Jump to content

Talk:HIAG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 192.38.140.140 (talk) at 17:23, 28 October 2018 (→Biased and unbalanced article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleHIAG has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 29, 2016Good article nomineeListed
June 11, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article


WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 15, 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Biased and unbalanced article

While I'm sure that any criticism will immediately be met with disingenuous claims about "reputable sources" (Quoting the same handful of historians, ignoring other historians) the biased, tendentious and selective nature of this article needs to be pointed out.

That some of HIAGs claims have a factual basis, is completely ignored. Such as:

  • The research done by Scandinavian historians (such as Claus Bundgaard) on Scandinavian Waffen SS volunteers disproves the notion that a majority of these were Nazis. Indeed, the motivation for joining Waffen SS was quite varied and for the most part, volunteers were motivated by: Sense of adventure, economic opportunity, hostility to communism and pan-nordic or nationalist sympathies. (Wanting to restore Danish honor, for example.)
  • The "Baltic problem". According to the Nurnberg trials and the post war denazification efforts, The Baltic Waffen SS divisions were not to be considered war criminals, and membership of these was not illegal. (The number of Baltic volunteers was significant: 5 divisions.)

So apparently a significant amount of Waffen SS divisions WERE officially "soldiers like any other", according to the allieds.

Poor "Dissolution" section

The section claims that HIAG was "increasingly ostracized" and disbanded itself.

The wording inaccurately suggests that the dissolution was caused by increased focus/pressure on the group.

But the real reason for why HIAG ceased to exist on a federal level is never given.

The real reason for the dissolution, which should be mentioned, is obviously that:

A: HIAG was founded as a "kameradenschaft" mutual aid organization for former Waffen SS members. Due to the passage of time, and as WWII fades into history, there were very few Waffen SS members left to organize/benefit.

B: HIAG had outlived itself, and mostly succesfully reached its aims. Pensions had mostly been solved decades ago. And with an entire cottage industry revolving around WWII (with a focus of Waffen SS, Waffen SS historical reenactors etc.) the need for an organization to "defend their honor" was no longer there.

(Indeed, the passage of time will ultimately fulfill HIAGs goal of rehabilitating Waffen SS. Just look at Ghengis Khan for example. Or Napoleon.)

The name in English translation?

The page name is an abbreviation or acronym, and the opening paragraph gives Hilfsgemeinschaft auf Gegenseitigkeit der Angehörigen der ehemaligen Waffen-SS. A translation into English would be helpful and appropriate. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

Hi, this article is in need of some updates to provide contemporary assessments and to adjust POV. Are there any editors interested in working on this? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research notes

  • Kontext: HIAG archives; protests re: taxpayer funds being used w/o giving access to historians
  • Pioneer of the Shoah: The Waffen-SS, Kommandostab Reichsführer-SS and the Extermination of the Jews, 1939–1945 by Cüppers: Erich Eberhardt]
  • Jean-Paul Picaper - "crucible of revisionism"; Das Reich series by Weidinger provided a sanitized version of history without any references to massacres. More so than its predecessors, the series created a method, perhaps with the legal advice from HIAG, that focused on the positive, the "heroic" side of National Socialism.
  • Taken off the list of right-wing extremist organizations in 1984 - JTA; NYT
  • 1985 meetings - NYT
  • 1956 - gained official recognition as an association; Guido Knopp
  • VdH - in Homecomings: Returning POWs and the Legacies of Defeat in Postwar Germany, by Frank Biess
  • Anti-liberal Europe: A Neglected Story of Europeanization edited by Dieter Gosewinkel:VdH & HIAG
  • More on the 1950 Himmeroder Document - Screening War: Perspectives on German Suffering, by Paul Cooke, Marc Silberman
  • In the Tracks of Breivik: Far Right Networks in Northern and Eastern Europe – Revisionism: We can change history together: Baltic 'freedom fighters'
  • Past in the making: historical revisionism in Central Europe after 1989 by Michal Kopeček: more on Baltic states
  • Sample of Siegrunen, issue 79 - not using it as a source, listing more for the curiosity factor
  • 1950s - a decade of suppression of Germany's Nazi past Hebere
  • Bernd Wegner, Erschriebene Siege. Franz Halder, die 'Historical Division' und die Rekonstruktion des Zweiten Weltkrieges im Geiste des deutschen Generalstabes: Victory-through-writing; Hausser's work (co-author with Rudolf-Christoph von Gersdorff): Fighting the Breakout: The German Army in Normandy from "Cobra" to the Falaise Gap. London and Mechanicsburg: Greenhill Books/Lionel Leventhal, 2004

K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing ref "Weinberg 2005"

The short ref "Weinberg 2005" does not link to any of the sources listed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I added the book cited. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Peacemaker67 – The references in this article seem to be all there for a "B class". Unless I may have missed one. Would you be willing to show me there may have been references needed to pass the article for "B class"? Adamdaley (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has been done to this article since I assessed it as C-Class. A cursory look just now indicates that all paras are now cited, so you could go right ahead and re-assess it, or the main contributors could re-post it at MHAR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was going to resubmit it after adding the requested citations and additional content. I will do so now. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parking spot: Further reading

  • Lee, Martin A. (1999). The Beast Reawakens: Fascism's Resurgence from Hitler's Spymasters to Today's Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-92546-4.
  • Beaumont, Roger A. (1974). Military Elites. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company. ISBN 978-0-672-51977-2.
  • Weinberg, Gerhard L. (2005) [1994]. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85316-3.

Unused. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of quick suggestions

Per the request on my talk page, I took a quick run through the article. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Citations section there is a ref called "Tauber 1967, p. 539", is this Volume I or II?
  • this probably needs attribution in text: "...The Allies' often crude and ineffective implementation caused local population to dismiss the process as "noxious mixture of moralism and 'victors' justice'". For instance, "According to Large, the Allies' often crude and ineffective implementation caused local population to dismiss the process as "noxious mixture of moralism and 'victors' justice'."
  • this probably should be referenced: "Those in the leadership roles held high wartime SS ranks ranging from SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer to SS-Obersturmbannführer."
  • there is a mixture of US and British English spelling. For instance, "organisation" (British) and "center" (US). Either is fine, but it should be consistent;
  • "Steffen Werther & Madeleine Hurd" --> "Steffen Werther and Madeleine Hurd"
  • "At some point, the HIAG's periodical and the Munin Verlag publishing..." --> "At some point, the HIAG periodical and the Munin Verlag publishing..."
  • there is some inconsistency in how you use mdashes and ndashes

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:HIAG/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 08:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will start the review shortly, probably not in one single run.

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • In the lead "It campaigned for the legal, economic and historical rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS, using contacts with political parties to manipulate them for its purposes." Its purpose is a bit fuzzy here. Reading the German Wiki, I suggest rewriting the sentence slightly (in meaning maybe not necessarily these words). "It's main objective was to achieve legal, economic and historical rehabilitation of the former members of the Waffen-SS, portraying them as normal soldiers of World War II. To achieve this objective, the HIAG used contacts with political parties, supported historical revisionism encompassing multi-prong propaganda efforts, including periodicals, books and public speeches, alongside a publishing house that served as a platform for its publicity aims." Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • article currently contains overlinking, please check for multiple links to Der Freiwillige, Otto Kumm, Gustav Lombard, Paul Hausser, Otto Weidinger, Einsatzgruppen, clean Wehrmacht, Jochen Peiper, neo-Nazi, SS-Totenkopfverbände, Historical revisionism (negationism)
  • article currently contains inconsistent American and British spelling, examples include defense, defence. Artilce seems to be using British English. Check for "honor", "organization", "civilization", "organizational", "realization" and "characterization". These words give the impression that American English is used. Check "pretenses"

I don't see "pretenses". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...veterans were ready to "do their duty for the Fatherland" and Felix Steiner declaring support..." Steiner was introduced earlier in the article, subsequently the sentence should read "...veterans were ready to "do their duty for the Fatherland" and Felix Steiner declaring support..."
  • ranks such as SS-Brigadeführer should be linked on first occurance and put in italics like you did on SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer and SS-Obersturmbannführer.
  • "article 131 of the Basic Law", I suggest linking to Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. You also use "Article 131 of the Common Law" which you link to Persilschein. I would use the same words for the same thing in the article to keep it consistent.
  • see MOS:LINEBREAKS, it reads "single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized". You may want to change the paragraph "The conventions, which were in effect used for political purposes, added to the controversy surrounding the organisation.[27] (See also "Controversies" section below.)" There are still a few one sentence paragraphs in the article.
  • link German Ministry of Defence to Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany)
  • suggestion: there are a number of "German veterans' organisations" (Stille Hilfe, ODESSA, etc.) on Wikipedia. You may want to consider creating a template for cross referencing.

I added a relevant template, which I updated to include the key HIAG personalities and Stille Hilfe. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • see WP:MOSDASH, there "Spaced en dash": the sentence "This extensive body of work – 57 book titles and more than 50 years of monthly periodicals – have been described by historians as revisionist apologia." needs to be changed to "This extensive body of work—57 book titles and more than 50 years of monthly periodicals—have been described by historians as revisionist apologia."
  • see WP:THUMBSIZE, although currently under discussion, it still reads "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. In most cases upright=scaling factor"

 Done Kierzek (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • see WP:ALT, not mandated here, moving forward you should consider adding it
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. looks good
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). looks good Your most recent edits added a citation to "Wette 2007, pp. 236–238." for which the article lacks a reference. Please format the ISBN number 9780674025776 correctly.
  • No reference for "Citino 2012, p. 322."
  • Unused reference "Raudvere, Catharina; Stala, Krzysztof; Willert, Trine Stauning (2012). Rethinking the Space for Religion: New Actors in Central and Southeast Europe on Religion, Authenticity and Belonging. Lund: Nordic Academic Press. ISBN 978-9187121852." and bad ISBN format.
  • No reference for "Janson 2006, p. 393."
  • bad ISBN formating on "Carrard, Philippe (2010). The French Who Fought for Hitler: Memories from the Outcasts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521198226.", "Hadley, Michael L. (1995). Count Not the Dead: The Popular Image of the German Submarine. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 9780773512825."

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • missing ISBN or OCLC number for "Tauber, Kurt (1967). Beyond Eagle and Swastika: German Nationalism Since 1945, Volume I. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press." and "Tauber, Kurt (1967). Beyond Eagle and Swastika: German Nationalism Since 1945, Volume II. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press."
  • Section "Ideology": the citation is missing a page number
  • ISBN 3-00-015288-1 needs to be converted to 13 digit format
  • The sentence "Book cover of The Myth of the Eastern Front; image adopted from cover art of electronic game The Last Victory: Manstein's Backhand Blow, February–March 1943. The game depicts the Third Battle of Kharkov, in which several Waffen-SS units took part." requires a citation, otherwise it could be considered WP:OR

 Done for the three above. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). I wonder if the section "Revisionist tradition outside of HIAG" could be considered WP:OFFTOPIC. Having said this, I am not questioning the validity nor the relevance of the topic as such, I am wondering if this information should be shortened, focusing on how the HIAG influenced revisionism outside of HIAG. I would think that interested readers in historical revisionism would probably not come to this article but would probably visit the article Historical revisionism (negationism). I would think that the examples listed in this section are probably better place there. I will ask for a second opinion on this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. See reasoning by Diannaa below
Consider using File:HIAG-Ulrichsberg.jpg
Images have been removed MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. I am putting the review on hold for seven days. Currently only MOS and references issues remain. Good job so far. I am passing the article, all my recommendations have been addressed. Well done, good luck with the article moving forward MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image assessment by Diannaa

So what we've got is 8 non-free images. Each needs to have a solid reason for inclusion. Where pics like this usually fail the WP:NFCC is on criterion #1 and #8. #1 says that non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. In many cases non-free images can be readily replaced by prose describing the event. #8 says that non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. So a pic of two guys at a conference does not meet that criterion. I think the photo in the info box can be justified, and two or three of the best examples of book/magazine covers, the ones that illustrate points raised in the article or cover material in their captions. I think the Der Freiwillige cover should stay, and The Myth of the Eastern Front. So, keep three non-free images: File:Cover art of the The Myth of the Eastern Front book by Smelser and Davies.jpg, File:Der Freiwillige 1959 cover.jpg, and the infobox image, File:Kurt Meyer and Paul Hausser at a HIAG convention.jpg. That's my opinion. Cross-posted from my user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the most. However, I feel that images *File:HIAG organisation laying a wreath at the grave of Bernhard Siebken.jpg and File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg should stay, as I believe that they meet points #1 and #8, by significantly adding to the understanding of the organisation.
  • The image "grave of Bernhard Siebken" shows the atmosphere in West Germany in the 1950s when HIAG emerged and was at its most influential. It also illustrates the point of 1950s being the "decade of the suppression of the Nazi past" where war criminals were almost exclusively referred to as "so-called war criminals" and could be openly celebrated. It's one thing to read about it in the bullets, and another to see the group of HIAG members solemnly laying a wreath on the grave of a war criminal (and publishing it in the organisation's magazine).
  • The image File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg is also important to understanding of the activities of the organisation. Hausser's book is described by historians as one of the foundational works in the Waffen-SS mythology as strictly a military formation. The image shows HIAG's connection to the Nazi past via the design (with SS runes on the cover) and helps the readers understand why the book was deemed "detrimental to youth".
Potential replacements:
  • On the image File:HIAG-Ulrichsberg.jpg: I've seen it before but it seemed a bit unfair to include an image of old and frail people. Besides, the article is mostly about the leadership and the organisation as a whole, rather than about individual members. Please let me know if the image is appropriate; it can then be included in the section HIAG#Dissolution.
  • Question: If I wished to replace the recruitment poster, would this one be free and properly licensed: File:Skanderbeg.JPG? I may or may not reinstate the idea of including war-time propaganda, but the sources do draw parallels between HIAG's materials and what was produced during WWII.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of copyright material on this website is very strict, stricter than copyright law itself in some ways and stricter than most other websites. Eight non-free images in one article is too many, as it violates NFCC #3a: minimal usage: a minimal number of non-free items must be used. I will go over the contested images again and try to explain again why they fail our NFCC:
I would be very sad to see File:HIAG organisation laying a wreath at the grave of Bernhard Siebken.jpg go, as it made a big impression on me and really clarified the nature of the organisation for me. As I mentioned, it showed pride in the action, with commemorative photographs being taken and then printed in the magazine for the entire membership to see. Paul Hausser's book I'd be okay with removing, and I've already removed the rest. That leaves four non-free images -- would that be fine? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing here that can't be described in words alone. In fact you just did so. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the wreath laying ceremony and relocated the The Myth image, which leaves the article with three non-free images, as per Diannaa's original suggestion. Is that acceptable? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg still does not meet the non-free content requirements and could be nominated for deletion as F7 at any time. Good articles should exemplify some of our best work, so I don't feel I can endorse this. — Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image was removed, I think the criteria is now met. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1b + other

I addressed the points raised in the section, I believe. Please let me know if further improvements are needed. I kept full names of the authors in the bullets about the books (Hausser, Steiner and Meyer) as full names seemed to go well together with the book titles. Besides, there are two Meyers mentioned in the article (Kurt and Hubert), but I don't feel strongly on this point. I also kept the links to names in the captions in case someone is just scanning the article. Hope this works! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS, not sure what was meant by the suggestion to create a template for "German veterans' organisations". Is there an example I could reference? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of something similar to {{Falsification of history}} or {{Nazis South America}} MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with this if you like. I recently made the wee template {{Normandy landings bombardment groups}} as a navigation aid for my articles about D-Day bombardment groups. If you could provide me with a list of the articles that would be included, I can make something up for you. User:Diannaa 15:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, yes that would be nice although I'm not sure if enough articles on English wiki exist. This is an interesting org referenced in the HIAG article, but more details are only available on De.wiki Association of Returnees and Families of POWs and MIAs [de]. Another relevant org is Verband deutscher Soldaten, but there's no article for it, even on De.wiki. I suggest not including ODESSA, as it may or may not have existed, but Stille Hilfe would probably be suitable, although it is not a high-quality article at this time. If you guys are aware of other articles on the topic, please let me know. Perhaps, similar to {{Nazis South America}}, include the list of key figures, including both leadership and HIAG's authors? Then there would be value and I can provide a list pulled from HIAG.
Separately, I addressed more American spelling issues and added Wette. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see overlinking to Historical revisionism (?). Seperately, I reworked the lead per suggestion above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added an applicable template. Separately, I don't see "pretenses". Will work on others. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for second opinion

Request for second opinion has been made. The issue for second opinion has been requested as to the article staying on point apparently with a concern for digression from the intentions of the article. WWII revisionism is an extensive topic and there appears to be a camel in the tent here which can be looked at more directly than the article currently does. It is difficult to call this article complete without a more direct assessment of the complex issues involved in matters dealing with the Wikipedia articles for the Holocaust, Holocaust denial, and Holocaust victims to start this list. Its not clear why these do not appear in high emphasis, or whether they should or should not appear, more prominently in the outline. As a very general statement (and this is a very short second opinion) any time the issue of historical revisionism is visited there become a set of operative issues which need to be put to rest directly including: Propaganda, secondary agendas, biased agendas, lobbying, political motives, etc. Have all of these issues been addressed in the article and are they sufficiently prominent in the outline. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To address MisterBee's inquiry above, I'd see no problem splitting the "Revisionist tradition..." content out into a separate article, and leaving a summary. This section has grown to a size where it can stand on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good idea. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, with the article splitting. Kierzek (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I largely finished the trimming/moving. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, it is better, more focused and tighter organization/presentation. Kierzek (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janson 2006

G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I just took a quick look and noticed a minor issue. I have a script installed that highlights short citations that don't have corresponding long citations. It is currently reporting "Janson 2006" as being one of these. Is someone able to add the full bibliographic details to the Bibliography? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I re-added Janson. It must have been moved in the recent relocations. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should the support of foreign and domestic intelligence agencies be added to this article?

I was wondering if adding support from agencies like the CIA, BND etc. should be added to the article because there are several reliable sources on this topic regarding the HIAG and it's members as well as the support HIAG remembers receives after WW2 by the CIA through the connections to it from the Gehlen Organisation which then became the BND. This happened because the USA prefered to gain intelligence and help from HIAG members regarding the Soviet Union and the Cold War rather than putting them in jail. But before i add or change anything i'd be interested in the opinion from people who created and edited this page. Thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would be great. It's not something that I've come across before in the sources that I used, so I don't really no the story on that. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, i'm gathering some information and it's sources for this as we speak. Too bad personal inheritances, documents and diaries can't be used because a grandfather was in the HIAG and helpful to the BND and CIA several times during the 1960s, of which i have the relevant documents. But there is still enough reliable outside private sources, especially in german language that will be enough for an informative addition to this article. Is there any way i can contact you with questions and what information is ::worth adding? I'm still new on here and can't find an e-mail adress or a message option. Thanks in advance for the help. ChartreuxCat (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you clarify re: "reliable outside private sources"? What are these? Also I wonder if you may have access to this source:
  • Wilke, Karsten (2011). Die "Hilfsgemeinschaft auf Gegenseitigkeit" (HIAG) 1950–1990: Veteranen der Waffen-SS in der Bundesrepublik (in German). Schoeningh Ferdinand GmbH. ISBN 978-3506772350.
This may be the most comprehensive and current source of HIAG available. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello K.e.coffman. The book you listed is indeed a reliable source and yes i have access to it. The other reliable sources i was refering to would be research artices by the IfZ (Institut für Zeitgeschichte) which is used a lot on german wikipedia and accepted as reliable source. For example, some IfZ historians, while seeing private accounts of HIAG members as biased, do quote some of these accounts in their studies and research as well as book publications. And the IfZ is very picky when it comes to anything Waffen SS related or written by HIAG members. Would these sources be acceptable on english wikipedia? On top of the IfZ i would also add publications by the BND regarding the HIAG which would help immensely to add information on support from the OSS/CIA of several personalities of the HIAG organisation. As i asked before, if there is any way to privately message you i'd like to provide you the sources before i would dare adding anything to this article. Thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ChartreuxCat: Wilke should be a great source; does the book mention anything about the HIAG-CIA relationships? Regarding other potential sources, have these private materials been analysed by historians or other scholars? Wikipedia does not generally use unpublished sources; pls see WP:Identifying reliable sources.
For more general questions, you can visit Wikipedia:Teahouse and pose them to the hosts there (there's a big button "Ask a question" at the top of the page). This is a great spot for new editors to get support. Hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nitpick...

Not going to bring it up on the FAC, but "The historian Henning Pieper notes non-scholarly works by Christopher Ailsby, Herbert Walther (writer) [de], and Tim Ripley as part of "militaria literature" genre (in his definition)"... the "Herbert Walther (writer)" is just plain ugly. Is there a way to get this fixed so we're not airing our disambiguation laundry all over the place? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The de.wiki article is not helpful as far as sources go; not enough to create a stub -- and I did not find much in English either. I removed the link. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Levenda...

Checking Levenda:

  • 19a "Ostensibly, HIAG existed to provide aid to veterans, but it included many members who were convicted war criminals." sourced to page 167. The source says "Ostensibly, HIAG was only there to provide economic relief for its members, but its ranks included men who had been convicted of war crimes and it was perceived as a Nazi organization." Paraphrasing here is a bit close for my taste - the order is very very close. I note also that Lavenda points out that one reason for the organization was that SS members could not collect pensions because the SS as an organization had been declared a criminal organization - this isn't really brought out in the article and should be... it's sorta touched on but not made very explicit.
  • 19b - same pages in the source as above. The information it's sourcing is "Perceived by the West German government to be a Nazi organisation, HIAG was banned at the federal level in 1992." Again - very close paraphrasing to the source which states "... and it was perceived by the West German government as a Nazi Organization. It was eventually disbanded in 1992." And Lavenda does not support that HIAG was banned at the federal level in 1992.
  • Another issue - see Google Scholar listing of cites to this work. This is very light sourcing - granted the book was published in 2014, but the publisher isn't a big name publisher (much less an academic press) - see website which says "IBIS PRESS / NICOLAS HAYS is dedicated to to providing the finest spiritual literature available today. We specialize in publishing books from both classic and modern sources that outline the basis and development of the world's Mystery Traditions. Our subjects include Alchemy, Astrology, Depth Psychology, Magick, Spirituality, Women's Mysteries, and the many other paths of human striving for union with the Infinite." Their history works are listed here and include such titles as The Lovecraft Code, Secret Societies: Illuminati, Freemasons, and the French Revolution. Levenda is the author of the Lovecraft Code as well as Ratline: Soviet Spies Nazi Priests and the Disappearance of Adolf Hitler. Cites to the work are mostly mirrors of Wikipedia (here and here) or this which defies categorization. On the plus side, World Cat shows its held by 76 libraries world wide. But I'm not seeing this as a "high quality" reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replaced Levenda with Kühne 2017 and Werther & Hurd 2016. I have the PDF of the latter, which I can email, if you are interested. It's a newer article that I did not have at the time of the writing of this page in early 2016. Kühne is also new. He mentions HIAG on ~10 pages; I'll see if there's more stuff there that's useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MacKenzie

Checking MacKenzie:

  • Current ref 8 (cited twice) - pp. 136-137. Sourcing for "In the same year (1951), some former career officers of the Wehrmacht were granted war pensions under the Basic Law. Unlike the Wehrmacht, the SS had been deemed a criminal organisation at the Nuremberg trials and could thus act as an "alibi of a nation" (as Gerald Reitlinger's 1956 book of that title suggested). The SS was the entity onto which all crimes of the Nazi regime were conveniently shifted. Consequently, Waffen-SS career personnel were not covered under the 1951 law." (8a) and "Former Waffen-SS men who wished to join the Bundeswehr still faced heightened scrutiny. All Waffen-SS applicants went through the rigorous vetting process reserved for those with the higher ranks in the Wehrmacht. HIAG protested to the government and its military planners, but to no avail. As a result, by September 1956, only 33 of 1310 applications by ex-Waffen-SS officers had been accepted (making them 0.4% of the Bundeswehr's officer corps), as compared to 195 of 462 applications by enlisted men." (8b).
    • 8a sorta supports some of the information - but it doesn't cover all of it. There isn't a mention of the Basic Law on those two pages. Also, close paraphrasing again - the source says "...onto which all responsibility for past crimes could be shifted." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 8b - supports some but not all of the information. The "All Waffen-SS applicants went through the rigorous vetting process reserved for those with the higher ranks in the Wehrmacht" part isn't fully supported - nothing is mentioned about the Wehrmacht. And the "HIAG protested to the government and its military planners, but to no avail." part isn't supported at all - in fact, MacKenzie points out that in 1961 the Bundestag partially restored pension rights to Waffen-SS... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 10 - page 137 - cited 7 times:
    • 10a - "HIAG began in late 1950 as a loose association of local groups. The majority of participants were officers, most often of junior grades. In the summer of 1951, HIAG was formally established by Otto Kumm, a former SS-Brigadeführer. By October 1951, HIAG consisted of 376 local branches." (also supported by current ref 11 - Large p. 82) The first two sentences and last sentence are not supported by MacKenzie - they ARE supported by Large - but again we've got close paraphrasing issues - Large says "The HIAG began in late 1950 as a loose association of local "support" groups, most of which amounted to little more than small gatherings around a favorite Stammtisch. The majority of the participants were former officers, generally of junior grade. By October 1951, however, the HIAG claimed to embrace soem 376 local branches spread across the entire Federal Republic." The paraphrasing needs fixing and the citations should be spread to the information they actually support - thus put citation 10a on just the sentence it supports and 11 on the other three sentences it supports. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 10b - "But this wider aim proved impossible to achieve: the government was circumspect as rehabilitating the Waffen-SS would have opened the door to claims by personnel of other SS and Nazi organisations, including SA, SD, Hitler Youth, and others—a prospect the federal government would rather not have had raised either domestically or internationally. The public image of the organisation was not helping either, because some of the more outspoken HIAG members sounded "alarmingly Nazi in their pronouncements," according to Large." (also supported by current ref 45 - Large p. 90) The only sentence that MacKenzie supports is the one starting "The public image..." but here there's another issue - the article says that Large said "alarmingly Nazi in their pronouncements" but that's MacKenzie's statement - "...because some of the more enthusiastic members of HIAG sounded alarmingly Nazi in their pronouncements." Large does support the first bits fine - but the sentences he supports should have that citation them there ... as above, make the citations go on the sentences they support rather than putting two sources on a bunch of sentences that they partially support. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 10c - "The memoirs of HIAG's leading members portrayed Waffen-SS men as "misunderstood idealists who fought honourably and well" and included testimonials by former Wehrmacht generals endorsing the fighting skills of the Waffen-SS." (as a side note - the "misunderstood...well" quote should have an attribution and citation on the quote as well as the quote at the end of the sentence) Supported but its a bit of a close paraphrase - I think it'd be safer if "testimonials" was replaced with another word. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 10d - "Both Hausser and Steiner followed up their 1950s books with works published in the 1960s. Published in 1963, Steiner's book was called The Army of Outlaws ("Die Armee der Geächteten"). Hausser's work appeared in 1966 under the title Soldiers Like Any Other ("Soldaten wie andere auch"). According to MacKenzie, the books' titles were symbolic of the Waffen-SS image that HIAG's leaders wanted to portray, while Sydnor describes this later generation of books as "equally tendentious"." - (also sourced to Sydnor 1973 - but clearly the Sydnor cite is for the last clause - so the cite to MacKenzie should go after "wanted to portray," with Sydnor only on the last bits.) The sourcing here is fine.
    • 10e - "Prior to the establishment of HIAG's own publishing house Munin Verlag (below), HIAG-affiliated books were predominantly published by Plesse Verlag (de) in Göttingen, owned by an extreme right-wing politician and publisher Waldemar Schütz (de)." Not supported by MacKenzie at all. MacKenzie doesn't tie Munin Verlag to HIAG and none of the rest of the information is supported. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 10f - "The positive image of the Waffen-SS as an organisation indeed took root, and not only in Germany itself. In the era of the Cold War, senior Waffen-SS personnel were "not shy about the fact that they had once organised a NATO-like army, and an elite one at that," notes MacKenzie (emphasis in the original)." The quote isn't quite reflected properly here - MacKenzie actually says it this way "not shy about suggesting that they had once organized and led a NATO-like army (and an elite one at that)." Also close paraphrasing issue - MacKenzie says "...the positive image of the Waffen-SS the organization [HIAG] has promoted has taken root and by no means only in Germany. In an era of Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West, senior Waffen-SS personnel were not shy ..." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 46 - page 141 cited twice: (it really should cite 141-142, as the information rolls over to page 142 also)
    • 46a - "while the military historian S.P. MacKenzie refers to it, when used in reference to the Western Front, as "the least credible" of the several claims put forth by Waffen-SS apologists." - supported by the source although MacKenzie doesn't actually mention Adenauer on the page and it's pretty much an inferrance that this section of MacKenzie refers specifically to Adenauer's declaration. Nor is this section of MacKenzie directly tied to HIAG either.
    • 46b - "He points out that, in the East, the Wehrmacht equaled the Waffen-SS in its brutality, so the attempted equivalence was "rather ironic"." - well, actually ... MacKenzie says "Rather ironically, recent scholarship conclusively indicates that on the Eastern Front the Wehrmacht was just as brutal as the Waffen-SS."
  • Current ref 51 - page 138 cited four times:
    • 51a - "HIAG's rewriting of history encompassed multi-prong publicity campaigns, including tendentious periodicals, books and public speeches, as well as a publishing house dedicated to presenting the Waffen-SS in a positive light. The leadership viewed restoring the "tarnished shield"[n 4] as a key component of the desired legal and economic rehabilitation, and thus no effort was spared." (also cited to Wilke p. 399) The first sentence is basically supported but the second is not - if it's only to Wilke - it should have the MacKenzie citation split off from that second sentence and moved to the first which it does support.
    • 51b - "The theme of foreign volunteers was featured prominently, with Steiner lending his voice in this area. In a 1958 editorial, he praised the foreign volunteers who, like their German comrades, saw the "diabolical" threat of Bolshevism and "fought like lions" against it as part of the Waffen-SS. The picture books echoed the same themes; one of them proclaimed: "From all European lands came volunteers as genuine comrades-in-arms. They fought for their Fatherland against Bolshevism."" the last sentence is supported by MacKenzie - but not the first - which does mention "fought like lions" but does not tie this to some editorial in 1958 (at least not in the text) - some writings in Die Friewilligen are mentioned but it is not stated as an editorial.
    • 51c - "Glossy books such as Waffen-SS in Pictures (1957) featured, as described by MacKenzie, "tales of valour and heroism" and "propaganda photographs of Aryan-ideal volunteers from all over the Continent"." supported fine.
    • 51d - "The unit narratives were extensive (often in several volumes) and strived for a so-called official representation of their history, backed by maps and operational orders. MacKenzie points out that "the older or the more famous the unit, the larger the work—to the point where no less than five volumes and well over 2,000 pages were devoted to the doings of the 2nd Panzer Division Das Reich", authored by its former officer Otto Weidinger." - the unit bit is mostly supported but the "often in several volumes" is a bit iffy on being supported - nor is it clear that "strived for a so-called official representation of their history, backed by maps and operational orders" is supported by the text.
  • Current ref 66 - pp. 137-138 - cited once
    • "Paul Hausser's 1953 book Waffen-SS in Action (Waffen-SS im Einsatz) was the first major work by one of the HIAG leaders. It had an unmistakable connection to the Nazi origins of the Waffen-SS: the SS runes on the cover art and the SS motto ("My honour is called loyalty") embossed on the cloth cover. Former Wehrmacht general Heinz Guderian endorsed Waffen-SS troops in a foreword and referred to them as "the first realisation of the European idea". Hausser described the growth of the Waffen-SS into a so-called multinational force where foreign volunteers fought heroically as a "militant example of the great European idea"." MacKenzie doesn't say that Hausser's Waffen-SS was the first major work by one of the HIAG leaders - he says "A brief review of the first two books [Hausser and Steiner's works in the 1950s], among the first HIAG-sponsored volumes to appear will suffice to indicate the tone and thrust of the corpus as a whole. [paragraph break] Hausser was first off the mark in 1953 with Waffen-SS im Einsatz;..." Also - The last bit is a bit misleading - the quote should be "the first realization [note the Z spelling, not S] of the European idea". Then we have a close paraphrasing issue - MacKenzie is "Hausser himself went on to detail the growth of the Waffen-SS into a multinational force where foreign volunteers, including 'our Muslims', fought and died heroically to the bitter end 'as a militant example of the great European idea'."
  • Current ref 97 - page 139 cited once:
    • "HIAG was instrumental in creating the perception in popular culture of the Waffen-SS being "comrades-in-arms engaged in a noble crusade" (according to MacKenzie). West German researchers questioned these notions, but German society overall, wanting to forget the past, embraced the image. MacKenzie highlights the long-term effects of HIAG's revisionism:[97]

"As older generation of Waffen-SS scribes has died off, a new, post-war cadre of writers has done much to perpetuate the image of the force as a revolutionary European army. The degree of admiration and acceptance varies, but the overall tendency to accentuate the positive lives on, or has indeed grown stronger."" - need a cite on the first sentence since there is a quote there. Also - there is a "the" missing in the second quote, should be "As the older...". Also the second sentence is missing some words - "The degree of admiration and acceptance of the HIAG version of events varies, but an the overall tendency to accentuate the positive lives on, or has indeed grown stronger (and has indeed grown stronger as the war continues to recede into history)."

  • Current ref 105 - page 140, cited once
    • "According to MacKenzie, authors in the revisionist tradition range from "extreme admirers [on] the fringes of the far-right," such as Richard Landwehr and Jean Mabire, to partisan authors (Gordon Williamson and Edmund L. Blandford), and popular historians who generally present the Waffen-SS in a positive light. These include John Keegan, James S. Lucas and Bruce Quarrie." - need a cite on the quote in the early part of the first sentence.
    • Another issue is that MacKenzie only calls Blandford partisan - he says "While Williamson approaches his subjects with at least a degree of skepticism, Blandford is unquestionably partisan." I dont think we can call Williamson partisan - unduly postive probably, but MacKenzie is pretty clear that he doesn't apply the partisan label to Williamson.
    • A further problem is that neither Landwehr nor Mabire are discussed on page 140 - it is true that Mabire's name is the first word on page 140, but the discussion of his works and the quote given about "extreme admirers" is actually on page 139. The quote is also a bit misleading as what MacKenzie says is "the most extreme admirers are, not surprisingly, to be found on the fringes of the far right." which is not really what is presented in the article - the "[on]" is really a rather lengthy ellipses that is misleading. Given that all this is discussed on page 139, we need the citation to reflect that it is more than page 140.
    • It's also not clear that MacKenzie lumps Mabire into the "extreme admirers" category - at least as far as being someone on the fringes of the far right. MacKenzie puts Mabire in a category more of accepting the idea of the pan-national waffen-ss but without being overtly sympathetic to Nazism. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More source review...

Sorry this is taking a while - it's slow getting in the sources.

  • Pieper Fegelein's Horsemen
    • First use is to source (along with Parker) "Other similar books included Scattered are the Traces (1979), Cavalry Divisions of the Waffen-SS (1982), Panzer Grenadiers of the 'Viking' Division in Pictures (1984) and many others. (One of the cavalry units in question, SS Cavalry Brigade, was responsible for the murder of an estimated 23,700 Jews and others in July–August 1941 alone during the Pripyat swamps punitive operation. Its regimental commander Lombard reported eliminating close to 11,000 "plunderers" in the first two weeks the same operation." this is said to be on page 120. There are problems - Pieper sorta kinda supports the 23,700 - if you add together the 21,800 that are reported by Fegelin to the 1900 in the second mission - but nothing on page 120 supports the dates, the plunderers, that Lombard reported the deaths of plunders, or the books named in the first part.
    • Second use is to source (along with Citino) "The historian Henning Pieper notes non-scholarly works by Christopher Ailsby, Herbert Walther, and Tim Ripley as part of "militaria literature" genre (in his definition), while the military historian Robert Citino includes books by Willi Fey and Michael Reynolds among uncritical works aimed at "military history buffs"." This is sourced to page 8 and 191 - page 191 is actually the footnote 26 from page 8 - perhaps it would be better to source it as "Pieper p. 8 and footnote 26 on page 181"?
  • Pontolillo Murderous Elite
    • Only use is to source "The revisionist tradition continues to the present time, through popular history books, web sites and wargames. New titles appear every year, propagating the myths first put forth by HIAG's propaganda efforts. Some of the books are amateur historical studies that focus solely on the military aspects of the Waffen-SS. Others are reprints of apologetic accounts by former Waffen-SS personnel. Adding to the volume of material are groups of international admirers who consider the Waffen-SS to have been incorrectly judged by history." which is just cited to the entire work, as there is no page number. Unfortunately - that's not helpful. Pontolillo is almost 500 pages long and there is no index - so I cannot possibly verify this information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HIAG&oldid=866158280"