Talk:33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne

message: No german miltary was sent to Galicia, Spain, ever! In Eastern Europe, there is another region called that way.
:I've fixed the link. Blorg 18:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, would object from removing words like "prowess", "tenaciously held its ground" etc just because they fought on Hitler side. If you can prove that these descriptions are false, then you can do it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.207.196 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry 'SF' some people are just interested in military history, we can go just about any where else and read about the holocaust.  It gets a little old when people want to throw it in the mix of a military discussion, usually just to start a fight.  user:Pzg Ratzinger
Oh for Pete's sake calm down.  I've viewed this article over the course of its lifetime and I haven't seen anything that could be considered "blatantly politicized".  The examples of the language cited above are very minor and have been corrected.  Big deal.  
As to the forum mentioned, atrocities are frequently discussed and anyone displaying pro-Nazi sentiments is immediately banned from the forum.  The Holocaust generally is not to be discussed because, as you well know, chat forums are ripe for abuse.
As to the military unit in this Wiki article, I'm familiar with the subject matter and believe it to be a factual and informative article;  I'm very surprised that it only gets a B-.  P1340 17:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is laid out poorly, there is alot of good information and a couple great pictures.  However it needs to be in several sections (I created the 'defense of Berlin' part). Also it appear some one added POV language such as 'nazi apologist' in the article.  user:Pzg Ratzinger
---
I'm concerned that it seems based on the work of Richard Landwehr, who, according to Wikipedia, is a well-known holocaust denier. I also find the prominent role identified for this regiment in the defence of Berlin somewhat dubious, and would like to see more reliable references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.250.195 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: actualy there should be a different article for the LVF and SS. LVF, SS Brigade and SS Division are different. i agree infos are not so easy to find in english, yet there are pictures on wikicommons about the LVF. Cliché Online (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the pictures don't show, that they swore an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler. See: Herbert Tint: French foreign policy since  the Second World  War. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972, , p. 112. --Dodo19 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the allegiance serment i saw was on archive videos when the LVF gave allegiance to Pétain when they had to say "i swear it" with the nazi salute. Cliché Online (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

text: the LVF had french flags (with battle honor on it) and shoulder patch with the french flag, they were serving vichy france under german command, just like the free french served in us, british and soviet corps with allied uniforms but were not mercenaries fighting for another country. the german allegiance certainly only applies to the french ss because the ss were close to hitler, i'm not sure. don't you have online source for this (like google books)? i have videos in the french national video archive institute here. what i saw was allegiance to petain, i'm gonna give it a closer look. Cliché Online (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

text: btw did you noticed the eagle emblem of the LVF looks like tyhe one of napoleon's grande armée with lightning and head toward right, while the 3rd reich eagle emblem had the head toward left. the french was lookinbg toward gemrany while the german was looking toward france. Cliché Online (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure, if you are on the right page here as you seem to refer to the Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism. The Charlemagne uniform is clear: German Reichs Eagle on the left upper sleeve, below French tricolor badge, and Charlemagne cuff-titles. Thus signalling a French unit serving under German command. This indicates, that allegiance is toward Germany and France with Germany dominating. Same applies for the LVT, except that Wehrmacht personnel wore the eagle above the right breast pocket, as seen on the picture in the article, with no cuff-titles as they were reserved for elite formations. --Dodo19 (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: LVF had allegiance to vichy france not germany!

message: It is stated in the article that that it was the SS Charlemagne that was the last force to hold the Fuhrenbunker. This is extremely ironic and an interesting footnote, but i have not ever heard this stated anywhere else, is there any other second source that is easy to access. I find it interesting and would like to see more proof--99.141.194.185 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been removed. It is a myth cited to unreliable source author, Jean Mabire. They were not holding anything. They were some of the last troops (a mere 30 men left), in the area of where the bunker complex was underground (the area which included the ruins of the Reich Chancellery). Most French SS men then surrendered near the Potsdamer rail station to the Red Army troops. Kierzek (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is weird. The guys that surrendered were killed immediately. So, are you trying to sell information from Red Army sources as proven facts? Shall we also believe information from Red Army sources on Poland then? I doubt the reliability of that approach. 136.219.16.35 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler's last defenders were French? 

message: Article states onlyb 60 of the French contigent of tne Waffen SS Charlemagne remained! Any still alive today?Libremoi (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since only 60 French Waffen survived any still alive today? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:French SS recruitment poster.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Are you sure 19,000 men composed the Division? I hardly believe it, even if there is a reference. The French page speaks about around 7300 men in 1944 at its peak. Are you sure you not to melt the Charlemagne soldiers with the people enlisted in collaborationist parties in France? I have always heard they were too few to compose an actual division despite the name of Charlemagne Division. Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.154.15.139 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, someone changed the number and it is wrong. I will fix it, thank you for the heads-up. Kierzek (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong figures 

message: The info box is misleading. The Charlemagne Division was formed in 1944, so it couldn't have participated in the Battle of Moscow - that was the LVF. I suggest that "as LVF" of something similar is added to the info box and/or the date is changed to 1941-45.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active 1944-45 but involved in the Battle of Moscow in 1941? 

message: Most def an author with far-right extremist views - per French wikipedia: Jean Mabire is "the specialist" of "rehabilitation of Nazism" taking the form of a presentation of the SS men as heroic and exemplary men." He's also featured prominently in MacKenzie's work I've been using on historical revisionism by form members of the Waffen-SS. See MacKenzie Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was going to check with you about Mabire. I provisionally binned it. I had a feeling...Irondome (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I had never heard of this guy, Mabire. BTW - I see the Richard W. Landwehr Jr. book on this division is now being offered by self-publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (a red flag as to use). Kierzek (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Mabire is used as source on Führerbunker to describe the French SS motivation to stay there until May 2. IMO -- questionable. Per MacKenzie, Mabire "reproduces in large part the HIAG version of the Waffen-SS at war"; he has written "a dozen" unit histories. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will fix that (Führerbunker). Kierzek (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jean Mabire (since removed) 

message: Hello everyone, i would like to add information of the following book which is regarded as reliable source in german, austrian, swiss, belgian and the french historian community as well as their gouvernments. The book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N4BR7LR/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
An example of what i think needs to be added to this article in a shortened version:
Quote from the book: The Waffen-SS: A European History by Jochen Böhler (Editor), Robert Gerwarth (Editor):
One of the most striking moments in Marcel Ophuls’s celebrated documentary film about the period of the German occupation in France during the Second World War, Le Chagrin et la pitie (1969), is certainly co-author André Harris’s interview with a representative of French military collaboration, Christian de La Mazière. Filmed at the castle of Sigmaringen, the town in Baden-Württemberg to which the Vichy government retreated in the summer of 1944, La Mazière recounts how he enlisted in the Waffen-SS during that same summer, before going on to fight the Russians in Pomerania in the spring of 1945. This interview, as Vichy specialist Henry Rousso points out in his analysis of Ophuls’s film, brought to light an aspect of the German occupation that had been conveniently forgotten during the late 1950s–1960s, when the de Gaulle government had marginalized Vichy and sought to impose the idea that France had unanimously resisted. In fact, thousands of Frenchmen had volunteered to fight on the German side during the war, and, according to Rousso, they had not acted ‘for money or out of intellectual or moral turpitude’, as the stereotype of the collaborationist has it. Instead, they had become involved out of ‘political and ideological fervor’. La Mazière’s interview, Rousso concludes, reminded the French that their country had been deeply divided during the occupation. More fundamentally, it also reminded them that World War II had not been only a ‘conflict between nations’ but a ‘bloody ideological struggle’, a struggle in which some of their fellow citizens had participated, though not always on the side regarded today as the ‘good’ one.
The source for this listed in this book is https://www.amazon.com/syndr%C3%B4me-Vichy-1944-nos-jours/dp/B00C3ZY9ZM/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1503789226&sr=8-1&keywords=henry+rousseau+the+vichy+syndrome
Can this book be used as reliable source on english wikipedia as it is considered reliable in France, Germany and some other countries? Thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Would like to see K.e.coffman opinion on this as well ChartreuxCat (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this comes across as a suitable source. I would make sure that you are adding content that is stated in your own voice, not copying from the source. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with K.e.coffman; add the info. in your voice and with brevity. Also add the cites in sfn format and then adding the cited book, as well. Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Vichy specialist Henry Rousso" seems to duck on of the most important issues. Volunteers from France (as well as volunteers throughout Europe and even the Americas and Asia) had been attracted by anticommunist slogans like "Europe contre le bolshevisme" and similar stuff. Not taking this into account is weird and it ridicules any evaluation of why people were motivated to go to war voluntarily in a criminal organization. 136.219.16.35 (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Not sure what the scare quotes are doing, IP. Henry Rousso is widely recognized as one of the most eminent historians of France in the Second World War... —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation for joining 

message: Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "c/e; npov; excessive & unneeded orbat". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: :why is the symbol of the 33rd SS not on the page?
:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:33._SS-Waffen-Grenadier-Division_%E2%80%9ECharlemagne%E2%80%9D.svg
:2601:442:4600:8F20:923:D15:5733:C1CD (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   you can always ask  but probably because that badge was never issued and worn according to Littlejohn (no preview) also see  this discussion.  Aeengath (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  is absolutely right. There is no reason to include it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division Emblem 

message: @Mathglot, my recent edit to the short description was merely an attempt at standardization. Please do not ascribe any motive other than distilling the short description to a short simple format. I apologize if it offended you, that was not the intention.
Unnecessarily (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2022