# Talk:HIAG

I removed the recently added logo: diff. The logo is not well known and does not add much to the article. In addition, the logo appears to be self-made and does not accurately represent the actual logo of the group. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The logo is made based on photos on the page itself, such as file:Der Freiwillige 1959 cover.jpg and file:HIAG-Ulrichsberg.jpg and other sources such as this. Futhermore, the fact that it is not well known, should not negate its presence on the page. It is, as far as I can see, the logo of the organisation and should therefore be represented in the infobox. Regards Skjoldbro (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
FWIW the lettering font varies among the examples, so it‘s hard to say what the “actual logo“ should be—although the one on the magazine cover (probably Futura) strikes me as the most characteristic of the period.—Odysseus1479 18:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
So apart from the font, you would say that the logo appears to be accurately presented? Because, if that is the case, then it is an easy to fix, if that is what is needed for it to be “allowed” back. Skjoldbro (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
A self-created logo is original research, which Wikipedia does not publish. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
So you are saying that the work is not accurate? Because as I stated just before, the image has been created based on photos found on the page itself. If that is the case, then please tell me which other logos are more accurate, so that I can improve it. Or are you simply referring to the fact that it is a vector image? Skjoldbro (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
At minimum, a reliable source is needed to confirm that this is actually the group's logo (and not an image used informally). The copyright situation also needs to be considered: is it possible for the group to claim copyright over a simple design such as this under US or German law? If so, we can only host a small version of it under a fair use claim. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Appearing on their own publication, could be argued to be an official source. However, it is possible to just name it "Unofficial logo" in the infobox, if that is not enough. And since it is base on the File:Balkenkreuz.svg, I can't see how there would be any copyright claim. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
A reliable source is also needed to confirm that this is an 'unofficial logo', and why it is still so significant that it should go in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Nick-D: I found a book published by them, collections of their membership magazines, a picture of Kurt Meyer standing behind it and members in front of the logo, adding that to the pile of their flag, membership pins and their own membership magazine. Seems like it is the official logo. Skjoldbro (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

While I'm sure that any criticism will immediately be met with disingenuous claims about "reputable sources" (Quoting the same handful of historians, ignoring other historians) the biased, tendentious and selective nature of this article needs to be pointed out.
That some of HIAGs claims have a factual basis, is completely ignored. Such as:

The research done by Scandinavian historians (such as Claus Bundgaard) on Scandinavian Waffen SS volunteers disproves the notion that a majority of these were Nazis. Indeed, the motivation for joining Waffen SS was quite varied and for the most part, volunteers were motivated by: Sense of adventure, economic opportunity, hostility to communism and pan-nordic or nationalist sympathies. (Wanting to restore Danish honor, for example.)
The "Baltic problem". According to the Nurnberg trials and the post war denazification efforts, The Baltic Waffen SS divisions were not to be considered war criminals, and membership of these was not illegal. (The number of Baltic volunteers was significant: 5 divisions.)
So apparently a significant amount of Waffen SS divisions WERE officially "soldiers like any other", according to the allieds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.140.140 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If one excuses genocide, yeah, sure. Fringe, uncredited writing by people who were 'in tune' with the Third Reich are not Reliable Sources.50.111.25.253 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The section claims that HIAG was "increasingly ostracized" and disbanded itself.
The wording inaccurately suggests that the dissolution was caused by increased focus/pressure on the group. 
But the real reason for why HIAG ceased to exist on a federal level is never given.
The real reason for the dissolution, which should be mentioned, is obviously that:
A: HIAG was founded as a "kameradenschaft" mutual aid organization for former Waffen SS members. Due to the passage of time, and as WWII fades into history, there were very few Waffen SS members left to organize/benefit.
B: HIAG had outlived itself, and mostly succesfully reached its aims. Pensions had mostly been solved decades ago. And with an entire cottage industry revolving around WWII (with a focus of Waffen SS, Waffen SS historical reenactors etc.) the need for an organization to "defend their honor" was no longer there.
(Indeed, the passage of time will ultimately fulfill HIAGs goal of rehabilitating Waffen SS. Just look at Ghengis Khan for example. Or Napoleon.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.140.140 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I changed "German society, wanting to forget the past, embraced the image" into "parts of the German society" because it's a very far stretch to claim that German society or even anything close to a majority of it, at least today, wants to forget the past or sees Waffen-SS as "engaged in a noble crusade". Making such a claim without presenting any source seems highly tendentious to me. In Germany you find numerous Holocaust memorials even as memorial stones in front of more than 75,000 houses, numerous of the former concentration camps are now museums and there was a much debated exposition about crimes of Wehrmacht. I would say that it is undisputed among a very big majority of the German society that Waffen-SS was a criminal organization, as could also be seen in the discussion when for example Günter Grass revealed that he had been member of Waffen-SS when he was 17 years old. Supsudelu (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Supsudelu: Sorry about the sentence being vague / potentially derogatory. I removed it since I don't have access to the source (MacKenzie). I'm quite certain that it did not deal with the contemporary German society, but rather with that of West Germany. The sentence started with: West German researchers questioned these notions....  But since I'm not sure whether it was about the 1950s or a longer period, I removed it: [1]. It's also a bit superfluous since the section HIAG#Transition into right-wing extremism already deals with when and how the attitudes of the German society changed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It depends WHEN we're talking about with German society. German attitudes and memory regarding WW2 in 1950s and 1960s were quite different from what they are now. Germany did not become the introspective and self-aware country that it is today overnight. It took time. The fact that the exhibition about the Wehrmacht's war crimes didn't take place until the mid-1990s is testament to that. 2A0A:EF40:2EC:E201:10C9:A6A8:D40C:CCB6 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Time for a source check! Roniiustalk to me 15:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


### Large 1987
Citation 1. No info about the Potsdam conference, removed.
Citation 2. Edit scar, but info is relevant. Removed Citation 1.
Citation 9.

1. Counts.
2. Definitely counts.
3. Counts.
Citation 11.

1. I think this counts.
2. Think this also counts.
3. Counts, but changed to 93-94
Citation 18. Counts.
Citation 19. Removed quotes.
Citation 21. OR removed.
Citation 23. OR removed, changed to 86-87.
Citation 25. OR removed.
Citation 26. Counts.
Citation 30. Can't find anything. Do the conventions refer to the Suchdiensttreffen? Removed anyhow.
Citation 31. Counts, changed citation.
Citation 35. Removed OR.
Citation 36. Counts, but removed OR.
Citation 37. Removed OR.

Note: the above listing appears to have been added by Roniius. It does not sound like any action on my part is needed as these issues may have already been addressed -- could you confirm? --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Roniiustalk to me 16:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you. -K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I'll be working from this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation [41]
Large 1987, p. 92.
In 1954 plans for a HIAG convention in Göttingen faced strong opposition from the local Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Jewish Council, the Students' Association and the University hierarchy. Federal government officials intervened, and the event was first postponed and then scaled down to a much smaller meeting lacking the qualities of a political event.

Verified. The last sentence borrows the words scaled down to a much smaller meeting lacking the qualities of a political event. from the source, however. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you. -K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [43]
Large 1987, p. 101.
Large, who studied HIAG extensively, stated in 1987 that HIAG's anti-democratic and anti-Semitic statements were "the essence of what HIAG was all about", concluding that the HIAG's leaders remained true to their Nazi ideology. [In note: Large: They "never cast off the political philosophy in which they had been reared and trained"]

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you. -K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [44]
Large 1987, p. 90.
Lobbying by HIAG and other revisionists produced some early successes. In 1953, Chancellor Adenauer announced in a public speech in Hannover that members of the combat formations of the Waffen-SS had been "soldiers just like the rest" who had been "simply drafted". Large describes this declaration as "irresponsible and unhistorical," [...]

Not verified. The source for this is actually page 89; I have adjusted the first citation in the highlighted text (who had been "simply drafted".[44]) accordingly. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Is Not verified. something I need to address, or did I have adjusted the first citation... take care of this issue? --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I've taken care of the issue, so no need to worry where I note changing the citation. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you. -K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [47]
Large 1987, p. 102.
This was the timeframe when HIAG achieved its last success in economic rehabilitation: in 1961, the West German government partially restored pension rights to Waffen-SS personnel under the 131 legislation. Included were those former Waffen-SS members who had served for a minimum of 10 years strictly in a military capacity, thus amounting to a tiny number of eligible personnel. HIAG greeted this development as a partial victory, which they hoped would lead to a complete rehabilitation.

Half-verified. The sentence Included were those former Waffen-SS members who had served for a minimum of 10 years strictly in a military capacity, thus amounting to a tiny number of eligible personnel. is not supported by the cited page.
This rings some bells, but cannot find it, so removed. If I'm able to locate this, I will restore. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you. -K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [49]
Large 1987, p. 81.
HIAG aimed to reverse that judgement through significant propaganda efforts in the service of its Historical negationism. [In note: According to Large, HIAG attempted "to manipulate historical record or simply to ignore it".]

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you. -K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC))
[...] HIAG attempted to rewrite and manipulate history.

Half-verified. The cited page talks about a general trend in post-war Germany to whitewash history. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Vami IV: I feel that there's a sufficient basis for the cite, as expressed by this text: More important, however, the [HIAG] story is valuable as a case study in the broader post-war conflict... It illuminates that process...: to manipulate historical record or simply to ignore it. Given that HIAG is a "case study" in this particular manipulation, I feel the the cite was justified. I may be wrong and this would not pass the FAC muster. Perhaps, "According to Large, HIAG was a case study in the broader West German process of historical manipulation", etc. Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah. In that case, yeah, add the suggested sentence in. (In a first draft of this reply my suggestion was "Ah, Large should be quoted then.") –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Reworded.
 -K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [52]
Large 1987, p. 84.
HIAG's first periodical was Wiking-Ruf. Gille launched it in 1951 and it was initially aimed at the veterans of the SS Division Wiking. Within its first year of existence, it became the official publication of HIAG. In 1955, it was renamed Der Freiwillige [de] ("The Volunteer").

Not verified. Page 84 says nothing about any of this.
Reworded and aligned citations to pp 82 (Wiking-Ruf) and 84 (Der Freiwillige).

Resolved. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [82]
Large 1987, pp. 111–112.
[...] while Large uses the words "extravagant fantasies about [Waffen-SS's] past and future".

Verified to Page 112. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
HIAG's performance as a lobbying organisation was mixed. Large sees a "combination of resentment, myopia and inflated self-importance" in HIAG's efforts and attitudes. "[The campaign] to regain their 'honour' and exercise political influence (...) was only partially successful," he writes. He credits West Germany's government, major political parties and military planners with keeping sufficient distance from HIAG and other veterans' organisations to limit their role in the new republic and its armed forces. "In that respect, (...) Bonn was not Weimar," he concludes.

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Resoved. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [85]
Large 1987, pp. 112–113.
In the 1960s, it became clear that the legal rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS was out of HIAG's reach. At the same time, attitudes in Germany were beginning to change. Waffen-SS veterans' activities were increasingly greeted by suspicion from the community, while the government and military planners came to the realisation that they could meet their goals of rearmament without the former Waffen-SS men. HIAG was thus increasingly marginalised and ignored by political parties, while any pretence of moderation no longer served a purpose as no further benefits were forthcoming from the government.

Not verified. The cited pages do not discuss this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done
Removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


### Smelser & Davies 2008
Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [3]: Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 73–74.
Wikipedia: Another important post-war development was the decision to rearm West Germany. In 1950, after the outbreak of the Korean War, it became clear to the United States that German armed forces would need to be reconstituted. Former German officers used the changing political and military situation as a leverage to demand a rehabilitation of the Wehrmacht. In October 1950, a group of former senior officers produced a document, which became known as the Himmerod memorandum, for West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer. It included the demands that German war criminals be released and that the "defamation" of the German soldiers, including the Waffen-SS personnel, cease, which Adenauer worked to implement.

Verified to pages 73–74. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [4]: Smelser & Davies 2008, p. 74.
Wikipedia: To accommodate the West German government, the Allies commuted a number of war crimes sentences.

Not verified. Page 74 states that Adenauer had been convinced to lobby the Allies for the release of imprisoned Nazis. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Further down in the same para (immediately after Adenauer's lobbying), S&D write: "Part of McCloy's willingness to commute a number of sentences ... undoubtedly went back to this condition [release of German war criminals]".
 Done
Covered in the cited source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Citation [6]: Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 74–75.
Wikipedia: Public declaration from Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower followed in January 1951, which read in part:

Verified. The quotation that follows this citation is also printed on page 75.
. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [7]: Smelser & Davies 2008, p. 75.

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [100]: Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 173–178.
Wikipedia: [...] and Franz Kurowski, who provided numerous wartime chronicles of Waffen-SS units and highly decorated men, such as Michael Wittmann.

Verified to 173–74; the other pages discuss Kurowski's lingering influence, especially as always-in-print books sold on Amazon. 176–78 relate a couple examples of Kurowski's broth of horse feathers. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fixed page numbers. . --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [102]: Smelser & Davies 2008, p. 251.
Wikipedia: Critics have been especially dismissive of Kurowski's works, describing them as Landser-pulp ("soldier-pulp") literature and "laudatory texts", that focus on hero-making at the expense of the historical truth.

Not verified. Page 251 says nothing of the sort; the page is part of a discussion of the consumers of Nazi-Wehrmacht apologist bunk. A quick search of the PDF I have of this book also reveals no use of the word "pulp" in the book. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I reworded to put the three citations each following the text they support, rather than at the end of the sentence. "Laudatory texts" appear in S&D 2008, p. 251, in the first para on the page. The end result is:
Critics have been especially dismissive of Kurowski, describing him as a "hackwriter" and his works as Landser-pulp ("soldier-pulp") and "laudatory texts", that provide a "mix of fact and fancy". 

--K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [104]: Smelser & Davies 2008, p. 159.

Excellent, all good here now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia: Another prolific author, Mark Yerger, published 11 books up to 2008, mostly through Schiffer Publishing.

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


### Wette 2007
Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation [5]
Wette 2007, pp. 236–238.
To accommodate the West German government, the Allies commuted a number of war crimes sentences.[4] Public declaration from Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower followed in January 1951, which read in part:

Verified. The quoted pages do not reproduce the quote that follows. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Adjusted page number & moved the cite earlier to read "Public declaration from Supreme Allied Commander [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] followed in January 1951,{{sfn|Wette|2007|p=237}} ...
.
--K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


### Diehl 1993
Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation [9]
Diehl 1993, p. 224.
Since 1949, the ban on forming veterans' associations had been lifted. Encouraged by the shifting tone of the World War II discourse and the courting of the Wehrmacht veterans by the West German government and political parties, former Waffen-SS members came forward to campaign for their interests.

Google Books would not show this page to me. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [84]
Diehl 1993, p. 225.
The historian James M. Diehl describes HIAG's claims of the Waffen-SS being the so-called fourth branch of the Wehrmacht as "false", and HIAG's insistence that the force was a precursor to NATO as "even more outrageous".

Not verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [96]
Diehl 1993, p. 236.
HIAG never grew to the size of other West German veterans' organisations, the most successful of which, VdH, had membership approaching 500,000. Diehl, who studied postwar veterans' movements in West Germany, writes that the overwhelming majority of Waffen-SS veterans, who were more interested in rebuilding their civilian lives or getting too old to consider returning to military service, ignored Der Freiwillige's "fire-eating editorials". HIAG's membership began to fall sharply in the 1960s, while the organisation itself was never a significant threat to democracy. "HIAG's main goal was pensions, not a restoration of the Third Reich," he notes.

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


### Parker 2014
Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation [17]
Parker 2014, p. 295.
[...] as of 1976 Hubert Meyer acted as the federal spokesperson.

Verified, but this is flimsy. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Removed.
 Done --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Citation [55]
Parker 2014, p. 215.
In 1973, HIAG produced a five-hundred page SS picture tome under the nostalgic title When All Our Brothers Are Silent. Hausser spearheaded the project with Jochen Peiper, a controversial Waffen-SS figure, as a contributor.

Verified, but the source states that Peiper worked on the book in 1972. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Fixed the year.
 Done. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Waffen-SS unit histories were produced with assistance from HIAG from the 1950s. Walter Harzer took on the role of the official historian of HIAG, in charge of coordinating the writing of the histories of Waffen-SS divisions.

Not verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Reworked.
 Done --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
HIAG worked with historian Ernst Klink of the Military History Research Office (MGFA) in Freiburg to screen materials donated to the German Federal Military Archive [de] for any information that may have implicated units and personnel in questionable activity.

Half-verified. There is no mention of the MGFA or German Federal Military Archive on the page. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Added additional page where this is covered in the note.
 Done --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Many of the organisation's founding members did not evolve with the times. For example, at least through the 1970s, Kumm remained "the ever unreformed Nazi enthusiast," according to Parker.

Half-verified. No mention of the HIAG archives is made on the page. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Reworked.
 Done --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Citation [56]
Parker 2014, p. 81–82.
Other similar books included Scattered are the Traces (1979), Cavalry Divisions of the Waffen-SS (1982), Panzer Grenadiers of the 'Viking' Division in Pictures (1984) and many others. (One of the cavalry units in question, SS Cavalry Brigade, was responsible for the murder of an estimated 23,700 Jews and others in July–August 1941 alone during the Pripyat swamps punitive operation. Its regimental commander Lombard reported eliminating close to 11,000 "plunderers" in the first two weeks the same operation).

Not verified. 11,000 fatalities from Lombard's actions is accurate to Parker, but the word "plunderers" is attached to the murder of 13,788 people by the end of August 1941. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [75]
Parker 2014, p. 217.
The researcher Danny S. Parker notes similar efforts undertaken to rewrite the history of the Leibstandarte division. [In note: According to Parker, "the way the old comrades wanted it remembered".]

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
HIAG worked with Rudolf Lehmann, chief of staff of 1st SS Panzer Corps, to produce what Parker calls an "exculpating multi-volume chronicle" of the division, even including the Malmedy massacre. HIAG involved a legal consultant to make sure the account would be within the framework of the strict German laws prohibiting glorification of the Nazi past. [In note: Danny Parker calls the pamphlet an "exculpatory manifesto" and writes: "The literary subversion worked. Now the SS veterans moved themselves from the prosecutors to the prosecuted!"

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I cannot at this time access the rest of Parker 2014. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


#### Parker snippets
Article text: 
The rhetoric of victimhood and pan-European unity continued well into the later history of HIAG. At Peiper's memorial in 1976, Hubert Meyer referenced Peiper's open letter from Landsberg Prison, which had been previously quoted in Hausser's 1953 books:Hubert Meyer's speech later appeared in the November 1976 issue of Der Freiwillige.

For a broad public in Germany and even more throughout the rest of the world, [Peiper] has become the embodiment of that which all of us were clearly, intentionally and wrongly burdened in Nuremberg.... We have not forgotten what Jochen Peiper wrote to us from Landsberg Prison in 1952: "Don't forget that the first Europeans killed in action were in the units of the Waffen-SS, that the ones beaten to death during the post war period mostly were men from our ranks. They had become fair game because of their belief in the indivisibility of Western Europe. Remember these martyrs.

Parker, p. 296 -- the material used actually spans pp. 295-296, and reads: "Hubert Meyer, the federal spokesperson for HIAG, the Waffen-SS veterans organization, gave a short speech [at Peiper's memorial]." [snip]. [The quote then follows, with some excisions, as it appears in the article]. The text The rhetoric of victimhood and pan-European unity continued well into the later history of HIAG. will need a separate citation.
Parker, p. 416. This is note 67, which reads: "Meyer's speech from Peiper's memorial service is taken from Der Freiwillige, Nov. 1976, 5. The quote from Peiper's open letter from Landsberg, "Worte aus Landsberg", is taken from Paul Hausser, Waffen-SS im Einsatz (Goettinggen: Plesse Verlag, 1953), 262-269."
I fixed page range & removed the note formatting in the article text, so now everything is in a flat cite. Cn tag already added previously. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
The project also included the former chief of staff of the unit, Dietrich Ziemssen, who in 1952 produced a denialist version of the massacre in his pamphlet Der Malmedy Prozess. Danny Parker calls the pamphlet an "exculpatory manifesto" and writes: "The literary subversion worked. Now the SS veterans moved themselves from the prosecutors to the prosecuted!"

Parker, page 217 -- "The 1968 Fasching meeting had also discussed a more pointed objective--to begin the project to rewrite the history of the Leibstandarte, the way the old comrades wanted it remembered. ...  This work had originally been the domain of Dietrich, Rolf Reiser, and Arndt Fischer, who now became Peiper's dentist. ...  And while they [Leibstandarte men] had been in prison Ziemssen and Reiser had orchestrated the exculpatory manifesto authored by Ziemssen."
Parker, page 217 -- "The literary subversion worked. Now the SS veterans moved themselves from the prosecutors to the prosecuted!"
Parker, page 390 -- This is note 41, which identifies the booklet by name: "Dietrich Ziemssen. Der Malmedy Prozess, Munich, Deschler, 1952."
I took out the "note" formatting, for usability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Added note #; this appears to be it for this segment, as the text is verified, IMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
In the mid- to late 1970s, HIAG attempted to commission a favorable biography of Peiper, to stop "the bad rumors," according to a HIAG official. "We must steadfastly remain behind the wheel and direct this book ourselves, otherwise [Erich Kern] will do it," Harzer wrote to a fellow member in 1976. HIAG contemplated approaching (or approached) Herbert Reinecker, a prolific screenwriter who had served in a propaganda company (Propagandakompanie) of the Waffen-SS, but nothing came out of it.

Parker, page 298 -- "Meanwhile, the SS veterans' organization, HIAG, was working on its own attempt to get a favorable Peiper biography written for Motobuch Verlag. In one letter old SS officer comrade and HIAG coordinator Walter Harzer opined that they enlist the help of Herbert Reinecker ... [more about Reinecker & his TV career]; otherwise, Erich Kern, that crazy SS loose-cannon author, might do something! Even though Reinecker himself was an ex-Waffen SS man ..., none of the HIAG plans came to fruition.
Parker, page 418 -- This is note 78, which reads, in part: "Walter Harzer to a HIAG gathering in Stuttgart on Sept 4, 1976. 'This project must be done in a form of a book. The bad rumors on the person of Peiper must be taken away. We must steadfastly remain behind the wheel and direct the book ourselves, otherwise [Erich] Kern of Schildverlag will do it. Then we can only complain about the outcome'."
--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Added "note 78". Verified, IMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
During the 1980s, the HIAG celebrations grew so large and bold they created enormous problems for the organisation's image, such as when a 1985 meeting turned into a public relations disaster. The press reported on the singing of forbidden Nazi songs, and clashes between anti-Nazi demonstrators and Waffen-SS reenactors (SS reenacting was illegal in West Germany). In an even more damaging development, Stern investigative reporter Gerhard Kromschröder infiltrated the meeting posing as a war buff. He later published a damning article called "Nazi Family Reunion" containing statements from Waffen-SS veterans that ranged from Holocaust denial to virulently anti-semitic comments and references to happy concentration camp inmates "singing like birds".

Parker, pp. 389–390 -- This is note 38, which reads in part: "Eventually the HIAG celebrations grew so large and bold that they created enormous problems for the old vets. In 1985, Walter Krüger, the spokesperson for the 1st SS Panzer Corps, attended one of the largest meetings with Otto Remer, an affair that translated into a big public relations disaster in Nesselwang. There was singing of forbidden Nazi songs, inappropriate jewelry, clashes with demonstrators in the streets, and even Waffen SS re-enactors who looked astonishingly like the real thing.
"A Stern reporter, Gerhard Kromschröder, disguised in a beard, attended the meeting as a war buff. ... [When asked about photos of death camps], Krüger retorted: 'The photos shown to you showing reported gas chambers are false. And if six million Jews had been killed, as the Jewish propaganda says, they would still be burning'. .... Krüger said that he had been to KZ Oranienburg near Berlin [ Oranienburg concentration camp ] and had seen the real concentration camp situation: 'In the morning, I was woken up by beautiful singing. The songs were coming from prisoners in clean uniforms who were going off to work. They were singing like birds'. An early Nazi street fighter ..., Krüger created a media firestorm with such comments."
I've dealt with the close paraphrasing in the first sentence. I've added a call-out note linking to External links to support the name of the Kromschröder's article that is present in the article text, and removed the bit about reenacting being illegal. Now everything seems to be verified. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
HIAG's last chairman was Hubert Meyer, who provided access to the previously closed HIAG archives to several researchers, including Parker. Parker used the HIAG materials in his 2014 study of Joachim Peiper.

Parker, page 425 -- "Appreciation also to the late Hubert Meyer for allowing me access to the previously closed HIAG archives at BA-MA Freiburg, which made a pivotal difference in my research".
Removed the entire sentence as I'm not sure where I got that Meyer was HIAG's last chairman. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


### Caddick-Adams 2014
Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation [13]
Caddick-Adams 2014, p. 753.
Sepp Dietrich [not included in citation: and Kurt Meyer[14] became active members upon their release from prison, in 1955 and 1954.

Verified, but Large 1987 as used is far better for this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


### Stein 1984
Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation [14]
Stein 1984, p. 254.
and Kurt Meyer

Verified; see comments on Citation [13]. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
In the following months, a number of war criminals from the ranks of the Waffen-SS were released. Many of them were made eligible for prisoner-of-war compensation from local governments. In 1956 the Federal Ministry of Defence announced that former members of the Waffen-SS, up to the grade of lieutenant colonel, would be accepted to the Bundeswehr at their old rank.

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [48]
Stein 1984, pp. 250–251.
During the Nuremberg Trials, Waffen-SS personnel, such as Hausser in his testimony as a defence witness, contended that it was a purely military organisation no different from the Wehrmacht. The prosecution at Nuremberg rejected this claim and successfully argued that the Waffen-SS was an integral part of the SS apparatus. The Tribunal found that "the units of the Waffen-SS were directly involved in the killings of the prisoners of war and the atrocities in the occupied countries" and judged the entire SS to be a criminal organisation.

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [60]
Stein 1984, pp. 257–281.
This apologist position also ignored the fact that the organisational structure of the SS tied Waffen-SS to the Nazi annihilation machine through the transfer of personnel between various SS units and the shifting responsibilities of the units themselves, as they might perform frontline duties at one time, and then be reassigned to "pacification actions" — the Nazi term for punitive operations — in the rear.

Verified. The heavy lifting here is done by pages 257 to 263, though. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [61]
Stein 1984, pp. 255–256.
Kurt Meyer embodied the voice of Waffen-SS apologists. Speaking before some 8,000 SS men at the HIAG convention in Karlsberg, Bavaria, in 1957, he stated that "SS troops committed no crimes, except the massacre at Oradour, and that was the action of a single man," who, moreover had died a "hero's death" before he could be court-martialed. Meyer also insisted that the Waffen-SS was a regular army outfit, just like any in the Wehrmacht.

Copyright violation. The entire passage sans the first sentence is copied straight from Stein. The first sentence is also not supported by the cited pages. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Shortened and paraphrased.
 Done --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence is supported by Stein 1984, p. 263.
In the first instance, Meyer was most likely referring to Adolf Diekmann who was the senior officer present during the Oradour massacre. Meyer himself had served a lengthy prison term for his role in the Ardenne Abbey massacre. In the second instance, he was apparently referring to the members of the 20 July plot.

Not verified. None of this is in the cited pages. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [67]
Stein 1984, p. 256.
Kurt Meyer's memoirs, Grenadiers (German: Grenadiere), published in 1957, detailed his exploits at the front and served as an element of the rehabilitation campaign. He condemned the "inhuman suffering" that the Waffen-SS personnel had been subjected to "for crimes which they neither committed, nor were able to prevent".

Verified. The name of Meyer's book is absent from the page, however. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Removed the book's name.
 Done --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Citation [79]
Stein 1984, p. 258.
Quoting German political journalist Karl Otto Paetel in his 1966 book, the historian George Stein writes that the works produced by HIAG's circle were "trying to prove only what no tolerably informed person has ever attempted to deny, viz., that the soldiers of the Waffen-SS were brave fighters, suffered big losses and, as far as they served in the front line, did not run exterminations camps".

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [80]
Stein 1984, pp. 257–281, 293.
Stein notes that the apologists define the Waffen-SS "in the narrowest of terms" and are silent on the matter of war crimes. He notes that only a minority of men were implicated in known atrocities and that the most historically significant role of the Waffen-SS was in the battles for "Hitler's Europe". But "to recognise this is not to agree with the apologists who picture the overwhelming majority of the men of the Waffen-SS as idealistic, clean-living, decent and honourable soldiers," Stein writes.

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation [83]
Stein 1984, p. 252.
[Not included in citation: MacKenzie refers to HIAG's body of work as a "chorus of self-justification",] and Stein as "apologetics".

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


### Kühne 2017
Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation [18]
Kühne 2017, pp. 271–272.
HIAG membership was open to convicted war criminals, with the group's position being to absolve them of their responsibility. For example, the group openly embraced and advocated on behalf of Dietrich, Walter Reder, and Herbert Kappler, the former SS men convicted of war-time massacres.

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


### Werther & Hurd 2014
Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation [86]
Werther & Hurd 2014, pp. 330–331.
In the 1960s, it became clear that the legal rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS was out of HIAG's reach. At the same time, attitudes in Germany were beginning to change. Waffen-SS veterans' activities were increasingly greeted by suspicion from the community, while the government and military planners came to the realisation that they could meet their goals of rearmament without the former Waffen-SS men. HIAG was thus increasingly marginalised and ignored by political parties, while any pretence of moderation no longer served a purpose as no further benefits were forthcoming from the government.

Half-verified. The only part of the highlighted text supported by the cited pages is In the 1960s, [...] attitudes in Germany were beginning to change. Waffen-SS veterans' activities were increasingly greeted by suspicion from the community, [...]. The rest is from Large 1987. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Shortened and matched to source.
 Done --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
These groups worked to maintain momentum through the recruitment of younger generations and through outreach to foreign veterans of the Waffen-SS, aided by the continued publication of Der Freiwillige. "[Its] acclaimed aim, today [2014], is to link older and younger generations in a common cause," note the historians Steffen Werther and Madeleine Hurd. The publication's predominant theme continued to be "Europe against Bolshevism," with several editorials devoted to the idea that the Waffen-SS laid the foundation for the unification of Europe, expansion of NATO and "freedom of Fatherlands," as stated in one of the issues.

Half-verified. After the quotation, the cited page does not support this text. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Added page 334, where the rest of the material is covered.
 Done --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Citation [87]
Werther & Hurd 2014, p. 330.
As the West German public's awareness of the SS atrocities grew in the 1970s and 1980s, the attitudes towards Waffen-SS veterans shifted dramatically. The federal organisation and local groups were ostracised, with their meetings and commemorations greeted with protests. At the same time, neo-Nazi and nationalist movements found in the Waffen-SS an icon to project their understanding of World War II.

Not verified, but pages 331 and 332 do support this text. I have changed the citation to cite those two pages. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done Thank you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Citation [93]
Werther & Hurd 2014, p. 331.
Der Freiwillige was still being published in the 2000s by a neo-Nazi press.

Not verified. The cited page just says that younger (Neo) Nazis have kept this ignoble torch burning. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Removed.
 Done --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Citation [94]
Werther & Hurd 2014, pp. 332, 339.
Regional HIAG chapters continued to exist through the 2000s, at least one into the 2010s.

Verified, but page 332 does not support this. I've changed the citation to pages 331 and 339. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
 Done --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Citation [95]
Werther & Hurd 2014, pp. 332, 348–349.
HIAG's informal successor was the international War Grave Memorial Foundation "When All Brothers Are Silent" (Kriegsgräberstiftung 'Wenn alle Brüder schweigen'), formed with a stated goal of maintaining war graves. In the 1990s and 2000s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it worked on arranging new commemorative sites for the Waffen-SS dead in the former Soviet Union, including one in Ukraine.

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


### Bartrop & Jacobs 2014
Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation [23]
Bartrop & Jacobs 2014, p. 1424.
According to the Modern Genocide: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection, the Waffen-SS had played a "paramount role" in the ideological war of extermination (Vernichtungskrieg), and not just as frontline or rear area security formations: a third of the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing squads) members which were responsible for mass murder especially of Jews and communists, had been recruited from Waffen-SS personnel prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union.

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


### Citino 2012
Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation [106]
Citino 2012, p. 322.
The historian Henning Pieper notes non-scholarly works by Christopher Ailsby, Herbert Walther, and Tim Ripley as part of "militaria literature" genre (in his definition), while the military historian Robert Citino includes books by Willi Fey and Michael Reynolds among uncritical works aimed at "military history buffs".

Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


### MacKenzie snippets
These are listed in order of appearance in the article. 
Article text: 
In the same year (1951), some former career officers of the Wehrmacht were granted war pensions. Unlike the Wehrmacht, the SS had been deemed a criminal organisation at the Nuremberg trials and could thus act as an "alibi of a nation" (as Gerald Reitlinger's 1956 book of that title suggested), solely responsible for crimes of the Nazi regime. Consequently, Waffen-SS career personnel were not covered under the 1951 law.

MacKenzie, 136 - 137: "As the Federal Republic began to take shape, the SS became 'alibi of a nation', onto which all responsibility for all crimes could be shifted. As former members of a Nazi organization, Waffen-SS veterans were denied war pensions, issued to members of the Wehrmacht in 1951."
Note: changed the cite to p. 136 alone. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text: 
In the summer of 1951, HIAG was formally established by Otto Kumm, a former SS-Brigadeführer.

MacKenzie, 137: "As early as the summer of 1951 Otto Kumm, the last commander of Leibstandarte, established the [German name] (HIAG), an organization of Waffen-SS veterans, to lobby Bonn and in general work to restore the tarnished image of the force."
----K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
...while the military historian S.P. MacKenzie refers to it [the 'soldiers like any other' claim], when used in reference to the Western Front, as "the least credible" of the several claims put forth by Waffen-SS apologists. He points out that, in the East, the Wehrmacht equaled the Waffen-SS in its brutality, so the attempted equivalence was "rather ironic".

MacKenzie, 141: "The idea that the men of the Waffen-SS were "just like any other soldiers" is terms of behavior towards prisoners and foreign civilians is the least credible of the several claims made on behalf of the force. Rather ironically, recent scholarship conclusively indicates that on the Eastern Front the..." [over to page 142 which I don't have a scan of].
Note: changed the cite to also include page 142. Removed stricken out text as don't see it in MacKenzie. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
Former Waffen-SS men who wished to join the Bundeswehr still faced heightened scrutiny. All Waffen-SS applicants went through the rigorous vetting process reserved for those with the higher ranks in the Wehrmacht. HIAG protested to the government and its military planners, but to no avail. As a result, by September 1956, only 33 of 1310 applications by ex-Waffen-SS officers had been accepted (making them 0.4% of the Bundeswehr's officer corps), as compared to 195 of 462 applications by enlisted men.

MacKenzie, pp. 136–137: "Those Waffen-SS men who wished to join the Bundeswehr when it was formed in the mid 1950s found the political screening quite discriminatory, especially towards ex-officers. By Sept 1956, only 33 of 1310 applicants by former W-SS officers had been accepted (0.4% of the new officer corps) as compared with 270 of 1324 applications by former NCOs, and 195 of 462 applications by enlisted men."
Note: added cn tag in the middle, as I don't see this in MacKenzie. It may be from Large, which I'm yet to go through. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Found this in Large and added a Large cite instead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Article text:
The public image of the organisation was not helping either, because some of the more outspoken HIAG members sounded "alarmingly Nazi in their pronouncements," according to MacKenzie.

MacKenzie, page 137: "The wider aim of complete rehabilitation proved harder to achieve in part because some of the more enthusiastic members of HIAG sounded alarmingly Nazi in their pronouncements."
Article text:
HIAG's rewriting of history encompassed multi-prong publicity campaigns, including tendentious periodicals, books and public speeches, as well as a publishing house dedicated to presenting the Waffen-SS in a positive light. The leadership viewed restoring the [tarnished image of W-SS] as a key component of the desired legal and economic rehabilitation, and thus no effort was spared.

MacKenzie, page 137: "Through rallies, meetings w/ political figures on the centre and right, a magazine, and a flood of memoirs and detailed unit histories, HIAG achieved its initial goal in 1961 when the Bundestag partially restored pension rights to W-SS veterans."
MacKenzie, page 138: "The memoirs of Steiner and Hausser ... were only part of the quadruple publishing effort". [MacKenzie then talks about other publishing efforts in detail: the 'Volunteer' magazine; "glossy books" replete w/ "propaganda photographs w/ Aryan ideal volunteers"; and unit and formation histories].
--K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:

The theme of foreign volunteers was featured prominently, with Steiner lending his voice in this area. In a 1958 editorial, he praised the foreign volunteers who, like German SS men, saw the "diabolical threat" of Bolshevism and "fought like lions" against it as part of the Waffen-SS. The picture books echoed the same themes; one of them proclaimed: "From all European lands came volunteers as genuine comrades-in-arms. They fought for their Fatherland against Bolshevism."
Glossy books such as Waffen-SS in Pictures (1957) featured, as described by MacKenzie, "tales of valour and heroism" and "propaganda photographs of Aryan-ideal volunteers from all over the Continent".

MacKenzie, page 138:  "Steiner went even further in Die Freiwilligen 5 years later. [According to Steiner], the foreign volunteers were men of spirit who, like their German comrades, saw the "diabolical threat" to Western civilization posed by Bolshevism and "fought like lions" against it under the banner of the W-SS".
Also page 138: "Glossy books such as Waffen-SS in pictures (1957) ... all replete with propaganda photographs with Aryan ideal volunteers from all over the Continent, blended elitism with pan-European idealism. It was stated in the 1957 volume: "From all European lands came volunteers as genuine comrades-in-arms. They fought for their Fatherland against Bolshevism." "
--K.e.coffman (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
To buttress the reputation of the Waffen-SS, the memoirs of HIAG's leading members featured quotations by former Wehrmacht generals endorsing the fighting skills of the force.

MacKenzie, p. 138: "The much-admired Panzer general Heinz Guderian was persuaded to endorse the Waffen-SS as 'courageous troops' who did their duty as "other soldiers'..."
--K.e.coffman (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
Both Hausser and Steiner followed up their 1950s books with works published in the 1960s. Published in 1963, Steiner's book was called The Army of Outlaws ("Die Armee der Geächteten"). Hausser's work appeared in 1966 under the title Soldiers Like Any Other ("Soldaten wie andere auch"). According to MacKenzie, the books' titles were symbolic of the Waffen-SS image that HIAG's leaders wanted to portray, ... similar books were also published by Plesse Verlag in Göttingen.

Mackenzie, p. 137: [all of the above appears on page 137].
--K.e.coffman (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
The unit narratives were extensive (often in several volumes) and strived for a so-called official representation of their history, backed by maps and operational orders. MacKenzie points out that "the older or the more famous the unit, the larger the work—to the point where no less than five volumes and well over 2,000 pages were devoted to the doings of the 2nd Panzer Division Das Reich", authored by its former officer Otto Weidinger.

Mackenzie, p. 138: [all of the above appears on page 137].
--K.e.coffman (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
The positive image of the Waffen-SS indeed found a receptive audience during the Cold War. Senior Waffen-SS personnel were "not shy about suggesting that they had once organized and led a NATO-like army (and an elite one at that)", notes MacKenzie (emphasis in the original).

Mackenzie, p. 138: [all of the above appears on page 137].
--K.e.coffman (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
MacKenzie refers to HIAG's body of work as a "chorus of self-justification"

Mackenzie, p. 138: [appears on page 138].
--K.e.coffman (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
HIAG was instrumental in creating the perception in popular culture of the Waffen-SS being "comrades-in-arms engaged in a noble crusade" (according to MacKenzie). MacKenzie highlights the long-term effects of HIAG's revisionism:

As older generation of Waffen-SS scribes has died off, a new, post-war cadre of writers has done much to perpetuate the image of the force as a revolutionary European army. The degree of admiration and acceptance varies, but the overall tendency to accentuate the positive lives on, or has indeed grown stronger.

Mackenzie, p. 139: [all of the above appears on page 139].
--K.e.coffman (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
According to MacKenzie, authors in the revisionist tradition range from "extreme admirers [on] the fringes of the far-right," such as Richard Landwehr and Jean Mabire, to partisan authors (Gordon Williamson and Edmund L. Blandford), and popular historians who generally present the Waffen-SS in a positive light. These include John Keegan, James S. Lucas and Bruce Quarrie.

Mackenzie, p. 139: [all of the above appears on pages 139-140].
--K.e.coffman (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


### Wienand 2015
Google Books will not let me see the cited pages. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
The notion that Waffen-SS personnel had been "soldiers like all others" found its way into the discourse of war captivity. HIAG claimed that its members were victims of Allied arbitrariness and complained of harsh internment conditions. HIAG equated the status of war criminals with that of prisoners of war and obfuscated the differences between the veterans of the Wehrmacht and those of the Waffen-SS.
In its periodical Wiking-Ruf, HIAG made use of the same drawings of emaciated German POWs behind barbed wire used by the publications of another post-war organisation—the West German Association of Returnees and Families of POWs and MIAs (VdH).

Wienand, page 39: [this page is part of the chapter "Depicting returnees". The page contains a large paragraph, that would be too long to reproduce here, dealing with HIAG's portrayal of convicted war criminals as victims. The paragraph then mentions how HIAG aped VdH's propaganda].
--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
In its turn, VdH saw its role as a counterbalance to militaristic veterans' organisations such as HIAG and explicitly distanced itself from them in the early 1950s.

Wienand, page 299, note 151: "Some Traditionsverbände (among them also HIAG) and the Verband Deutscher Soldaten were subject to public suspicion. The VdH explicitly understood its work as a democratic counterbalance to the other veterans' associations and distanced itself from other militaristic and hierarchical veterans' associations."
--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Article text:
By the mid-1950s, HIAG had been able to differentiate the Waffen-SS from other SS formations; the crimes that could not be denied were attributed to Allgemeine-SS (security and police), the SS-Totenkopfverbände and the Einsatzgruppen. The Waffen-SS was thus successfully integrated into the myth of the clean Wehrmacht.

Wienand, page 39: "By the mid-1950s, the HIAG established a public image that separated W-SS from other SS formations and shifted responsibility for crimes that could not be denied to the Allgemeine-SS, the SS-Totenkopfverbände and the Einsatzgruppen. As Karsten Wilke argues, the W-SS was successfully integrated into the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, even though former Wehrmacht officials kept on highlighting the difference between the Wehrmacht and the W-SS.
--K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)