Talk:Waffen-SS

Pictures

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

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. 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. 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? 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. @Diannaa:. 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. — 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. Grebbegoos (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Social background

The article claims 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.--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. Kierzek (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, have a look. 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.--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. Kierzek (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that you added that part, did I?[1] 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.--Assayer (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@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. 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 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.--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. 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.--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. 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:

• Finnish SS volunteers in Gross Born.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

#Casualties

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

Armed SS, weapon SS

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)

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)

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)

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)