Jump to content

Talk:Waffen-SS: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(31 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
<!-- please do not remove this tag -->
{{WikiProject Germany| importance = High
{{AutoArchivingNotice
|small=no
|age=90
|index=./Archive index
|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{WikiProject Germany| class = C | importance = High
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=no
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
}}
}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=C|B1=n|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=mid}}
|German-task-force=yes
{{WikiProject Death|importance=mid}}
|WWII-task-force=yes
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|B1=n|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|German-task-force=yes|WWII-task-force=yes}}
}}
}}
<!-- please do not remove this tag -->
{{User:WildBot/m04|sect={{User:WildBot/m03|1|German heavy tank battalion#Performance of the Tiger Battalions in Action|heavy panzer companies}}|m04}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Waffen-SS/Archive index
|target=Talk:Waffen-SS/Archive index
Line 32: Line 20:
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|algo = old(90d)
Line 46: Line 34:


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).
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).
== Italicisation of Waffen-SS ==

It was noted at another place a while ago that this article doesn't italicise Waffen-SS. It seems to me that [[MOS:FOREIGNITALIC]] says a good rule of thumb is that WP does not italicise foreign words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online. I have searched Merriam-Webster Online for Waffen and Waffen-SS and neither word/combination appears. It therefore seems that Waffen-SS does not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English, and should be italicised. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 02:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:I remember having a discussion on it a year ago. It was decided not to do so, given it is commonly known and used in English language RS books and sources for this specific organization. While I am all for using italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not currently used in English and am also against making up or using English translations which are not commonly found in RS works, in this case, I believe non-italicise for the word is acceptable. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 03:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::I agree about the translations, they aren't helpful. But surely the usage in reliable sources about this subject is "specialised English", which is exactly why Merriam-Webster is suggested as a rule of thumb for italicisation? [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 05:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::I don't have anything to add to my thought, but to say Luftwaffe is a similar situation. I don't believe it needs to be in italics anymore either, for the reasons stated above. But I await comments by others. {{ping|Diannaa}}. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 12:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::::The Chicago Manual of Style says to only italicize if the word is likely to be unfamiliar to the reader. It suggests perhaps italicizing the first usage only if a familiar foreign word is used repeatedly throughout the work. I checked several books I have on hand here and none use italics for this word. — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 13:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

== Corrections ==
The following wording (''On 10 May the Leibstandarte, wearing Dutch uniforms, overcame Dutch border guards to spearhead the German advance into the Netherlands, and the Der Führer advanced towards Utrecht. The following day the rest of the SS-VT Division crossed into the Netherlands and headed towards Rotterdam, which they reached on 12 May'') I had to correct, because it is full of errors and suggestions that don't stick. The Leibstandarte did not cross the border wearing Dutch uniforms (in fact this was done by Brandenburger) and they did not reach Rotterdam on 12 May but only on the 14th. The SS-V Division never reached Rotterdam, because they went for the Dutch province Zeeland and the northern front of Antwerp. Beforehand the Leibstandarte had fought between the Dutch IJssel river and the Dutch Grebbeline. [[User:Grebbegoos|Grebbegoos]] ([[User talk:Grebbegoos|talk]]) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

== Social background ==

The article claims {{xt|The officers of the SS were almost all of lower middle-class or working-class origin, who would have not been considered for commissioning in the old German Army. In the SS they could take part in the gentlemanly rituals of the mess.}} The whole paragraph is sourced to Max Hasting's book ''Das Reich'', which originally came out in 1981. Judging from the wording not much has changed in comparison to the 2013 edition. His evidence is somewhat sketchy, namely a couple of biographies. In 1982 [[Bernd Wegner]] study of the Waffen-SS ''Hitlers politische Soldaten'' was published. Wegner conducted a systematic study of the social background of 582 officers. His result was that the higher corps of the Waffen-SS was recruited to a remarkable degree from the upper middle-class. He explicitly notes that the large majority of SS generals would have been considered for commissioning by traditional standards. I would work on that paragraph myself, but I know that there is an English edition of Wegner's work, whilst I only have a German edition at hand.--[[User:Assayer|Assayer]] ([[User talk:Assayer|talk]]) 00:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
:I don't have any of Hasting's books and never have used them. I don't know who added the paragraph you cite. I do have the English edition (1990) of Wegner's 1982 work. I wont have time to get to this at present, especially given the fact I have to invest time now in another article where work is more pressing (and other commitments); but will get to it. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 19:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
::Done, have a look. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 20:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
:::Am I warranted to delete the sentences sourced to Hastings? Because I find it highly misleading to juxtapose his popular history of a single division, which is anything but a systematic sociological study of the Waffen-SS, against the standard historiographical work by Wegner. There is more German historiography on the social structure of the Waffen-SS which explictly supports the notion that even the common SS-men and the lower officers were not predominantly of working class origin.--[[User:Assayer|Assayer]] ([[User talk:Assayer|talk]]) 23:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
::::I did not add the Hasting part, as I stated above; I don't have any of his works. If it is only from the study of one SS division, it should convey that. I have no strong feeling about keeping it, but other editors herein may have an opinion and I welcome their input. I will look at my Wegner book again, when I have time later week for further input. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::I did not say that you added that part, did I?[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Waffen-SS&diff=prev&oldid=751224219] I have the original 1981 edition of Hasting's work. There the information is found on pp. 14-5 and it is clear from the context that Hastings is referring only to the officers of the ''Das Reich'' Division. Since the information was introduced into the article, the prose has remained close to Hastings' and is thus not encyclopedic. Judging from the book it seems also clear that Hastings has taken the notion of the SS-officers taking "part in the ''gentlemanly rituals'' of the mess" (in fact, he speaks of "loved") from first-hand interviews with veterans, which he had conducted for his book. So the evidence is too thin for generalizations, because it is only loosely based upon some individual biographies which are told with intricate details. I did not find references to that work in the literature on the Waffen-SS when it comes to the social background of the SS-officers, so it would be a misrepresentation of the research to suggest that Hastings' book is an important sociological contribution.--[[User:Assayer|Assayer]] ([[User talk:Assayer|talk]]) 01:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Assayer}} I only meant that I don't know how it is presented in the Hasting's book or what the original text states. As for Wenger, as you may recall, he states: for Ober-Standartenführer, the total for upper middle and "sometimes upper class" was 45 to 50 per cent. p. 244. For Sturmbann-and Obersturmbannführer there was a larger gap with the top officers and they were towards the lower middle class as the largest per cent numbers. p. 258. There was a greater social climbing in this rank range, as well. And the officer's from the working class was 6 to 7 per cent for this group of Sturmbann-and Obersturmbannführer. pp. 258, 259. This should be added, as well. If you don't add it in, I will try to get to it this weekend. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 02:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I do not object information on the social structure of the Waffen-SS to be included in the article, quite the opposite. But the social structure of the Waffen-SS should be presented according to the literature which explcitly deals with it, not according to some literature at hand. As I said, I don't have the English edition of Wegner's book, so I won't work on it myself.
:::::::A {{xt|greater social climbing in this rank range}} - greater than what? The army? Before or during the war? On the social transformation of the officer corps of the Army (''Heer''), see Bernhard R. Kroener: "Auf dem Weg zu einer "nationalsozialistischen Volksarmee". Die soziale Öffnung des Heeresoffizierskorps im Zweiten Weltkrieg," in: ''Von Stalingrad zur Währungsreform. Zur Sozialgeschichte des Umbruchs in Deutschland'', ed. by Martin Broszat, et al., München: Oldenbourg, 1988. pp. 651-682. In English MacGregor Knox dealt with the reasons for the change of qualifications for officer candidacy in "1 October 1942: Adolf Hitler, Wehrmacht Officer Policy, and Social Revolution," in ''The Historical Journal'' 43, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 801-825. I would think Ben H. Sheperd's recent ''Hitler's Soldiers'' (Yale UP, 2016) also deals with this issue.--[[User:Assayer|Assayer]] ([[User talk:Assayer|talk]]) 16:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Greater than the rank group above them. Wegner states specifically, "The social climbing urge was apparently greater among Sturmbann-and Obersturmbannführer than among the higher ranks." He goes on to say that an SS career "triggered the prospect of social advancement of many non-commissioned officers...", as well. p. 259. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 17:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::I see. So the "urge" for social climbing was greater among the men of these ranks than among the men of higher ranks. Wegner talks about the motivation of persons from the lower middle class and non-commissioned officers of the Reichswehr to join the SS, about the intragenerational mobility of many who later became SS officers, but he also emphazises, and that was my main point, that, except for a few, these officers were not of working class origin.--[[User:Assayer|Assayer]] ([[User talk:Assayer|talk]]) 19:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, you are correct. Some of the above should be added in; I wont have time until tonight or tomorrow. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 16:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Finnish SS volunteers in Gross Born.jpg|Finnish SS volunteers in Gross Born.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-01-20T15:37:10.111755 | Finnish SS volunteers in Gross Born.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finnish SS volunteers in Gross Born.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 15:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

== #Casualties ==
== #Casualties ==


Line 89: Line 46:
:::: My German-English dictionary suggests 'arm (military branch)' as a meaning as much as "weapon" which would give "military SS" which has similar intent to 'armed-SS' [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
:::: My German-English dictionary suggests 'arm (military branch)' as a meaning as much as "weapon" which would give "military SS" which has similar intent to 'armed-SS' [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::(comment) I think their original intent was to convey that the Waffen-SS was the military branch of the SS. — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 20:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::(comment) I think their original intent was to convey that the Waffen-SS was the military branch of the SS. — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 20:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::Native speaker here: That's correct for the later use (1940 and follow. years). Initially, it was used as internal description in the SS-Hauptamt (the replacement/recruitment department) to mark the branch as being usable for combat operations and that Hitler had authorized such use. The term then became a descriptive term that not only highlighted the potential military use of the branch but also the fact that the Waffen-SS wasn't just a military support branch but that it was also equipped with heavy weapons (even incl. some organic artillery units later on), unlike the originally lightly armed SS-Police units and the units of the "Allgemeine SS" (where a vital share wasn't even allowed to carry firearms before the war). In the main, the Waffen-SS adopted the organizational structure (TOE = tables of organization and equipment) of corresponding Wehrmacht units, especially when their units were expanded to Panzer-Grenadier-Divisions and Panzer-Divisions, later on, and they were always put under the operational command of the Wehrmacht at Corps, Army or Army Group (theater HQ) level, with very few exceptions.
::::::If Hitler or Himmler would have wanted to call that branch "armed SS" then they would have picked the term "bewaffnete SS" ("bewaffnet", adjective, = "armed"). The term "Waffen" showed that it was more than just a political police or bodyguard branch. It is not an adjective and it does not translate to "armed", the addition "Waffen" (= "weapons") rather highlighted the fact that Waffen-SS units were combat troops equipped with proper heavy equipment (heavy weapons). That said, the term "Weapons (SS)" should not be used in this article either, unless it is used to explain the literal meaning of the word "Waffen" (eg. in the introduction), especially since the Waffen-SS was declared to be a criminal organization during the Nuremberg trials and its name, signs and banners banned/declared to be illegal in a number of countries. Also - by authorizing the official use of the term as description for SS combat units - the German leadership pointed out to the public that these SS units were fully capable military units, eventually, which wasn't widely known at the time. In an attempt to attract more volunteers and to familiarize the general population with the "new" term and the Waffen-SS units' new role, the leadership started to run extensive media campaigns in late 1940. [[User:GeeGee|GeeGee]] ([[User talk:GeeGee|talk]]) 06:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} What do reliable sources about the Waffen SS say it means? ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 20:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
{{od}} What do reliable sources about the Waffen SS say it means? ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 20:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
:*The Time-Life book ''The SS'' from their Third Reich series says "Waffen-, or military, SS" (page 13)
:*Evans uses "military SS" for example on page 76 of book 3
:*Shirer uses the term but does not define it
:*Longerich 2012 (the Himmler biography) uses the term but does not translate it
:*Chester Wilmot ''The Struggle for Europe'' uses "armed SS" (page 94 of the 1954 edition)
:*Beevor ''D-Day'', ''The Second World War'', and ''The Fall of Berlin'' use the term but do not define it
:*Toland uses "armed SS" on page 723 of the 1976 paperback edition
:*Kershaw ''The End'' calls it "Himmler's own military wing" on page 23
:*Levy, ''Nazi Hunter'', uses "military SS" page 240 of the 2006 paperback edition
:*Bullock uses the term but doesn't define it
:*Speer page 733 (in the index, 1970 paperback) "military units of the SS"
:Therefore the majority of the books I have here at home that mention the term define it as "military SS". — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 00:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
:The thing is, these are ''definitions''; not necessarily ''translations''. — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 00:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
::Since we should be saying what reliable sources say, if they don't directly translate, surely neither should we? The Waffen SS were the warfighting, military arm of the SS - literally translating the title doesn't really add anything imo, especially if it's misleading - it's not like the 'regular' SS weren't armed. ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 01:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
:::In hindsight I have to agree, having a direct translation really doesn't add anything. I think everyone can agree with this definition[https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/waffen-ss] of the Waffen-SS as being the military branch of the SS. --[[User:Nug|Nug]] ([[User talk:Nug|talk]]) 08:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Nug|Nug]] and @[[User:Hohum|Hohum]] That's a good call, pls see my post above. The current bit "The '''''Waffen-SS''''' (<small>German:</small> [[Help:IPA/Standard German|[ˈvafn̩ʔɛsˌʔɛs]]], "Armed SS")" gives the reader the impression that "armed" would be the direct translation of "Waffen", though. I recommend to either remove that part, or to add a note that cites the literal meaning (eg. "literal translation = weapons"). [[User:GeeGee|GeeGee]] ([[User talk:GeeGee|talk]]) 07:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

== Terminology for members ==

I'm looking at another article that [[Special:Permalink/1004090231#Plot|refers]] to "SS soldiers" but that doesn't seem to be terminology used here. Has there been a discussion on the correct term? I did find [[Talk:Waffen-SS/Archive_2#SS were not soldiers]] from 2016 ({{ping|K.e.coffman}} who did the actual source-based research towards an answer) but it seems to have been inconclusive. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Bri|Bri]]</span> ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 05:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:I don’t know what other article you are referring to, but I believe it’s best to refer to them as troops, at this time. There’s been more of a general consensus reached as to how to refer to them in the last five years. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 12:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks, it was [[Fury (2014 film)]] ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Bri|Bri]]</span> ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 07:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Bri|Bri]] In German, "SS-Soldaten" (= SS soldiers) is a proper term, it's used by the German Historical Museum in their article covering the Waffen-SS (https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/der-zweite-weltkrieg/kriegsverlauf/waffen-ss.html), for instance, and in numerous books/scientific articles, of course. If the general concensus here on the EN wiki established the term SS troops, that's fine, but "SS-Soldaten", "SS-Truppen" (SS troops) or "Soldat(en) der Waffen-SS"/"Waffen-SS-Soldat(en) (= soldier(s) of the Waffen-SS/Waffen-SS soldier(s)) are all established (and widely used) terms used in German literature/scientific works. [[User:GeeGee|GeeGee]] ([[User talk:GeeGee|talk]]) 07:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:22, 15 July 2024



Pictures

[edit]

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).

#Casualties

[edit]

Should ‘comparative’ be ‘comparable’? Or was the intention to say ‘xxx compared’? Wikiain (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armed SS, weapon SS

[edit]

Hello @Nug:. I saw that you undid my change to weapon SS. In my point of view "armed SS" is a false translation. Armed SS in German means "bewaffnete SS" and not "Waffen-SS". The literal translation of "Waffen-SS" is "weapons SS". Greets.--JonskiC (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Direct exact translations from Google do not necessarily convey the intended meaning. Google translates "Waffen" to "Weapon" but "Waffen SS" to "Armed SS". My German-English dictionary says that "Waffe" is a noun meaning "weapon" and "Waffen" is an adjective meaning "armed". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Im German and I have to say thats false: Waffen ist just the plural of "Waffe" and does definitely not mean "armed". "armed" means "bewaffnet" and not "Waffen".--JonskiC (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In English, it's meaningless to say "Weapon SS". Weapon is a noun, and what's needed here is an adjective. Perhaps "Weaponized SS"? but as a native English speaker, I would not say "weaponized" when "armed" would do. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My German-English dictionary suggests 'arm (military branch)' as a meaning as much as "weapon" which would give "military SS" which has similar intent to 'armed-SS' GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(comment) I think their original intent was to convey that the Waffen-SS was the military branch of the SS. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Native speaker here: That's correct for the later use (1940 and follow. years). Initially, it was used as internal description in the SS-Hauptamt (the replacement/recruitment department) to mark the branch as being usable for combat operations and that Hitler had authorized such use. The term then became a descriptive term that not only highlighted the potential military use of the branch but also the fact that the Waffen-SS wasn't just a military support branch but that it was also equipped with heavy weapons (even incl. some organic artillery units later on), unlike the originally lightly armed SS-Police units and the units of the "Allgemeine SS" (where a vital share wasn't even allowed to carry firearms before the war). In the main, the Waffen-SS adopted the organizational structure (TOE = tables of organization and equipment) of corresponding Wehrmacht units, especially when their units were expanded to Panzer-Grenadier-Divisions and Panzer-Divisions, later on, and they were always put under the operational command of the Wehrmacht at Corps, Army or Army Group (theater HQ) level, with very few exceptions.
If Hitler or Himmler would have wanted to call that branch "armed SS" then they would have picked the term "bewaffnete SS" ("bewaffnet", adjective, = "armed"). The term "Waffen" showed that it was more than just a political police or bodyguard branch. It is not an adjective and it does not translate to "armed", the addition "Waffen" (= "weapons") rather highlighted the fact that Waffen-SS units were combat troops equipped with proper heavy equipment (heavy weapons). That said, the term "Weapons (SS)" should not be used in this article either, unless it is used to explain the literal meaning of the word "Waffen" (eg. in the introduction), especially since the Waffen-SS was declared to be a criminal organization during the Nuremberg trials and its name, signs and banners banned/declared to be illegal in a number of countries. Also - by authorizing the official use of the term as description for SS combat units - the German leadership pointed out to the public that these SS units were fully capable military units, eventually, which wasn't widely known at the time. In an attempt to attract more volunteers and to familiarize the general population with the "new" term and the Waffen-SS units' new role, the leadership started to run extensive media campaigns in late 1940. GeeGee (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do reliable sources about the Waffen SS say it means? (Hohum @) 20:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Time-Life book The SS from their Third Reich series says "Waffen-, or military, SS" (page 13)
  • Evans uses "military SS" for example on page 76 of book 3
  • Shirer uses the term but does not define it
  • Longerich 2012 (the Himmler biography) uses the term but does not translate it
  • Chester Wilmot The Struggle for Europe uses "armed SS" (page 94 of the 1954 edition)
  • Beevor D-Day, The Second World War, and The Fall of Berlin use the term but do not define it
  • Toland uses "armed SS" on page 723 of the 1976 paperback edition
  • Kershaw The End calls it "Himmler's own military wing" on page 23
  • Levy, Nazi Hunter, uses "military SS" page 240 of the 2006 paperback edition
  • Bullock uses the term but doesn't define it
  • Speer page 733 (in the index, 1970 paperback) "military units of the SS"
Therefore the majority of the books I have here at home that mention the term define it as "military SS". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, these are definitions; not necessarily translations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since we should be saying what reliable sources say, if they don't directly translate, surely neither should we? The Waffen SS were the warfighting, military arm of the SS - literally translating the title doesn't really add anything imo, especially if it's misleading - it's not like the 'regular' SS weren't armed. (Hohum @) 01:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight I have to agree, having a direct translation really doesn't add anything. I think everyone can agree with this definition[1] of the Waffen-SS as being the military branch of the SS. --Nug (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nug and @Hohum That's a good call, pls see my post above. The current bit "The Waffen-SS (German: [ˈvafn̩ʔɛsˌʔɛs], "Armed SS")" gives the reader the impression that "armed" would be the direct translation of "Waffen", though. I recommend to either remove that part, or to add a note that cites the literal meaning (eg. "literal translation = weapons"). GeeGee (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology for members

[edit]

I'm looking at another article that refers to "SS soldiers" but that doesn't seem to be terminology used here. Has there been a discussion on the correct term? I did find Talk:Waffen-SS/Archive_2#SS were not soldiers from 2016 (@K.e.coffman: who did the actual source-based research towards an answer) but it seems to have been inconclusive. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what other article you are referring to, but I believe it’s best to refer to them as troops, at this time. There’s been more of a general consensus reached as to how to refer to them in the last five years. Kierzek (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it was Fury (2014 film)Bri (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri In German, "SS-Soldaten" (= SS soldiers) is a proper term, it's used by the German Historical Museum in their article covering the Waffen-SS (https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/der-zweite-weltkrieg/kriegsverlauf/waffen-ss.html), for instance, and in numerous books/scientific articles, of course. If the general concensus here on the EN wiki established the term SS troops, that's fine, but "SS-Soldaten", "SS-Truppen" (SS troops) or "Soldat(en) der Waffen-SS"/"Waffen-SS-Soldat(en) (= soldier(s) of the Waffen-SS/Waffen-SS soldier(s)) are all established (and widely used) terms used in German literature/scientific works. GeeGee (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]