I'm guessing to about half or a third of what's currently in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hale? I don't know that work. Can you list it here. As for listing by country, a problem is how to handle, for example, the Soviet Union regions and the Cossacks. Kierzek (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Here it is. Not all units in his list are Waffen-SS; some are police and some Wehrmacht. He include Soviet Union as one entry, so Ukrainian, Caucasian units would fall under that.

Here's a partial preview of the appendix that I've been referencing; scroll down to page 388. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I had not seen Hale's book before. The title and write up of the book is sensational and has a tabloid feel to say the least; to attract the general reader, no doubt. But, the appendix is accurate, from my read through and a good guideline to follow herein. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not say so. It looks like a reasonably scholarly work. It has 15 pages of sources (some archival) and 25 pages of notes. I would call it RS on the subject. Here's the author's article: Christopher Hale. I would probably compare him to Beevor. Add: the cover has a blurb from Michael Burleigh, who is a respected scholar: "Fascinating... assiduously researched." K.e.coffman (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not saying his work is not RS, just that the title and write up are unfortunate as it gives an unnecessary diminishing first impression to someone who is not a general reader. BTW - does his book give estimate numbers? Right now, I have Stein and McNab for use as to estimates (which can vary). Kierzek (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad -- read too quickly. Sorry! What's interesting is that I did not get the same impression from the book title. It did not sound sensationalist to me, but rather descriptive. :-). As a side note, what I found objectionable about the original article (and now about the one below) is the theme of "Freiwellige", "European crusade against communism", etc. Let's call it what it is -- collaborationism.
 * In any case, I will take a stab tonight using Hale and will post here with any questions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Kierzek (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Spain
Total: 40,000 This total appears to include Blue Division, Blue legion, which were not Waffen-SS units (?)
 * Correct, the Blue Division was not transferred over to the SS. But there was the small: Spanische-Freiwilligen Kompanie der SS 101. Will have to look for a cite to use for same. Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine
Total: close to 30,000 Total appears to include units beyond 14th SS Division; not sure how it should be included


 * Will have to look in Stein; maybe Hale can give you further insight. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

To do
I worked from the bottom and from the top; so the middle, from Estonia to Netherland, still remains to be done. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, good so far, but I do believe that SS Division Wiking and SS Division Nordland need to be re-added to certain sections as even if the divisions were not completely made up of one certain nationality, if that nationally helped form part of it, then that division will have to be mentioned accordingly for that section. Kierzek (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Revise: yes, located the relevant page in Hale for Denmark, will check for the others and add where applicable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See the photo I added in the info box; what do you think? Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Denmark
Total: 6,000
 * Freiwilligen Legion Danemark (1941): 1,164

Freiwilligen Legion Danemark does not appear in Hale's appendix. He lists Frikorps Danmark which was dissolved in 1943 and replaced with the SS Div. Nederland. Kierzek, could you double check Stein? I assume that's the same formation. Per Hale and linked article, Frikorps Danmark was not a Waffen-SS unit, as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Stein states, on page 153, "The Waffen-SS established four national legions..." and goes on to say on page 154, "...response had been greatest in the Netherlands...2559 men for Legion "Niederlande". Far behind came Legion "Norwegen" with 1218 men and "Freikorps" Danemark (the designation Legion had been dropped) with 1164. The throughly disillusioned Flemings brought up the rear with their 875 men."
 * So there is your answer as to "Legion Danemark", per Stein anyway. And the photo in the Frikorps Danmark Wikipedia article page shows the men in Waffen-SS style uniforms. Kierzek (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So keep, but rename and link to Free Corps Denmark? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and here is the photo (below) - Waffen-SS style uniforms and Waffen-SS rank collar tabs. And their unit commanders all had Waffen-SS ranks. Kierzek (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

.

European non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II
On a related note, the article "European non-Germans..." may also need attention, and possibly merging / redirecting in part to this article and the Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts. It looks to be ORish to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As for the "European non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II" article; from a very quick look it seems redundant and not needed as a separate article. Ugh, more work to tidy up and fix. Kierzek (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. :-) In a prior life it was merged with Freiwilligen. So more untangling to do. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This book would be of help. "The Unknown Eastern Front: The Wehrmacht and Hitler's Foreign Soldiers" by Muller. I don't have it but looked at it in preview; it covers German Army and Waffen-SS. Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * now that I know you have the Muller book. Kierzek (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Foreign Waffen-SS" list unclear
Many units filled before 1944 primarily​ Volksdeutsch seem to be missing from the list while others were included. Overall this article has a not of issues. Stardude82 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Post-war trials section
Should this section be dispensed with? It's mostly unreliably cited, and contains some dubious claims. It either needs to be re-written or removed:

After the German Instrument of Surrender, many volunteers were tried and imprisoned by their countries. In several cases, volunteers were executed. Henri Joseph Fenet, one of the last recipients of the Knight's Cross was sentenced to 20 years of forced labour and released from prison in 1959. Some were far less lucky and were shot upon capture by the French authorities. General Leclerc was famously presented with a defiant group of 11 or 12 captured 33rd SS Charlemagne men. The Free French General immediately asked them why they wore a German uniform, to which one of them replied by asking the General why he wore an American one; the Free French wore modified US Army uniforms. The group of French Waffen-SS men was then promptly executed without any form of military tribunal procedure.

Walloon leader Leon Degrelle escaped to Spain, where, despite being sentenced to death in absentia by the Belgian authorities, he lived in exile until his death in 1994. Some 146 Baltic soldiers from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia who fought against Soviets and escaped to Sweden were extradited to Soviet Union in 1946.

The men of the XV SS Cossack Corps found themselves in Austria at the end of the war and surrendered to British troops. Even though they were given assurances that they would not be turned over to the Soviets, they nevertheless were forcibly removed from the compound and transferred to the USSR. This event became known as the Betrayal of the Cossacks. Most of the Cossacks were executed for treason.

After the war members of Baltic Waffen-SS Units were considered separate and distinct in purpose, ideology and activities from the German SS by the Western Allies. Subsequently in the spring of 1946, out of the ranks of Baltic conscripts who had surrendered to the Western allies in the previous year, a total of nine companies were formed with a mission to guard the external perimeter of the Nuremberg International Tribunal courthouse and the various depots and residences of US officers and prosecutors connected with the trial. The men were also entrusted with guarding the accused Nazi war criminals held in prison during the trial up until the day of execution.

Opinions?

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Some post-World War II piece is needed. Something like: "Many Waffen-SS members and units were responsible for war crimes against civilians and allied servicemen. After the war the SS organisation as a whole was held to be a criminal organization by the post-war German government, due to evidence that it was responsible for war crimes. During the Nuremberg Trials, the Waffen-SS was declared a criminal organisation, (Stein|1984|p=251) except conscripts from 1943 onward, who were exempted from that judgement as they had been forced to join. A number of volunteers were executed, while others were tried and imprisoned by their countries. Still others either lived in exile or just returned to their homeland." Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This sounds good. I will use your version, and look for a cite later. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * While i agree with the adding of war crimes committed by foreign volunteers i think this article is somewhat biased and relies too much on (Stein|1984|). Also the claims that conscripts from 1943 onward were exempted is wrong. I know that because a couple of foreign volunteers who settled in West Germany after WW2 were still treated the same as those joining before 1943. This includes french, cossack, walloon and some other Waffen SS veterans. This is anecdotal though, so of course i won't add it but will be gathering sources for this as this is also a topic many reliable sources from the IFZ in Germany wrote about this. ChartreuxCat (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Baltic Waffen-Grenadier Units
Which country's uniform did they wear? Nuttyskin (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They wore Waffen-SS field grey with their own unit insignia patch. Kierzek (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Croatia


about your recent edit, I don't understand why it would be "obsolete" or "offensive", in this page we represent the contemporary status-quo - as it is done in plenty of pages - but it does not mean we judge if it is fair or not etc., thus in case this change turns upside down the consistence of the article, I don't see a reason for that.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC))
 * I think now I understood....you meant that just the reference "Croatia" would be like that...well, we may solve it easily as really fully clarify what entity we are speaking about...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC))


 * Yes. Croatia != Independent State of Croatia. And the latter title in and of itself is offensive and shouldn't be used more than necessary - it's a historical lie by a bunch of fascists running a puppet state (d'oh!). And specifically the two Waffen-SS divisions were specifically recruited mainly from Bosnia, so it makes sense to mention that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Well I think we cannot change history - sometimes unfortunately - back in time, so I would stick to the contemporary official name (= meaning the English one correspondent in WP), but of course, in the specific section you may add details about the recruitment from Bosnia or anything that is relevant ot the topic.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC))
 * Changing that section heading is by no means an attempt to change history. Those regions under the rule of the NDH were in fact commonly known as "Croatia" and "Bosnia" prior, during, and after that time. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you misunderstood me in a way, I just wanted to express that accuracy is very important, especially regarding contemporary status quo that may generate in some cases huge problems - experienced a lot since early medieval history until the modern era, i.e. with Hungary, having suffered many territorial/status quo changes in her territory - I never debated in this specific context that prior/during/after how any regions/countries would be called, but the section headings are following contemporary status quo precisely, regardless how commonly some regions were known. I mean there is no double measure, regarding any country/entity. Of course I have no problem with any further expansion with specific information, let it be official or just commonly known.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC))
 * Yes, that is fine. Just making sure we realize that that is an editorial decision, to make things consistent on the contemporary names of states, as opposed to some other naming scheme. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Finnish SS volunteers in Gross Born.jpg

Use of Source Marc J. Rikmenspoel
- After reviewing the works of this recently cited author, Marc J. Rikmenspoel, I am a bit concerned that his work is not unlike the specious and unreliable scholarship from Chris Ailsby, Gordon Williamson, and Robin Lumsden. It does not really appear like academic work, but is popular history, some of which traverses the realm of glorification. Rikmenspoel has published previously under J.J. Fedorowicz, which as we all know, is not the most objective. Since I cannot be sure, I thought I would raise this matter with some of my fellow trusted subject matter experts for their take. Should we tag these as better source needed? As we all know, in 2006 historians Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies identified Fedorowicz among others, as leading publishers in war-romanticization literature and my take is that anyone who published under them deserves careful scrutiny. --Obenritter (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes absolutely. This article needs high quality sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was trying to remember where I read that name and it came to me; he wrote a section/chapter in a book: "Slaughterhouse: The Handbook of the Eastern Front" (2004), which I bought and owned at one time for the parts/sections therein written by David Glantz. I only read the sections by Glantz and then got rid of the book. Otherwise, I do not know anything about Rikmenspoel or his work. But, I trust your judgment, Obenritter, and he should go if his work is like Williamson, Bishop, Goldsworthy and Lumden. Kierzek (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks ; it's such a generic popular history approach that I am suspicious of its academic integrity from the start. Tagging accordingly. Yeah, I have a copy of that work as well, but I only purchased it because Glantz had also contributed to it. If anyone has the time or inclination to improve these refs once I tag them, by all means do your thing.--Obenritter (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hold the presses, I just noted that the cited work by Marc J. Rikmenspoel in question, appears in the USHMM catalog. See: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/bib227016 Now I am rethinking this work as possibly legitimate. --Obenritter (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * USHMM also has books by David Irving and Mark C. Yerger  Doesn't make them WP:RS. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Aberjona Press isn't considered a high quality publisher, so this probably isn't a RS. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - That I did not know, but that changes things for sure. - My instincts were correct then.--Obenritter (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the USHMM library is giant. They have a lot of books that aren't found in other US libraries at all. I think they try to have a copy of anything even tangentially related to their area of focus. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Disputing this article's accuracy
This article is certainly wrong in many ways. Here's just two examples.

1. The British Free Corps had ~1500 members? Wikipedia's own page on the BFC says it had something like 57. Why, then, is the number inflated by a factor of almost 30 on this page? 2. There was an Irish brigade of the SS with 400 members? That seems fanciful at best, but it's wrong, without doubt, to include Irish volunteers under the United Kingdom bullet. Ireland is not part of the UK.

Did you check the relevant citations for the numbers issue? Ireland isn't part of the UK, but numerous ethnic Irish live in Northern Ireland, and the Irish of the Free State volunteered in the British Army during ww2, leading to ostracisation post war Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)