Talk:1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler

message: The SS weren't just fighting units, they embodied the spirit of Nazism. Perhaps this is justified in the case of LSSAH, however to call 13.WGDdSS(kroatische) or 36.WGDdSS the embodiment of the spirit of Nazisim is pushing it. Perhaps this arguement belongs on the Waffen SS page rather than a divisional history.--Ansbachdragoner 8 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)
:This became increasingly less true as the war went on.  For instance, men were conscripted into the Waffen SS who were not members of the Nazi party.  I don't see any reason for there not to be a separate article on the division.Larry Dunn 16:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi ideology

message: One should add a POV tag to this article.  What about the many war crimes committed by this unit???
-Do you have any in mind? if not, be quiet.
-I certainly agree with the first comment; this reads as an extremely sanitised history; without a great deal of looking there is the Wormhout massacre during the battle for france; the sentencing to death in absentia by the Soviets of Sepp Deitrich for war crimes in Kharkov.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.194.55.56 (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAR CRIMES 

message: This section needs a bit of a rewrite to make it more encyclopedic in tone (& needs references). Maybe I'll have a go if no-one objects? EyeSereneTALK 20:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normandy 

message: Very well made article compared to other Wikipedia articles on specific divisions in a country's armed forces. Compliments to whoever wrote this up
ColombianConservative 07:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good 

message: Anyone has this?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place and date of surrender 

message: As part of the WP:MILHIST B class check, this article just stays as a B class however it needs many more inline citations. SGGH speak! 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: The image :File:Meyerklissura.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Meyerklissura.jpg

message: The caption on the file states that it was taken at Klissoura. I'm wondering what the source is for the present caption, locating the pic at Vevi? Meyer was involved in both actions, so either could be correct. If it was Vevi, I will add it to the article on the battle. Cheers, Grant | Talk 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not been able to find any other sources that place the pic at Vevi, so have changed the wording of the caption to mention Klissoura instead. Grant | Talk 10:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meyer pic: Vevi or Klissoura? 

message: The study of war crimes are one that should be looked at objectively and not just from re-treaded writings or as one author states, "a rehash of another's content." In other words, things that are repeated over and over by certain western authors of books that cover the same old main personalities, photos and main incidents that many other books do; which show a lack of archival and objective research. The books are really general introduction readers that are a compilation with sensationalized comments thrown in. 
The common assumption is the members of the Waffen-SS were all indoctrinated little NAZI's and most all war crimes (or one's said to be) are then pinned on them. This to the exclusion of the other branches of the Wehrmacht or even soldier's of other nation's including the victor's. Especially on the East front, "no quarter" was shown on both sides. With that said, certainly their were member's who committed war crimes. The one's who did not must face the fact there is a "guilt by association" that will attach to the unit overall. In the end, detailed study from different well known sources should be looked at when said events are included.Kierzek (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The systematic killing of thousands of civilians is hardly the work of a few individuals. Hohum (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Schiffer Publishing has been severely criticized by historians as biased and as romanticizing the German military of WWII. I suspect the same of the other publishers you mentioned. The andf (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not reference the Nuremberg Tribunal as with many of the other Nazi-related articles? In fact I think it was once referenced in this very article. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  And indeed, a check of the history shows the Nuremberg tribunal ref was added to the article in mar 09 and then edited out without comment by 86.152.142.124 on May 25 09. Interesting. I have put it back. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The drivers of the trains that carried Jews (etc.) to the Concentration Camps and Extermination Camps contributed more to the Holocaust than the vast majority of the soldiers in the SS combat units. Lets try to keep criticism of the SS in perspective. BlueRobe (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Sources on atrocities and war crimes, patricipation in Holocaust added.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Cleaned up the cites, the sections and the atrocities were added to the areas and sections where they occurred. Further, for verifiability reasons (WP:VERIFY), English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. Kierzek (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The history of the Waffen-SS is complex

message: The Schutzstaffel infobox shows a Totenkopf image next to the Stabswache link that leads to this article. The article does say the death's head was used for the Stabswache, but is unclear whether it was this particular rendering of a death's head (evidently the same one used by the SS-Totenkopfverbände). If, as this infobox implies, both the Stabswache and the SS-TV used the same picture of a death's head, I think this image should be added to the paragraph of the LSSAH article that discusses the Stabswache. I'd do it myself if I weren't so confused! Lusanaherandraton (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totenkopf insignia 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/greatrisk/greatrisk04.htm
** In 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler on 2011-05-25 06:54:08, 404 Not Found
** In 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler on 2011-06-10 04:20:14, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hi,
I made a change in the lede:
Changed translation of "Leib" in "Leibgarde" to Garde du Corps/"body,torso", which IMHO is more correct;
ref http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Leib.
The new version reads:
"The term Leibstandarte was derived partly from Leibgarde – a somewhat archaic German translation of "Garde du Corps" or personal bodyguard of a military leader ("Leib" = lit. "body, torso") - and Standarte: the Schutzstaffel (SS) or Sturmabteilung (SA) term for a regiment-sized unit."
MVH,
T 
Jan. 12. 2013
83.109.180.48 (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected Translation 

message: Recently, the name of the article above was changed by redirect move from 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler to 1st SS Division Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler. The move is really not correct, if moved-it should be moved to the last official name of the unit: 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. I tried to move it to its last official name for the unit but it was already listed as a past redirect to the article. It also brothers me that this move was done without discussion. It should have been discussed. I believe it should be known by its last official name for the unit, written as either: 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler or 1. SS-Panzer-Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. The first being preferred. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note. It should be discussed and I think it should be left open for a few days to see if anyone else has a comment. BTW-I know the name history well having written and cited it in this article. I don't think LAH (Nov. 1933) should be used because it could cause confusion for general readers when the abbreviation of LSSAH (April 1934 and thereafter) is used in this and other articles. That is why I mentioned using the last full name of the unit, 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (1943) for the title (with the other names used as re-directs). Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User:EyeTruth, you should have cleaned up after the move, ie, you did not fix double redirects created by the move; a bot went around and cleaned up after you. I think the article should live at the most commonly used name, the name they had the longest, or we should abide by the naming conventions established for other military units of this type. For example, 3. SS-Panzergrenadier-Division Totenkopf is at 3rd SS Division Totenkopf. -- Dianna (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see the following: the longest used: Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH); otherwise, I would go with: 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler or 1. SS-Panzer-Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, the last name, as I stated above. As far as most common, it is a close toss up between Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler and Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler; with Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler used in more of the books I own. Unofficially, as to Google hits, Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler has a few more. Kierzek (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:   Of the ideas you've presented, I would suggest 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler is the best alternative, for conformity with other articles of this type. But why does "SS" appear in the name twice?-- Dianna (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The unit was unique. Basically (in rough history), it went from: Stabswache (Staff Guard) to Stoßtrupp (Shock Troop) 'Adolf Hitler'; then when reformed: SS-Stabswache Berlin to SS-Sonderkommando Berlin which in Nov. 1933 was renamed, Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler (LAH). Then in April 1934, Himmler ordered it renamed Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH). Later, after the formation of the Waffen-SS, it was given the distinction of being known as the 1st SS-Division with its formal name still (from April 1934) Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. Kierzek (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Well, the unit first received the name LAH in Munich at the Feldherrnhale in Nov. 1933, but that was not its original name. Himmler did this to distinguish the unit and tie it to Hitler (which was an honor and to curry favor). It would go on to carry that name, modified over time, for the rest of its days. And while it is true that Hitler wanted a guard of SS men, it was Himmler's idea to name it such. Then on 13 April 1934, Himmler signed an order introducing a number of changes, including the insert of the SS initials in the units name. Himmler wanted to make sure it was clear that the unit was SS, independent at that time from the SA or army. More importantly at this time is the fact I believe we all now agree that the name for the article should be: 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. Kierzek (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the page to 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. -- Dianna (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent article name change and move therein 

message: This division was not deployed with the LIV Army Corps as part of Army Group South. The LIV Army Corps operated in the extreme south as part of the 11th Army around Odessa. LSSAH participated in the attack toward Kiev, as part of III Corps, when it was taken out of reserve. 
Depending on the source on June 22nd, it was either deployed in 1st Panzer Group reserve, or as part of the XIV Panzer Corps, which was in reserve along with SS "Viking" and 9th Panzer Division. Axis history, which is pretty reliable has it as part of the 1st Panzer Group reserve, here: http://www.axishistory.com/other-aspects/campaigns-a-operations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/1925-22-june-1941-the-invasion-of-the-ussr, but Russian sources, such as this map http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/maps/1941SW/Vladimirsky/KOVO_June22_41.jpg, put it in the XIV Panzer Corps. 
We can say here that it was in "reserve" with Army Group South and that should be sufficient. 
It is simple enough to say that it was in reserve with Army Group South, as its precise attachment is irrelevant, since it was not fighting. 
Referencing this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1st_SS_Panzer_Division_Leibstandarte_SS_Adolf_Hitler&diff=625701226&oldid=625673668 Livedawg (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, I don't think axishistory qualifies as a reliable source. In any case, it is my understanding that LSSAH was an independent division (ie not under a corps) under the command of Kleist's Panzergruppe, Army Group South. Technically, Kleist was subordinate to 6th Army, but in reality his command was independent, and responsible directly to von Rundstedt. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 06:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  in lieu of a source that is "reliable" then the only reference so far is a Soviet map, which may or may not be accurate: That map suggests it was "attached" to XIVth Panzer Corps, but I suspect that is just an educated guess. Hence the revision I made, which leaves the issue up in the air. Regardless, LSSAH, didn't serve as an attachment to the LIV Corps at that time because LIV was part of the Romanian/Wehrmacht "mixed" 11th Army in the Danube Delta, not at Lublin. Whether or not it was "attached" in reserve, or "independent" in reserve seems moot.Livedawg (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found a good source of this units deployment history through a published version of the CAPTURED GERMAN DOCUMENTS list from the US National Archives and Records Administration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livedawg (talk • contribs) 09:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  LSSAH Barbarossa Deployment

message: I propose changing this article title to simply "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" per WP:COMMONNAME. No one refers to the LSSAH as "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler". Any objections? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonas see the prior discussion above as to same under "Recent article name change and move therein". Kierzek (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the page should be moved. Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler redirects here. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, I agree with Diannaa and this article has several redirects, including Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. Kierzek (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should also be at its last name, per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 22:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move!

message: I'm going to try to revert - the recent changes by editor Kerouac86 are not supported by the main Malmedy massacre article. I suggest that addressing these discrepancies can be more appropriately done on the Malmedy massacre page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did revert - here are the differences K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the person who re-wrote the content on Malmedy in May 2014. The source I used was Parker, Danny S. (2012). Fatal Crossroads: The Untold Story of the Malmédy Massacre at the Battle of the Bulge. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo. . You are correct when you say that this content agrees with the main article Malmedy massacre, which contains further sources. Thank you for reverting, it was the right thing to do in my opinion. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to the Malmedy massacre section  

message: This section seems to relate the early history of the SS proper and Waffen-SS, rather than that of the division. Is this extensive exposition necessary? I'd like to shorten for concision and better flow of the article. Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is necessary to give the background and history of the divison. But some edits for concision would not hurt. I would like to see this article and frankly the other main Waffen-SS division articles given a good ce run thorough and also see RS citing added. It is a big task. The articles on the 2nd, 3rd and 12th Waffen-SS divisions are in worse shape, overall. I know you have been working on them, K.e. which is good. Kierzek (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Early history (1923–1933)" 

message: Hi, I would like to move this out of the citations arear:
* [33] Meyer, Kurt (2005). Grenadiers: The Story of Waffen SS General Kurt "Panzer" Meyer. Stackpole Books. p. 124. .
This appears to be a memoir (or at least written by an 'interested party'). There's only one cite to Meyer, so it's not a big deal in the context of the article. Still, in the spirit of using WP:RS, I'd like to have it removed and/or moved as Further reading in Meyer's bio article. Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Given what it is citing is pretty mundane deployment information, I see no reason why it wouldn't be reliable in that context. If you could source the info elsewhere, it could be moved to Further reading. Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 20:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see. Nevermind then. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Kurt Meyer as source 

message: I have discovered the quotation that starts "It is true that one fighter bomber we shot down landed on a Panzer and destroyed it..." was copied from a forum in  back in 2008. The forum post, http://www.ww2f.com/topic/4956-11th-armoured-division-normandy/, is dated 2003. The edit also contained copyright violations from this forum, which I am going to try to repair right now. I am removing the quotation as well, as that forum is the earliest source I can find online for the quotation, and forums are not a reliable scholarly source. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation 

message: Prior content in this  duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I noticed in a couple of places the rank given for a General was his ultimate rank and not the rank at the time. For example, I went ahead and changed Reinhardt's rank, as he was not the equivalent of a four star General during the Polish campaign. I think there are some other instances of this which should also be corrected.
There also seems to be some confusion over the unit's size before it became an actual Division. I'm not sure if this because people are equating regiments with brigades (which are not interchangeable) or what. As far as aI know, the unit was never designated as a Brigade and should never be referred to as  one. Even if it was supplemented with additional smaller units, it would be considered an over-strength regiment and not a brigade.  During the part about the Balkan campaign the two terms are used and the word brigade should be changed.
Also, there was an incident in Poland that is significant for the rest of the war. At the city of Radom, the LAH massacred some civilians, apparently under the direction of the man in charge of the marching band. Both von Reichanau and von Rundstedt insisted on a court martial, but the end result was that Hitler intervened and pardoned the accused. What's more, it was because of this that the decision was made that the Army would no longer have anything to say about disciplining SS units, even the ones directly under their command, something that would haunt the Wehrmacht for the rest of the war.
Oh, and in the lede, could he first sentence read, "The 1st SS-Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (abbreviated as 1. SS-Pz.Div. LSSAH) or simply as LAH"?  I've often seen it abbreviated as just "LAH".  __209.179.86.123 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   A couple of points 

message: The content in the subsection Kharkov starting with "On 8–9 February 1943..."  and ending with "...withdraw towards Krasnograd." is copied from Jochen Peiper Justice Denied -- so it may be a copyvio. The book itself sounds sketchy -- the title, the thrust of the narrative, and the writing style ("important Junction City of Kharkov" - caps in the original). I would like to remove this content from the article unless there are objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Its not cited and given the copyright vio. remove it. See if it can be replaced with RS cited information. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do – thanks for the feedback. I checked Third Battle of Kharkov but it does not discuss Leibstandarte during that particular timeframe, but covers II SS Panzer Corps overall. I don't have access to sources with such level of detail, so I will leave a note in the edit summary for interested editors to pick this up. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kharkov 

message: Individuals can commit war crimes, but can a Division be guilty of war crimes? Royalcourtier (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if enough members of a unit or organization, actively and willingly commit the actions or even allow them to happen. This Waffen-SS division and the Waffen-SS, as a whole, (although there were found to be certain exceptions as to conscripts) were found by clear and convincing evidence to be adjudged guilty. On this finding there is no question of any uncertainty per the RS sources and evidence. Kierzek (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division guilty of war crimes? 

message: It is not correct to argue that "although it is unarguable that the massacre occurred, Mohnke's level of involvement is impossible to know, he was never formally charged and brought to trial". His involvement could be determined by investigation and the testimony of others. He did not need to be tried to determine his degree of involvement.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct per WP:RS sources. If there is no official trial or even inquest and judgment made by the trier of fact, it is not conclusive; I can tell you, per my day job, that two people can "witness" an event, such as an accident and give different accounts, even under oath and also one can hire an "expert" to support any point-of-view. Here the fact is that the evidence, even per "investigation", is not conclusive per the RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree completely, and yet....the principle of command responsibility applies here. The commander is responsible for everything the unit does or fails to do. That includes actions the commander doesn't even know about. This was the basis, e.g. of the postwar conviction of the Japanese general Yamashita for war crimes. I am just wary of trying too hard to explain away command responsibility in instances like this. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohnke's involvement in massacre 

message: The term "elite" is used several times through the article. It should be removed as it is  puffery.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.25.24.153 (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No they were considered an elite division; unlike later Waffen-SS divisions. I will cite it. Kierzek (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Use of the term is still puffery, even if it is used in various sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.25.24.153 (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

text:  In any case, let's discuss here before continuing with editing to avoid an edit war.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.25.24.153 (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "[S]till puffery, even if it is used in various sources." That is your opinion, and that is WP:OR. We go by the cited sources of the historians; our opinion does not matter. It's not puffing when it comes to this unit; McNab and Stein are just two RS sources which will state this fact and verify it. Per BRD, the burden is on you to put forth why in this instance the wording should be removed. And frankly, if we were talking about other Waffen-SS units (especially after the first 5 divisions), your argument would be strong and I would agree with you, per the cited sources. And although, many RS sources state the first 5 divisions were considered elite fighting and equipped forces, I have not put forth citing as to the other four and am not arguing for certain wording for their articles. PS, I did tweak it with RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "elite" 

message: Why does this article suddenly begin using the term "sonderkommando?" Sonderkommando refers to work units of prisoners in concentration or extermination camps. I believe this is an error and these uses should have been "schutzkommando." FinnHK (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The term has more than one meaning and always has; SS-Sonderkommando Zossen and SS-Sonderkommando Jüterbog and SS-Sonderkommando Berlin is what the units were known as at the time. Not an error. Kierzek (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase used in connection with the concentration camps is a euphemism, the original literal military meaning is 'special-commando' and as such is legitimate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonderkommando? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110165454/http://www.wereth.org/index.php/history to http://www.wereth.org/index.php/history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I removed Goldsworthy, Terry, Valhalla's warriors - A history of the Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front 1941-1945, 2007, Dog Ear Publishing as this is a self-publishing source. Furthermore, the writing style of the particular book is very poor and confusing. For instance, it confuses confiscated Jewish property with the product of workshops in concentrating camps, suggesting that Waffen SS were equipped with confiscated civilian winter clothing (!)--Dipa1965 (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with his book not being a RS source. And hereby being removed accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source