Talk:Waffen-SS/Archive 1

message: Why was the Waffen SS wrongfully accused of war crimes? What accusations have been made,
Your question is very broad. The SS as part of the Nazi party was declared a criminal organisation by the Nuremberg trials. In the atmosphere immediately after the war there seems to have been a different attitude prevailing than say 5-10 years later. In the immediate aftermath all SS personnel seem to have separated from 'normal' armed forces and treated differently. In some cases this difference was brutal. There seems to have been a particular focus on identifying war crimes for all those identified as SS rather than gathering information on the war crimes committed by both sides and letting the blame fall where it fell. As a consequence there was a lot of 'smoke' and much less 'fire' generated in the very public hearings of SS members. The distinction between Waffen SS and 'Allgemeine (General)' SS does not seem to have been strongly made during this epoch. This was not helped by the fact that in the early days (pre-1939) the role and parentage of the Waffen-SS (or SS-Verfügungstruppe as it was then called) was political, ethically murky and unclear. This is in stark contrast to its wartime activities. By the late 1950's it was freely admitted on almost all sides that the Waffen-SS (during the war) was with a few well documented exceptions a military unit much like other German units. I cite as an example SS General Kurt Meyer's case whilst he was commanding the SS HitlerJugend division. He was within days of being executed after due process when he was given a life sentence instead. After some time in Canadian and then German jails it was admitted that almost all of the case against him was unsound although the shooting of prisoners war crime had been committed by someone. It was accepted that in Normandy at this time the taking of prisoners was sometimes discouraged by both sides and that he had never condoned or encouraged killing prisoners. He was released in 1954.
In short many many accusations, clear indications of systemic war crimes by two units of non-Germanic SS the Dirlewanger and Kaminski Brigades and the concentration camp unit "Totenkopfverbände" and the rest is generally unclear. Unclear in as much as war crimes were probably committed by both sides in equal measure in many theatres and to choose to emphasise Waffen-SS war crimes under these circumstances was probably a bias at the time. The vitriolic nature of discussions about the 'Eastern Front' suggests that perhaps it should be considered apart from other theatres because it does seem very difficult to get rough agreement on some events. Perhaps now that Russia is releasing internal information from the Soviet period there will be some change in this position. Facius 09:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes 

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

message: "Later there were the SS Freiwilligenverbände (SS Volunteer Units) from countries and regions such as ... Australia (within the Britisches Freikorps)... the British Empire (Britisches Freikorps)... New Zealand (within the Britisches Freikorps..."
I am removing the explicit links to Australia and New Zealand and replacing British Empire with "Britain and Commonwealth". There were the sum total of 10 volunteers from Commonwealth countries (these included Canadians and South Africans) out of the thousands of Waffen-SS volunteers. Commonwealth should suffice for Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and South Africans. See Talk:British_Free_Corps for more info.     Kudz75 05:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  AUS/NZ volunteers 

message: Hmm... Since he was executed for his part in the July Plot, how did Rommel get time to write his memoirs again? The only books he wrote to my knowledge was Infanterie Greift An (Infantry Attacks) a tactical manual concerning infantry operations on the Western, Eastern and Italian Fronts during World War I.
I think that as a whole, the Waffen-SS organisation was mediocre. The brilliant and relatively blameless exploits of the Wiking, Nord and Nordland divisions (among others) is counterbalanced by the horrific behaviour of the Waffen-Sturm-Brigade RONA and the SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger and the like. Overall, it is difficult to judge an organisation which so greatly varies in quality and behaviour of it's fighting units.
--Ansbachdragoner 00:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rommel's Memoirs 

message: Are the members of the Indian National Army, a resistance army against Britain formed by Indian POWs and volunteers under Subash Chandra Bose, and trained by the Germans and Japanese confused here as the Indian volunteers of the SS?
See http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=8. Indian volunteers were also inducted into the Waffen-SS, mostly to the 13.Waffen-Gebirgs-Division der SS Handschar (kroatische Nr.1).--Ansbachdragoner 05:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Volunteers 

message: Kurt Leyman, 
Yes, they did. The Leibstandarte, Das Reich, Hitlerjugend, Wiking, Hohenstaufen and Frundsberg were equipped on par with the better Heer panzer formations, granted. (although at no time was any of these as well equipped as the Heer's Panzer-Lehr (2 Abts of Panthers and an attached company of Tiger II Bs), the 1.Fallschirm-Panzer-Division Hermann Göring or the Panzergrenadier Division Großdeutschland.)
For the remainder (yes, including Totenkopf) they were equipped with second rate armour and weapons. (see image of Totenkopf ZB30 Machine Gun Team - pretty much speaks for itself). The Totenkopf was, by the time of Kursk, better equipped, but was still inferior to the LSSAH and the DR. 
In hope of ending the revert war, please find evidence for the status of SS Panzer/Panzergrenadier divisions below.
Tank numbers for LSSAH during Unternehmen Zitadelle are as follows
===1 July 1943 - Unternehmen Zitadelle===
====SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "LSSAH" (II.SS-Panzer-Korps) ====
*3x Pz.Kpfw.I
*4x Pz.Kpfw.II
*3x Pz.Kpfw.III (kz.) - 5cm KwK 38 (L/42)
*10x Pz.Kpfw.III(lg.) - 5cm KwK 39 (L/60))
*67x Pz.Kpfw.IV(lg.) - 7.5cm KwK 40 (L/48)
*13x Pz.Kpfw.VI ausf E
*9x Bef.Pz.Kpfw 
*35x StuG 40
*21x Marder III
*6x Hummel 
*12x Wespe 
*12x Grille
====SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "Das Reich" (II.SS-Panzer-Korps)====
*1x Pz.Kpfw.I
*70x Pz.Kpfw.III
*33x Pz.Kpfw.IV
*14x Pz.Kpfw.VI ausf E
*34x StuG 40
*26x T-34
*12x Marder III
*6x Hummel
*12x Wespe
*12x Grille 
====SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "Totenkopf" (II.SS-Panzer-Korps)====
*63x Pz.Kpfw.III
*52x Pz.Kpfw.IV
*15x Pz.Kpfw.VI ausf E
*35x StuG 40
*8x Marder III
*6x Hummel
*12x Wespe 
====SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "Wiking" (HG Süd Reserve) ====
*4x Pz.Kpfw.II 
*1x Pz.Kpfw.III (kz.) - 5cm KwK 38 (L/42)
*14x Pz.Kpfw.III(lg.) - 5cm KwK 39 (L/60))
*8x Pz.Kpfw.III(75) - 7.5cm KwK 37 (L/24) 
*1x Pz.Kpfw.IV(kz) - 7.5cm KwK 37 (L/24)
*16x Pz.Kpfw.IV(lg) - 7.5cm KwK 40 (L/48) 
*1x Bef.Pz.Kpfw 
- from JENTZ, Thomas L. Panzertruppen - The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force - 1943-1945. Atglen (PA) : Schiffer Military History, 1996.
Note the T-34s assigned to DR, and the abysmal state of the Wiking's armoured component.
During Kursk, the new Panther Ausf D's did not got to SS panzergrenadier units, but the the Heer Panzer Regiment 39 (200xPz.Kpfw.V ausf D), which operated as an attachement to Panzergrenadier Division Großdeutschland.
Above are the strengths of the premier units of the Waffen SS before a major offensive. One needs only to glance at the histories of the secondary formations to see that they were never fully equipped, and often used captured equipment. 7.SS-Frw-Gebirgs Div used repossessed Italian tanks, 17-SS-PGD GvB used french trucks and a large number of StuGs and Marders to fill out it's panzer Abteilung. 11SS-Frw-PzGD was never full strength, and again, StuGs and Marders were used to fill out the panzer Abt.--Ansbachdragoner 00:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waffen SS Weapons and equipment 

message: ====SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "LSSAH" (II.SS-Panzer-Korps) ====
*3x Pz.Kpfw.I
*4x Pz.Kpfw.II
*3x Pz.Kpfw.III (kz.) - 5cm KwK 38 (L/42)
*10x Pz.Kpfw.III(lg.) - 5cm KwK 39 (L/60))
*67x Pz.Kpfw.IV(lg.) - 7.5cm KwK 40 (L/48)
*13x Pz.Kpfw.VI ausf E
*9x Bef.Pz.Kpfw 
*35x StuG 40
*21x Marder III
*6x Hummel 
*12x Wespe 
*12x Grille
====SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "Das Reich" (II.SS-Panzer-Korps)====
*1x Pz.Kpfw.I
*70x Pz.Kpfw.III
*33x Pz.Kpfw.IV
*14x Pz.Kpfw.VI ausf E
*34x StuG 40
*26x T-34
*12x Marder III
*6x Hummel
*12x Wespe
*12x Grille 
====SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "Totenkopf" (II.SS-Panzer-Korps)====
*63x Pz.Kpfw.III
*52x Pz.Kpfw.IV
*15x Pz.Kpfw.VI ausf E
*35x StuG 40
*8x Marder III
*6x Hummel
*12x Wespe 
====SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "Wiking" (HG Süd Reserve) ====
*4x Pz.Kpfw.II 
*1x Pz.Kpfw.III (kz.) - 5cm KwK 38 (L/42)
*14x Pz.Kpfw.III(lg.) - 5cm KwK 39 (L/60))
*8x Pz.Kpfw.III(75) - 7.5cm KwK 37 (L/24) 
*1x Pz.Kpfw.IV(kz) - 7.5cm KwK 37 (L/24)
*16x Pz.Kpfw.IV(lg) - 7.5cm KwK 40 (L/48) 
*1x Bef.Pz.Kpfw 
- from JENTZ, Thomas L. Panzertruppen - The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force - 1943-1945. Atglen (PA) : Schiffer Military History, 1996.
Note the T-34s assigned to DR, and the abysmal state of the Wiking's armoured component.
During Kursk, the new Panther Ausf D's did not got to SS panzergrenadier units, but the the Heer Panzer Regiment 39 (200xPz.Kpfw.V ausf D), which operated as an attachement to Panzergrenadier Division Großdeutschland.
Above are the strengths of the premier units of the Waffen SS before a major offensive. One needs only to glance at the histories of the secondary formations to see that they were never fully equipped, and often used captured equipment. 7.SS-Frw-Gebirgs Div used repossessed Italian tanks, 17-SS-PGD GvB used french trucks and a large number of StuGs and Marders to fill out it's panzer Abteilung. 11SS-Frw-PzGD was never full strength, and again, StuGs and Marders were used to fill out the panzer Abt.--Ansbachdragoner 00:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1 July 1943 - Unternehmen Zitadelle

message: *4x Pz.Kpfw.II 
*1x Pz.Kpfw.III (kz.) - 5cm KwK 38 (L/42)
*14x Pz.Kpfw.III(lg.) - 5cm KwK 39 (L/60))
*8x Pz.Kpfw.III(75) - 7.5cm KwK 37 (L/24) 
*1x Pz.Kpfw.IV(kz) - 7.5cm KwK 37 (L/24)
*16x Pz.Kpfw.IV(lg) - 7.5cm KwK 40 (L/48) 
*1x Bef.Pz.Kpfw 
- from JENTZ, Thomas L. Panzertruppen - The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force - 1943-1945. Atglen (PA) : Schiffer Military History, 1996.
Note the T-34s assigned to DR, and the abysmal state of the Wiking's armoured component.
During Kursk, the new Panther Ausf D's did not got to SS panzergrenadier units, but the the Heer Panzer Regiment 39 (200xPz.Kpfw.V ausf D), which operated as an attachement to Panzergrenadier Division Großdeutschland.
Above are the strengths of the premier units of the Waffen SS before a major offensive. One needs only to glance at the histories of the secondary formations to see that they were never fully equipped, and often used captured equipment. 7.SS-Frw-Gebirgs Div used repossessed Italian tanks, 17-SS-PGD GvB used french trucks and a large number of StuGs and Marders to fill out it's panzer Abteilung. 11SS-Frw-PzGD was never full strength, and again, StuGs and Marders were used to fill out the panzer Abt.--Ansbachdragoner 00:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SS-Panzergrenadierdivision "Wiking" (HG Süd Reserve) 

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

message: "A strong emphasis was placed on creating a bond between the officers and men, and officer candidates were made to pass through basic training alongside the enlisted candidates. This created a mutual trust and respect between the officers and men"
Shall I give examples of this "mutual trust and respect" in Kaminski unit ?
Most of the time they had to force each other not murder one another.
--Molobo 13:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Molobo, I realise that you feel very strongly about this topic, so I won't even bother accusing you of NPOV, as that will get us nowhere. Read the history of the Kaminski Brigade before you start using them as an example for the failures of the waffen SS training regime. The Kaminski was never put through Waffen SS Training. Kaminski and his fellow officers never attended Bad Tölz. As such, you cannot use either them, or the Dirlewanger (who were in the same boat), as an example of WSS training. I could say that the majority of the obviously NPOV bs you spit out is absurd, but I do not. Read some books on the subject before you start spouting your History Channel said... rubbish on here. For more information on the Waffen SS training, read Johann Voss Black Edelweiss, Ralf Tiemann/Rudolf Lehmann's Leibstandarte series, Tragödie um die Treue- Kampf und Untergang des III. (Germ.) SS-Panzer-Korps and Im Feuersturm letzter Kriegsjahre: II. SS-Panzerkorps mit 9. u. 10. SS-Division "Hohenstaufen" u. "Frundsberg"  by Wilhelm Tieke, Will Fey's Armor Battles of the Waffen SS, 1943-45  or a host of others. Or you could remain ignorant and opinionated. I realise you wish to portray the Waffen SS as a bunch of Satanic barbarian savages who feasted on the flesh of virgins before dancing on the grave Jan Sobieski, but the fact is that for every unit like the Kaminski and Dirlewanger, there where units like the Nordland, the SS-Finnish Ski Battalion and the 20.Waffen Grenadier Division der SS. --ansbachdragoner 23:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Molobo, the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division der SS, which was formed in 1944 mainly using conscription, has not been implicated in any war crimes, as far as I know. Do you have any references that suggest otherwise? While it is true that the Waffen SS was determined to be a criminal organisation thus implicating those who were members of that organsation, Nuremburg explicitly excluded conscripts from that judgement. -- Thomas
I am sorry again, but they are part of Waffen SS and relations in such units are part of its history, furthermore the rather idolised view of "mutual respect" is POV, they were many  Waffen SS units and not all of
Molobo, So what you're saying is that the Kaminski is an example of the failure of the Waffen SS training regime, despite they were never given any training. The Kaminski was never intended to be a frontline combat unit. As the unit article clearly states, the Kaminski was 'adopted' by Himmler as part of his absurd notion of the Waffen SS becoming a pan-European force
I read a lot of books don't worry about that, in fact I posses several books dedictated to study of Nazism and its ideology. Indeed, but do you have any specifically on the Waffen SS? and with discussions on the training, and the philosiphy of the training? I would imagine not.
Why no books on Waffen SS atrocities and their involvment in Holocaust?  I see you are interested in the subject of this organisation and German military but it seems to me your sources might be lacking in information about war crimes, I had seen several your edits and your work on  the subject but these articles despite their detailed information all share a very big flaw-they are done purely from military organisation view and almost never include information about atrocities commited by those units.
Might i point you to the Kaminski Article, or the Dirlewanger article, or the Hitlerjugend division article, or the Totenkopf article, or the Götz von berlichingen article, or the Landstorm Nederland article. Where clear information is available regarding War crimes, I have put this information in. I can assure you that the WIP Leibstandarte article which i've been working on will have quite a lengthy part on war crimes, and i invite you to help out with the writing of this - as long as you provide sources. This discussion isn't about warcrimes, it's about you claiming that the Waffen SS training regime was based on a totally different doctrine than political indoctrination together with a stong team spirit, with no distinctions between officers and men. Also, A: because the majority of Waffen SS units which i have done articles on were not involved in the Holocaust. Where they were, I have mentioned this. Also, you obviously have no idea as to the content of the aforementioned books, as several of mention war crimes and atrocities committed in detail, and Warcrimes/Holocaust is the 'theme' of the Voss book.
Based on your above post It seems you are feeling very strongly about this article and indeed seem to have strong opinions.Your comment isn't actually very appropriate since I contributed info to many of your articles, where information about those units atrocities were lacking.Examples include ,/
No, I feel strongly about parts that i've written being deleted and called an 'Absurd Fragment' by you with no proof/references at all. Also, I did not author either of these articles, and was merely stated that an article on a combat formation (1939-1945) of which over 50% is regarding one atrocity which occured on one day, seems rather NPOV. Not saying to remove these references, just to shorten them or to flesh out the combat history.
In fact I don't understand your anger, since you should be glad that information badly needed in those articles-that is details of those units war crimes against innocent civilians-was added.
I agree with you. And I appreciate your contributions. (as with the Wiking article especially - despite our differences regarding sources) My problem is that you are adding references to obscure warcrimes without providing reasonable sources. And as stated before, Polish school books, or any School books really, cannot be taken for a serious reference. I've seen a school history book which referred to the 1940 German attack through the Ardennes as the Schlieffen Plan!
Interestingly I doubt Nazi's would dance on grave of Sobieski-as he was used in German propaganda towards Poles as a symbol of German-Polish cooperation against "hordes from the East". So a rather bad if interesting choice of example that you made.
Interesting. I must admit that i do not know a lot about the History of Poland, and this was the first thing that sprung to mind.
A bad example since 20.Waffen Grenadier Division der SS is involved with war crimes...
Umm...no, they weren't.
Atrocities in this organisation were the norm, not the exception.
Agreed, but only is certain units. The Nord, Langemarck, Nederland, Nordland, Wiking, Wallonien, 20.WGdSS etc were all clear of war crimes 'charges'. While this is difficult, as several of these most definitely were involved in questionable actions, these cannot be called War Crimes as they were never tried/convicted of these. 
--ansbachdragoner 23:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd fragment 

message: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-accused-organisations-04-02.html
Judgment:
The Accused Organisations:
The SS:
Criminal Activities
(Part 7 of 10)
[Page77]
Criminal Activities: SS units were active participants in the steps leading up to aggressive war. The Verfuegungstruppe was used in the occupation of the Sudetenland, of Bohemia and Moravia, and of Memel. The Henlein Free Corps was under the jurisdiction of the Reichsfuehrer SS for operations in the Sudetenland in 1938, and the Volksdeutschemittelstelle financed fifth-column activities there.
The SS was even a more general participant in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Through its control over the organisation of the Police, particularly the Security Police and SD, the SS was involved in all the crimes which have been outlined in the section of this Judgment dealing with the Gestapo and SD. Other branches of the SS were equally involved in these criminal programs. There is evidence that the shooting of unarmed prisoners of war was the general practice in some Waffen SS divisions. On 1st October, 1944, the custody of prisoners of war and interned persons was transferred to Himmler, who in turn transferred prisoner-of-war affairs to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Berger and to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. The Race and Settlement Office of the SS together with the Volksdeutschemittelstelle were active in carrying out schemes for Germanization of occupied territories according to the racial principles of the Nazi Party and were involved in the deportation of Jews and other foreign nationals. Units of the Waffen SS and Einsatzgruppen operating directly under the SS main office were used to carry out these plans. These units were also involved in the widespread murder and ill-treatment of the civilian population of occupied territories. Under the guise of combatting partisan units, units of the SS exterminated Jews and people deemed politically undesirable by the SS, and their reports record the execution of enormous numbers of persons. Waffen SS divisions were responsible for many massacres and atrocities in occupied territories such as the massacres at Oradour and Lidice.
From 1934 onwards the SS was responsible for the guarding and administration of concentration camps. The evidence leaves no doubt that the consistently brutal treatment of the inmates of concentration camps was carried out as a result of the general policy of the SS, which was that the inmates were racial inferiors to be treated only with contempt. There is evidence that where manpower considerations permitted, Himmler wanted to rotate guard battalions so that all members of the SS would be instructed as to the proper attitude to take to inferior races. After 1942 when the concentration camps were placed under the control of the WVHA they were used as a source of slave labor. An agreement made with the Ministry of Justice on 18th September, 1942, provided that antisocial elements who had finished prison sentences were to be delivered to the SS to be worked to death. Steps were continually taken, involving the use of the Security Police and SD and even the Waffen SS, to insure that the SS had an adequate supply of concentration camp labor for its projects. In connection with the administration of the concentration camps, the SS embarked on a series of experiments on human beings which were performed on prisoners of war or concentration camp inmates. These experiments included freezing to death, and killing by poison bullets. The SS was able to obtain an allocation of Government funds for this kind of research on the grounds that they had access to human material not available to other agencies.
[Page 78]
The SS played a particularly significant role in the persecution of the Jews. The SS was directly involved in the demonstrations of 10th November, 1938. The evacuation of the Jews from occupied territories was carried out under the directions of the SS with the assistance of SS Police units. The extermination of the Jews was carried out under the direction of the SS Central Organisations. It was actually put into effect by SS formations. The Einsatzgruppen engaged in wholesale massacres of the Jews. SS Police units were also involved. For example, the massacre of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto was carried out under the directions of SS Brigadefuehrer and Major General of the Police Stroop. A special group from the SS Central Organisation arranged for the deportation of Jews from various Axis satellites and their extermination was carried out in the concentration camps run by the WVHA.
It is impossible to single out any one portion of the SS which was not involved in these criminal activities. The Allgemeine SS was an active participant in the persecution of the Jews and was used as a source of concentration camp guards. Units of the Waffen SS were directly involved in the killing of prisoners of war and the atrocities in occupied countries. It supplied personnel for the Einsatzgruppen, and had command over the concentration camp guards after its absorption of the Totenkopf SS, which originally controlled the system. Various SS Police units were also widely used in the atrocities in occupied countries and the extermination of the Jews there. The SS Central Organisation supervised the activities of these various formations and was responsible for such special projects as the human experiments and "final solution" of the Jewish question.
The Tribunal finds that knowledge of these criminal activities was sufficiently general to justify declaring that the SS was a criminal organisation to the extent hereinafter described. It does appear that an attempt was made to keep secret some phases of its activities, but its criminal programs were so widespread, and involved slaughter on such a gigantic scale, that its criminal activities must have been widely known. It must be recognized, moreover that the criminal activities of the SS followed quite logically from the principles on which it was organized. Every effort had been made to make the SS a highly disciplined organisation composed of the elite of National Socialism. Himmler had stated that there were people in Germany "who become sick when they see these black coats" and that he did not expect that "they should be loved by too many." Himmler also indicated his view that the SS was concerned with perpetuating the elite racial stock with the object of making Europe a Germanic continent and the SS was instructed that it was designed to assist the Nazi Government in the ultimate domination of Europe and the elimination of all inferior races. This mystic and fanatical belief in the superiority of the Nordic German developed into the studied contempt and even hatred of other races which led to criminal activities of the type outlined above being considered as a matter of course if not a matter of pride. The actions of a soldier in the Waffen SS who in September, 1939, acting entirely on his own initiative, killed 50 Jewish laborers whom he had been guarding, were described by the statement that as an SS man, he was "particularly sensitive to the sight of Jews," and had acted "quite thoughtlessly in a youthful spirit of adventure" and a sentence of three-years imprisonment imposed on him was dropped under an amnesty. Hess wrote with truth that the Waffen SS were more suitable for the specific tasks to be solved in occupied territory owing to their extensive training in questions of race and nationality. Himmler, in a series of speeches made in 1943, indicated his pride in the ability of the SS to carry out these criminal acts. He encouraged his men to be "tough and ruthless" he spoke of shooting "thousands of leading Poles" and thanked them for their
[Page 79]
cooperation and lack of squeamishness at the sight of hundreds and thousands of corpses of their victims. He extolled ruthlessness in exterminating the Jewish race and later described this process as "delousing." These speeches show that the general attitude prevailing in the SS was consistent with these criminal acts.
Conclusions: The SS was utilized for purposes which were criminal under the Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave labor program and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war. The Defendant Kaltenbrunner was a member of the SS implicated in these activities. In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende, and the members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS. The Tribunal does not include the so-called SS riding units. Der Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsfuehrer SS (commonly known as the SD) is dealt with in the Tribunal's Judgment on the Gestapo and SD.
The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organisation with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter, or who were personally implicated as members of the organisation in the commission of such crimes, excluding, however, those who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who had committed no such crimes. The basis of this finding is the participation of the organisation in War crimes and Crimes against humanity connected with the war; this group declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to belong to the organisations enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to 1st September, 1939. 
--Molobo 11:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Please feel free to add this to the Warcrimes section when you get a chance. --ansbachdragoner 02:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essential information that needs to be added 

message: "While it may be difficult now to understand why anyone would volunteer for the Waffen-SS,"
I removed the previous sentence fragment as it violate NPOV, implying the subejective belief that service in the Waffen-SS was undesirable. Captain Jackson 06:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Tangible evidence of their "elite" status was the award of named cuff titles to units of the Waffen SS; while the use of cuff titles was common in many military and paramilitary organizations in the Third Reich, there were few combat units permitted to wear them as a means of identification.  Their status was exemplified in April 1945 when Adolf Hitler personally ordered SS units he felt had failed in their duty to launch a counterattack to remove their titles from their uniform.  
This is BS, the cuff title was just a part of the uniform and as a fashion charasteristic by Hugo Boss and was never given as a form of award. ALL Waffen-SS units got a cuff title or multiple cufftitles (like the SS-Kriegsberichter, who wore a SS KRIEGSBERICHTER cuff title and *UNIT NAME* cuff title).
Further more, there is no proof Hitler gave an order to remove the cuff title, it's just an urban legend. --Feldmaus
:You need to actually read the section in question carefully. "few combat units" of the army were "permitted to wear them as a means of identification."  The Kriegsberichter were not 'combat units'. I'm going to restore the first sentence to the article.Michael Dorosh 20:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform 

message: The 'Basic Background' section is strikingly similar, if not identical, to the article from http://www.dasreich.ca/background.html.
Has this copyright holder allowed such a copy of his/her material? --Albert 10:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Copyright violation 

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

message: I am sometimes involved a history research and as I was study my ancestors for my Family Tree I discover that my ancestors has-been in Waffen-SS. My name is Edgar M. Milaskevics [private detective], I do not believe we need to judge person why was involved in WWII, it is in history.
In my attention I come across some history, which has not been complete. So I give some extra materials about what I have fined out and plus I ask some person why have been contact with following person.
Person Jazep Maceikevic (lather his change from Jazeps to Jānis to be more Latvian - unofficial) why lived in Rīga, Latvia have been order go to Waffen-SS. His was in WWII as Baltic-German Waffen-SS officer, but after his past it is unknown.
Conscription as “Volunteering”. At first the Germans wanted to win the war without any help. They used Latvians as willing auxiliaries only to perform police and paramilitary duties in the rear. But by the end of 1941 their initial war fortunes received severe setbacks, and they needed real help. Latvian willingness to volunteer, however, had worn off as the German policies became more and more coercive and it became clear that co-operation meant simply following German orders.
[[Image:imag_einberufungsbefehl.jpg]
By 1942, patriotic propaganda and financial enticements were used to recruit Latvians into so-called “police battalions”, most of which became front-line units, but some were used at times for suppressive operations behind the lines. By 1943, after the debacle at Stalingrad, Germans desperately needed even more help, and by Hitler’s order of 10 February 1943, a “Latvian SS Volunteer Legion” was created as one of a number of such foreign legions, among which the largest was the Russian contingent. It was neither real “SS” nor “volunteer”. Hitler’s SS of elite guards and executors, adjudged as a criminal organization in Nuremberg, and was reserved for Germans only. The word “volunteer” was used as a devious device to avoid transgressing the 1907 Hague Convention’s rules against conscripting people of occupied countries. 
:Excuse my cynicism, but I doubt seriously that Hitler was terribly concerned with upholding any kind of international Treaty he didn't feel like. After breaking the Geneva Convention and any other Treaty you may find, I don't think he was terribly concerned with keeping in line with that particular one. It might have been a Propaganda Tool, it might be that people actually did volunteer for it (to get back at the Russians) - I don't want to judge that. --Ebralph 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII as Baltic-German Waffen-SS officer 

message: I removed the Sentence: "They stayed in forts known as sheizenheimers. There they would eat, drink, hang out, and talk in their spare time when they werent out fighting."
For one thing it doesn't seem up to the Quality of the rest of the articles. For another German spelling is not "Sh" it is  "Sch" and I think this is Spam. Please feel free to correct me.
I think the name of their barracks or what-have-you could be useful, but all soldiers eat, drink and "Hang out" (which is not a very formal phrase) and isn't worth mentioning. Perhaps the person who added it was trying to humanize the Waffen-SS and felt he needed to point out that they were in fact functioning members of social groups :P D Boland 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Sheizenheimer is one of those fake-German words.  This reads like vandalism.  I hope you reverted it.  Orangemarlin 03:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed weird Sentence 

message: I put the tag disputing the neutrality of this article.  Here are my reasons.
*1.  There seems to be an edit war that goes back and forth between extremes.  Either the Waffen-SS were criminals who committed atrocities everywhere, or they were heroic German soldiers.  I'm sure there is a little bit of both.
*2.  There is precious little referencing for the specifics.  The article reads like a poorly written, ill-informed opinion piece.
*3.  Between the discussion in here and some points within the article, I detect a small amount of Holocaust revisionism.  That's disgusting.
*4.  There are a number of well-written balanced, but controversial articles in Wikipedia.  Read Evolution or Abortion if you want two.  
I think this article demands better historical writing, and less obnoxious lecturing from apologists of either side.  The Waffen-SS had a number of provable instances of war crimes.  But it was also a well trained elite army group.  The reality is that was a lot of both.  
By the way, specific examples of "Gerhardt Schmidt" was my great uncle and he joined because he wanted to be in an elite group smacks of what I hear all the time from Germans.  "We didn't know."  Interesting, but not very useful to this article or its discussion.  An encyclopedia doesn't care about personal stories, unless it's a biography.  What your great uncle did with the SS is not provable, lacking references, and adds nothing to the article.  OrangeMarlin 17:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

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

message: I have place four tags on this article.  Two were placed in August, 2006.  Without sounding like a threat, I intend to ask for Administrator intervention if it is not brought up to quality standards of Wikipedia.  I personally feel this article should be merged into some others, but I will reserve opinion to see if it can be brought up to quality standards.
#WP:NPOV  This article lacks a neutral focus.  It has several comments that seem to form an apologetic tone for the Waffen-SS.  However,  with appropriate discussion, I could be convinced that the tone is neutral.
#WP:OR This article reads like original research.  It lacks references and verification of what is asserted.  For an article of this importance, there should be a citation for nearly every paragraph.
#WP:LEAD The lead section is too long and does not introduce the article in a few sentences.  It combines the history of the Waffen-SS, it's organization, and few other extraneous items, which belong in separate sections.  Please see the Wikipedia Manual of Style to improve this article.
I am not an expert on the Waffen-SS (except for being short a huge number of family members thanks to the SS), so I could not either write this article in an NPOV style, nor am I a historical expert on this part of the Nazi regime.  However, I have a strong interest in WWII history, and this article falls far below many of the others in Wikipedia.  I would suggest a rewrite with references.  Orangemarlin 05:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is well beneath the standards of quality of other WWII-era articles. However, I disagree this article should not be an article on its own. The Waffen SS was a de facto branch of the german military (althought in paper a Nazi party organization). We devote pages to such branches. The article today is a piece of crap, but we will make it better by changing its contents, not merging into unrelated information.--Cerejota 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion that it be merged is contingent upon the quality of the written piece.  If I had time, I have dozens of references to rewrite it.  I'm hoping someone who actually doesn't get nauseous by seeing a swastika and/or the SS symbol on a page would rewrite this atrocious heap of dung.  Read the discussion page here if you really want to see how bad the quality is.  Too much original research in this article.  Well, maybe you can do a rewrite...hint.  Orangemarlin 05:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I cannot understand why as in general WikiProject Military is of great quality. I'll see what I can do, time to hit the books. :D--Cerejota 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article problems 

message: I want some input concerning the tags placed at the top of the article. Can someone please explain to me what parts of the article they think need citations, which parts they think are not neutral, etc so that I can attempt to improve them. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put them there.  The whole thing is unreferenced and reads like original research.  The lead, some of the sections like war crimes are clearly POV towards the SS, it sounds like this branch of the SS were made up of innocent soldiers--hardly.  The writing is not encyclopedic.  In all, if it weren't an important historic article, it ought to be deleted and rewritten.  If that happens, then it only becomes one of those frightening articles about the Nazis, instead of a poorly written and reference frightening story about the Nazis.  Orangemarlin 05:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I plan to improve the article, so perhaps you could be a little more specific. What sections specifically are problematic? How are they problematic? Examples would help as well. Also tell me what specific assertions need citations. I've got a better idea. I want you to go through the entire article and add a  tag to each sentence you think needs a reference. Do that by placing  at the end of each sentence you think needs a reference. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding right?  Every sentence is a claim about something, and it isn't referenced. Orangemarlin 05:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can't reference every sentence. Just add that tag to the most doubtful sentences that you think need a reference and I'll see if I can find any. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to help improve the article but I will need you go tag at least a few things that you believe really need citations. I'll look for the citations and if I can not find any I will remove the content. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref tags might take up more bytes than the article itself.  Simply pointing to a website is not providing sources.  If you really want, I'll  tag everything needing references, but I doubt you'll be happy with how the article looks.  Thisd sentence is partially sourced, and partially questionable, "After beginning as a protection unit for the NSDAP leadership, the Waffen-SS eventually grew into a force of thirty-eight combat divisions comprising over 950,000 men"  No, the SA began that way, then the regular SS, after the SA was disbanded (recall the night of the long knives?); and where is the proof of 38 divisions and 950K men?•Jim62sch• 23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I've fixed the header according to facts and provided EB as the ref. The mixup has started on WP from the moment on when someone missed to point out that the Waffen-SS had 3 subunits. Hope it's more clear now and that you can take it from here. I also updated the related pages...--Termer 06:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Termer, I reverted your good faith edits to the article.  First, EB is a lousy reference, because it is a secondary source.  It's like Wikipedia itself.  Second, you place your edits above the tags which is not appropriate.  Third, the information, though well written, doesn't belong in the lead, but belongs elsewhere.  Your edits, of course, are still in the history.  Maybe we can rework them to a short one paragraph for the lead, and place the detail elsewhere.  But let's find better references.  Orangemarlin 16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; there is nothing wrong with using Encyclopædia Britannica as a source.  This does not invalidate the other reasons why your reversal may be proper, which I have not reviewed in depth. Digwuren 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Excuse me? Can you adequately explain what on Earth has your intelligence have to do with our guidelines? This is unbelievable. I do believe it's my humble duty to inform you the way and manner we write articles here, and I properly did it with all due respect and civility. If you fail, or don't even try, to understand the guidelines and policies I carefully told you about, I'm afraid you're at the wrong place. You are thoughtlessly showing your ignorance by telling me that such an outrageous, innacurate, and erratic translation can be considered worthy to be included here. Vandalism? The very same policy you pompously mentioned disagrees entirely with you, and given that vandalism is a "is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" I will civilly ask you to at least know what vandalism is before you try to lecture someone about the subject. And if you can't tell sir, I took great offense by your arrogant tone and your nonsensical comments, and I do strongly suggest you to change your behaviour if you wish to stay here. --Nkcs 05:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nkcs, please don't bite newcomers.  Termer may be a like rough, but he's full of sincere desire to improve Wikipedia, and most of the time, he succeeds rather well — both are more than can be said of certain other participants. Digwuren 10:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the reason why this article has been pouncing between extremes 

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