Talk:List of SS personnel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


someone please fix this article so the tables do not overlay each other. Thanks Hmains 17:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Obergruppenführer Adolf von Bomhard is missing here. Has a detailed Wiki-article in the german wiki for references. Could someone please edit that in? I don't want to break anything... :) (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Possibly missing is also Johann Siebert, Kommandant of the SS-unit in Riga, Latvia. Known for executing Simon Dubnow Article here — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Rudolf Hess was never a member of the SS[edit]

Rudolf Hess was never a member of this organization. Hess got the right awarded in January 1933 by Adolf Hitler to wear the uniform of a SS general (in honor; in german: Durch Verfügung des Führers die Berechtigung zum Tragen des Dienstanzuges eines SS-Obergruppenführers). The SS officer lists (so-called "SS-Dienstalterslisten", 1934-37) show at this. As of 1938 Hess seems no more in these officier lists. Please amend! Thanks, Postl Michi 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he was very much a member of the SS - numerous photographs of him in an SS uniform and countless texts giving his SS service info. -OberRanks (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
OberRanks is right. It was an honorary membership and rank granted by Himmler. Joachim von Ribbentrop was another one with whom that was true. Kierzek (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

German military ranks[edit]

I admit that some of those edits are based on info I have found on other sites such as this one, which clearly distinguishes Technical Sergeant as a German rank:

Is there a list of the German military equivalents somewhere that you referenced?Hoops gza (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There has never been a German rank called "Technical Sergeant". If there were, it would be known as Technisiche Feldwebel or something like that. The German Sergeant ranks are Feldwebel (Sergeant), Oberfeldwebel (Senior Sergeant), Hauptfeldwebel (Head Sergeant), and Stabsfeldwebel (Staff Sergeant). Interestingly, the Staff Sergeant rank in Germany is more like a Sergeant Major rank in other countries. As for SS ranks, the standard equivalency matrix uses Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, First Sergeant, and Sergeant Major when "matching up" to the SS "Leader" titles. The matrix I mentioned is used in most established SS texts. Although, yes, it is not unusual to find a few that say Tech Sergeant just like some have the Unterscharfuhrer rank listed as Sergeant instead of its rightful title of Corporal. -OberRanks (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I will try to apply that knowledge in the future. I was not aware that a matrix exists. I figured out some of the rank equivalents simply through logical deduction. For instance, Unterscharfuehrer being the lowest rank of Non-Commissioned Officers means it must be like a Corporal.Hoops gza (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the person most responsible for the promulgation of the current SS translation matrix is Mark Yeager. He is perhaps one of the most serious and well respected SS historians around, along with Robin Lumsden. Sometimes, also, you will find different translations on either side of the Atlantic, but these days the British and US SS historians tend to be a lot more interconnected in their writing (in sharp contrast to the 1980s). -OberRanks (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you happen to know if there exists a documented list of all of the Nazi party members, or perhaps at least the Schutzstaffel?Hoops gza (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy of one of them for senior officers (they were compiled by the personnel dept. of the SS. They were done from 1934 to 1944); It has been re-printed by Schiffer Military History. "SS Officers List: SS-Standartenfuehrer to SS-Oberstgruppenfuehrer Assignments & Decorations of the Senior SS Officer Corps". Mine is "as of" Jan. 1942. The last one was done in 1944, as I said. They list the officers by rank section, name; Nazi Party number; SS number and all awards. You could get one on Amazon; along with Mark Yeager's book for completeness. Kierzek (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeager also does a detailed 2 book set on the Waffen-SS commanders but from what I have seen, Hoops, you have more of an interest in the "Allgemeine SS". BTW-I checked and the publishing company, Ulric Publishing out of England offered the "1944 Dienstaltersliste-The 1944 SS Officer Rank List" in re-print. It may be fairly hard to get now but that would be better than the 1942 list, I mention above. Kierzek (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Paul ("Pilli") Körner Staatssekretär SS number: 714 328 - 1931 - NSDAP number: 714328" -> mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Reichsführer SS[edit]

The List names Julius Schreck as the first Reichsführer SS which is wrong. Schreck was seen as the father and founder of the SS but never was it's Reichsführer. This has to be fixed. --Bomzibar (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

May I point out that the rank of SS-Brigadefuhrer was not equivalent to the US Brigadier General { 1 star } as stated in the article but matched up to Major General in the German Police and Army. Juergen STROOP, who put down the Warswaw uprising was designated SS-Brigadefuhrer und Generalmajor. The Brigadefuhrer rank matched up to the Waffen SS rank also.

The SS senior ranks post 1942 were:

Reichsfuhrer SS Generalfeldmarschal equivalent

SS-Oberst Gruppenfuhrer General Oberst { Colonel General German Army } from 1942 onward

SS-Obergruppenfuhrer General

SS-Gruppenfuhrer General Leutnant { Lt General }

SS-Brigadefuhrer General Major { Maj. General } NOT equivalent to British Brigadier

Roger DESHON Toowoomba, Australia Insidivs Fvngvs (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Selection criteria[edit]

What is the selection criteria for inclusion on this list? WP:GNG? Describing someone as famous or notorious is pretty subjective. I can't say I'm a specialist on the SS, but I have several books on them, and there are some pretty obscure people on this list already. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right in that there is no criteria, except membership. I believe some could be removed which are very obscure or more obscure ones which don't have an article page; certainly it needs cleanup; I started ce in that regard but don't have time to go through it in one or two nights. Kierzek (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
An even worse problem is WP:V. We have a vague reference to US archives, but so what? Dozens, scores, of names are posted without any references. Assuming that many of these guys are still living, BLP issues abound. The criteria for inclusion on the list should be the notable ones, not the million or so who joined for whatever reasons. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much any member of a wiki-list should be either a blue-link (meaning they have an article here, and are therefore notable); or are red-links with at least one cite (meaning they could have an article here, and therefore could be notable). Anyone else is of little value to a list, to our readers, or to Wikipedia. Remember, not everyone needs an article. Regards. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 08:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you regarding the redlinks. WP:REDLINK guidance says "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. [emphasis added]" Allowing "at least one cite" or "could be notable" creates a Camel's nose problem. WP:WTAF should be followed (and enforced). – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with you, Srich32977. I am trying to get across the point that unless someone has at least one good reliable source, they shouldn't be on a list here at all. Red links are allowed, for a period of time and should be given the time to mature (per WP:WTAF); but red-links without even one source, or an ages old red-link which will probably never be resolved, these become your "camel's nose." I also treat black-links (non-linked) list entries as probable un-resolvable links, and remove them immediately. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 redlinks[edit]

Recently several redlinked names have been added, supported by this source. I see this as problematic. Exactly what is this source? A blog or what? It seems to simply list names & SS numbers, but the likelihood of any of these people being notable enough for a WP article seems remote. Unless this source can be verified as a reliable source, I recommend removing all redlinked names supported by it. – S. Rich (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the redlinks. Per the introduction of the article, this is a list of notable persons – not to be a duplicate of the Polish source. The essay WP:WTAF provides the rationale. – S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)