Talk:Waffen-SS

Pictures

I deleted the photo of "The dancing Armenians". User Vonones placed it in the articles about the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS. It doesn't belong in any of these. An encyclopedic article should give an overview of a topic. Details like this picture one can and should find in specialized books on the topic. More important and informativ are photos of personalities and equipment (see the discussion about the dead soldier).

source that poles remained banned

"jews and poles remained banned" - can anybody confirm this?--212.118.232.148 (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, considering the fact that the Waffen-SS was a great multi-ethnic organization, and that the German Army had some Jewish soldiers and officers, I, also, would like to have someone confirm this. I have also heard in a BBC documentary that poles boosted the German conscripts in later 1944. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is patently untrue. See for example Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust, pg 321. The Polish government has admitted that Polish citizens- including ethnic Poles- served with the SS. It is an absurd lie to claim that some conception of Poles being 'sub-human' prevented their being employed in German fighting formations. The lack of Polish formations was simply a result of the ideas, misguided in my view, that the German leadership had regarding Polish fighting capabilities. 203.109.214.95 (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Quotations

Do either of the two quotations recently added by User:Jonas Vinther belong in the lead? Or perhaps later in the article?

• Quotation #1
• Quotation #2 -- Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

After consideration I agree the first not does not belong in the lead, but perhaps later in the article as you said, although I would not have added the new one if I didn't believe it should be in the lead. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A contributor seems intent on adding quotations from former Waffen-SS members to the lede. I would ask that per WP:BRD such changes be discussed rather than edit-warred over. As I made clear in my edit summary, I feel that such quotes are undue, and add little to the article anyway. That former Waffen-SS members will attempt to minimise or justify their behaviour is hardly unexpected - but it adds little meaningful content to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that any Waffen-SS survivor would do anything to justify or excuse their actions, I just added a simple example of that. Like I said earlier, I agree that that one should probably not be in the lead, but the new one should. But of course this is just my opinion. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh well... I guess all my contributions and says are completely non-important and "more of less useless"... Whatever. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you think it actually adds to the lede in terms of meaningful information concerning the Waffen-SS? This is a single statement, from a single individual, made after the event in circumstances where veracity has to be questionable. It says nothing about the Waffen-SS as a whole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy and Diana, especially the above position raised by Andy. It is anecdotal evidence that does not belong in the lede, nor the Nuremburg defense that offers little to introduction.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In the position that I find myself in, I'm going politely hide my irritation and not make any future edits on this page. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That is probably best. This type of editing does not add to WP, only detract. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

What the...?

There seem to be some confusion here? The intro says: "nations considered by Nazis to be "sub-human" like ethnic Poles or Jews remained excluded". I find this very hard to believe: I have sources from BBC that says that Waffen-SS divisions, particularly in 1944-45, had been boosted with Czech and Polish conscripts. Also, the German Army did indeed have many Jewish soldiers. Around 150,000 people with Jewish blood or ancestry would eventually serve in the German Wehrmacht, those included: 2 field marshals, 2 full generals, 8 lieutenant generals, and 5 major generals, and some of these would be awarded The Knights Cross. To name a few famous-Jews-serving-in-the-German-Army: Anton Mayer, Werner Goldberg, Helmut Wilberg, Walter Hollaender, Bernard Rogge, Paul Ascher, Horst Geitner who received the Iron Cross 2nd Class and Silver Wound Badge, Hermann Aub, and of course Emil Maurice.

I'd like someone else's opinion on this. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Poles etc in the Waffen SS, please cite your source. As for 'people with Jewish blood or ancestry' serving in the Wehrmacht in general, that is not the topic of this article (though I note that you are being somewhat selective in what you say about the matter: Werner Goldberg for instance was expelled from the army in 1940 because of his Jewish ancestry). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the sources, it's a Ningus-Martin/BBC documentary called "Secrets of World War II", it's available online. Regarding Goldberg, he might have been dismissed in 1940, but that was in 1940: one year of active service. Also, I totally forgot to mention Erhard Milch, he was a field marshal, Görings deputy, and of Jewish decent. And also, Goldberg was just one example, unless you can explain all the others I mentioned, I will remain convinced in that belief. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Jonas, this article is about the Waffen-SS, not the German Army. Your comment above provides information about Czech and Polish conscripts in the Waffen-SS, but not Jews. Do you have information about Jews in the Waffen-SS? If not, the information about them should be restored. You should also restore the information about the Poles and compare and contrast the BBC source with the Polish one. Deleting it is inappropriate. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, my point in mentioning the German Jews in the German army was to prove that people besides "Aryan Germans" did indeed fight for Germany, which is not commonly mentioned or believed. Besides, the Waffen-SS is famous for being multi-ethnic and multi-national military force, so I find it hard to believe that Poles and Jews remained banned, especially since the sources I have prove otherwise. Some people still deny that any non-Germans fought for Germany. Here is the link to the Ningus-Martin/BBC sources. I firmly believe the delete-editing I have done is entirely good faith. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stay on-topic. This article is not about the Wehrmacht, or about what people 'believe'. If you have sources which state that Jews were knowingly permitted to serve in the Waffen-SS, please provide them. And please note that we cannot cite material uploaded to YouTube unless it has clearly been uploaded by the copyright holder (in fact, you shouldn't even link on talk pages). If you can find a legitimate upload, please give an indication of where in the video the relevant section is - it isn't reasonable to expect people to watch the entire episode to find it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

On topic is Waffen-SS, not Wehrmacht. I'm pretty familar with the multi-ethnic aspect of the Waffen-SS having written four FA articles on non-German Balkan Waffen-SS divisions. I am reverting the edit because the deletion does not properly address the concerns that your contention covers only Poles, that the sources on the Poles should be compared and contrasted, and no source has been produced regarding Jews in the Waffen-SS. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You guys are more or less just repeating each other in defriend formulations. Also, I actually just wanted someone to confirm that Poles and Jews remained banned, didn't try to prove you defriend, but merely said I found that hard to believe since I've always been under the impression Poles were allowed, and since many Jews served in the German Army, which is not known for being a multi-ethnic or multi-national military force, it didn't quite make sense. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't appear to be reading or comprehending what we are saying. And so far as I know, "defriend" only has a meaning on Facebook, not here. Do you mean "different"? If you make a bold edit and are reverted, the matter comes here for discussion, which is what we have been doing. The policy is WP:BRD. Without putting too sharp a point on it, your "impressions" and what you find "hard to believe", are essentially irrelevant. What you need are reliable published third party sources per [[WP:RS]. If you have one or some that say that Jews served in the Waffen-SS, produce them. If not, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Correcting grammar is childish and a sign you have run out of meaningful things to mention. I'm not going to feel intimidated because you correct my grammar. Also, I have again and again emphasized my points which is, not surprisingly, being more of less neglected. I'm going to tell you the same thing I tell other users in similar situations: do whatever you feel is best for Wikipedia, I don't care because I know I have my heart and mind in the right place and is making a difference on Wikipedia. All edits I have done and will do in the future is done solely in the belief it's good faith edits. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No intent to intimidate. Just follow WP policies and we'll get along just fine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing I want more, friend... Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Logo

The recently removed logos appear to have been taken from recruitment posters such as can be seen here and here. In fact the description for image File:Logo-WaffenSS.jpg states "self-made, cut from a recruitment poster". If you could please clarify why this has been removed that would be great. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Diannaa that is why I reinstated the old logo you mention from 2008. I am not a photo use expert, but did not see a problem with it. Kierzek (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I will re-add it, unless some reasonable objection is brought forth in the near future. And if one looks at the "logo file", it shows that the image is used on many other world Wikipedia sites and in many articles therein; without objection. [User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dianna and Kierzek. My objection to the logo is that while it might well have been cut from a poster, what source supports it as the logo of the Waffen SS? We are using it in the infobox, which indicates that it was an official logo, like the divisional symbols. The fact that the lettering was used on a recruiting poster doesn't, IMO. If the Waffen SS had a logo, other than the sig rune (which of course was shared with the rest of the SS), I'm not aware of it, and I don't believe using this file as "the logo of the Waffen SS" is supported by reliable sources. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The most appropriate image that represents the Waffen SS is probably the Waffen SS version of the Hoheitabzeichen with the left-facing eagle and wings tapering to a point, introduced in 1938, but there may be other options of actual badges or symbols. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what image are you talking about, Peacemaker? -- Director (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

File:SS Hoheitszeichen.jpg Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This one? With or without the black background? I suggest opening a thread on COM:GL/I and requesting an SVG version. -- Director (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, a pic of a Waffen SS soldier could be used instead of a symbol, as there were few differences between SS insignia and Waffen SS insignia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think your original suggestion would be fine, if we had a decent SVG version. It seems to be a unique eagle design used by the Waffen SS.. (that looks uncomfortably like a US colonel's insignia [1] :P) -- Director (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Preemptive addition"? I just added the Sig runes so the entry doesn't stand empty while there's discussion.. -- Director (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does it matter? The Sig runes alone are indicative of the whole SS, not the Waffen-SS specifically. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't. As I said, I added the image so the article's infobox doesn't stand empty in that regard. Its accurate in a wider sense. More to the point, will you be requesting a vector emblem at Commons? -- Director (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole point is that it is not accurate in a specific sense, and this is an article about the Waffen SS, not the SS in general. We are not the only ones discussing this, I am interested in the views of Diannaa and Kierzek, and wish to build some consensus on the appropriate image for the infobox. There's no deadline. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This reminds me of the discussion as to the "one official logo and slogan" of Nazi Germany which took place on that board (there was none). I agree that the Waffen-SS logo removed cannot be said to be "the one" official logo but it was a common representative logo which was used. I don't believe we should use the regular SS sig runes, nor the SS-VT version. We could make sure to label the one used as a representative logo or symbol. We are not going to find a "one" official logo. Now, I know one of you will say, what about the Waffen-SS sleeve eagle/Hoheitabzeichen. The problem with that is it was a sleeve uniform insignia only. It that our only option herein? Kierzek (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe we should not use something copied off a recruiting poster when we have the sleeve eagle, which is distinctive. Another option I flagged earlier is to use a pic of a Waffen-SS soldier. There is nothing that says we have to have a logo there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: your thoughts? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree the image from the poster may not be an official logo after all. I like the sleeve eagle idea, or perhaps a soldier or group of soldiers wearing the distinctive insignia. The sleeve eagle does not seem to be exclusive to the Waffen-SS -- Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a soldier or group of soldiers would be best. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to go with the sleeve eagle, so a "soldier or group of soldiers" is okay with me. Kierzek (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a few suggestions to get the conversation started. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• 
  (a) NCO cap of Waffen-SS infantry (already present in the article - could be moved to the info box)
• 
  (b) Waffen-SS burn down the Warsaw Ghetto. From the Stroop Report. (already present in the article - could be moved to the info box)
• 
  (c) Museum representation of LSSAH uniform with poster in the background
• 
  (d) Sepp Dietrich and others, January 1945
• 
  (e) Peiper
• 
  (f) Dietrich presents awards to members of the LSSAH
• 
  (g) Otto Meyer. Illustrates insignia and several important awards
• 
  (h)Michael Wittman. Image illustrates entire uniform

I would prefer to go with some ordinary soldiers rather than a notable individual, the one of the soldiers receiving awards would be good, shows the distinctive insignia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not keen to have one that shows smiling people, and the ones depicting more famous people have potentially undesirable political baggage. Photo "f" would work for me. Alternate choices: "a" or "c" -- Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say: f, g or h; in that order. Kierzek (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

f. works for me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sex dolls

Do you people think it's worth mentioning that Himmler, in 1940, introduced sex dolls for the Waffen-SS as a way to combat Syphilis at the front? I have a source here from The Huffington Post. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Sounds pretty marginal. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No. It is not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)