Poeticbent (talk | contribs) →"Role in World War II": more feedback |
Doctor Papa Jones (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 243: | Line 243: | ||
:::::Will do in a bit, cheers mate. :) [[User:Jonas Vinther|Jonas Vinther]] • ([[User talk:Jonas Vinther#top|Click here to collect your price!]]) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::::Will do in a bit, cheers mate. :) [[User:Jonas Vinther|Jonas Vinther]] • ([[User talk:Jonas Vinther#top|Click here to collect your price!]]) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::The actual structure could still use some refinement. For now, the years move back and forth, from one section to the next. The "Ideology" however, was one overall constant, it could therefore be removed from the timeline and placed as first, followed by a timeline of events in their order of occurrence (including new SS branches) beginning in early years and ending in Germany's surrender. Invasion of the Soviet Union could be renamed as Barbarossa because when Operation Barbarossa began, the Soviet Union proper was a great distance away. Beyond the [[German-Soviet Frontier Treaty|German-Soviet Frontier]] were the Soviet-occupied territories of the Second Polish Republic, i.e. prewar sovereign Poland, not the USSR. (''This reference could also be utilized:'' {{cite book | url=http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-IV.pdf | title=Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals | publisher=Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 | work=Volume IV : "The Einsatzgruppen Case" complete, 1210 pages | date=1945 | accessdate=1 March 2015 | author=N.M.T. | at=542-543 in PDF (518-519 in original document) | format=PDF |via=direct download | quote=With N.M.T. commentary to testimony of [[Erwin Schulz]] (p. 543 in PDF).}}) '''<font color="darkblue" face="Papyrus">[[User:Poeticbent|Poeticbent]]</font>''' <font style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">[[User_talk:Poeticbent|talk]]</font> 17:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::The actual structure could still use some refinement. For now, the years move back and forth, from one section to the next. The "Ideology" however, was one overall constant, it could therefore be removed from the timeline and placed as first, followed by a timeline of events in their order of occurrence (including new SS branches) beginning in early years and ending in Germany's surrender. Invasion of the Soviet Union could be renamed as Barbarossa because when Operation Barbarossa began, the Soviet Union proper was a great distance away. Beyond the [[German-Soviet Frontier Treaty|German-Soviet Frontier]] were the Soviet-occupied territories of the Second Polish Republic, i.e. prewar sovereign Poland, not the USSR. (''This reference could also be utilized:'' {{cite book | url=http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-IV.pdf | title=Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals | publisher=Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 | work=Volume IV : "The Einsatzgruppen Case" complete, 1210 pages | date=1945 | accessdate=1 March 2015 | author=N.M.T. | at=542-543 in PDF (518-519 in original document) | format=PDF |via=direct download | quote=With N.M.T. commentary to testimony of [[Erwin Schulz]] (p. 543 in PDF).}}) '''<font color="darkblue" face="Papyrus">[[User:Poeticbent|Poeticbent]]</font>''' <font style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">[[User_talk:Poeticbent|talk]]</font> 17:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::The reference in question is ''deliberately'' structured that way to make them more visually similar to Harv refs. This is also done with all the other online sources. [[User:Jonas Vinther|Jonas Vinther]] • ([[User talk:Jonas Vinther#top|Click here to collect your price!]]) 23:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:51, 23 October 2015
![]() | Schutzstaffel is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Requested move 5 June 2015
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:TITLECHANGES Mike Cline (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Schutzstaffel → SS (Nazi Germany) – Per WP:COMMONNAME, our articles should be located at a common English-language name for the subject, if one is available, rather than at a foreign-language name. In addition, the current name of this article is not widely known to the general public, who are our audience, so this move is suggested. --Relisted. Cúchullain t/c 18:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)BMK (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support as nom. Articles should not be located at names known primarily to academics or aficionados of the subject. BMK (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- BMK, I would suggest merging the text of this vote into your original nomination so it doesn't appear as if you're voting for yourself. Its generally good form for the nominator of an issue to state their support or opposition in the nomination itself and avoid then repeating the same information in a vote line. if you choose to merge the above comment, feel free to remove my comment here as well. -OberRanks (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support move to SS. SS is the common name and the page already redirects here, so the disambiguation isn't needed. Calidum T|C 12:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose mainly for the reasons outlined in this thread as well as previous discussions here and here. Also this is the proper name of a Nazi Party paramilitary organization and is cited as such in thousands of sources. Google alone has nearly half a million hits [1]. My main worry here is this will start a snowball-forest fire with the translation of Nazi Party organizational titles, in particular that the same argument here could be applied to so many others. Best to just leave this alone. -OberRanks (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose as the historians, scholars and academic sources refer to the SS by its actual German name. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Academic usage is not the controlling standard for Wikipedia, our policy of WP:COMMONNAME is. BMK (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, my point is reliable, third-party independent sources commonly refer to the SS as "Schutzstaffel". Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and reliable third-party independent sources also refer to it as the "SS", many more times, so neither has an edge in that respoect. However, one is in German, and the other is just two English letters, so WP:COMMONNAME is controliing. BMK (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I won't support this move until you ... somehow ... can prove "SS" is a more common reference than "Schutzstaffel". I can only speak for myself and say that all the book sources I've used to cite SS-related articles have always first referred to it as "Schutzstaffel". Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here goes nothing:
- Michael Burleigh's first reference to the organization on page 161 of The Third Reich: A New History (2000) is to "the Gestapo and SS", and the organization is indexed uder "SS (Schutzstaffel)"
- Shirer's first mention on page 145 is to the "S.S.", and, again, it's indexed under "SS (Schutzstaffel)". The index entry on "Schutzstaffel" says "see SS"
- Kershaw's biography of Hitler, volume 1, indexes as "SS (Schutzstaffel, Protection Squad)" and the first mention on page xxvii is to "Himmler and the SS"
- Fest's biography of Hitler has one of the worst indices I've ever seen: it contains only people's names, so I can't determine when he first mentions the SS without a time-consuming re-read
- Padfield's biography of Himmer indexes the under "SS, Schutzstaffel". The first mention on pahe 9 is to "Himmler's black order of the SS"
- Reitlinger's The SS: Alibi of A Nation 1922-1945 mentions them first of page as "the SS". The index entry for "Schutzstaffeln" says "see SS:
- Cranksaw's The Gestapo: Instrument of Tyranny has an index entry for "Schutz Staffel" which says "see SS". That entry says "S.S. (Schutz Staffel)". The first mention of the organization is the text is on page 16, "the S.A. and the S.S."
- Hitler's Willing Executioners mentions it first of page 10 "overwhelmingly SS men". The index entry is for "SS"
- Kershaw's The Hitler Myth mentions them on page 30 "the cordon of SS men"
- Rosenbaum's Explaininng Hitler: index "SS (Schutzstaffel)", first mention page 39 "the SS"
- Fest's The Face of the Third Reich: index "SS", first mention page 11 "the SS state"
- Overy's biography of Goering: index "SS (Schutzstaffel)", first mention page 4 "the SS"
- So I imagine your objection is going to be hat these are popular works, not academic studies, and yes, that is correct, and let me say once again, we are a popular encyclopedia and not intended for academics. Any academics citing Wikipedia ought to be failed on the spot, we're here to give the general public the information they need on whatever subject that comes up, and when it comes us, they want to know about "the SS", not about the "Schutzstaffel" which very very few of them have ever heard of. That is why our article should be located there, because that is where they will expect to find it. Academics don't need us, they have access to libraries and other resources, it is the general public we serve here. BMK (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I still stick to my oppose vote! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here goes nothing:
- Academic usage is not the controlling standard for Wikipedia, our policy of WP:COMMONNAME is. BMK (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. This one is a harder call (as I can see both sides) than the other two I recently agreed with re-naming (SA and RSHA). As I said on those two discussion boards, re-naming of Nazi Germany and Nazi Party related articles should be looked at one-by-one (when it comes up) with a critical eye and with discussion, accordingly. Thereby allowing consensus be reached. This one I believe should remain as is with the current full German name being well known enough and given the re-directs point to the article when people type in other variations when wanting to read about the subject matter of this article. However, it is true that many English language books refer to the organization as "The SS". Kierzek (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferred to unnatural parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. its the common English name. Nishadhi (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Who here honestly knew what Schutzstaffel meant without going to google? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I did. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this was really a serious question; just one to make you think on it a little. Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oh. Never mind then. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this was really a serious question; just one to make you think on it a little. Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I did. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Use true name William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I can't believe anyone would seriously claim that Schutzstaffel is as common in English language sources as SS for the Protection Squadron. On the other had, the disambiguator does seem a little strained and SS runs afoul of all those steamships. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not all that keen on what appears to be a campaign of translating German article titles. This article should definitely NOT be at Protection Squadron, as that is as uncommon as hen's teeth. Next, people will be wanting to translate German rank articles and confusing the crap out of everyone. On the basis that this is a specific case, I'm willing to offer my weak support. SS is used far more than Schutzstaffel in English sources. For example, the titles of almost all English books on the SS use "SS", not the German word. Turning to look at my bookcase I see McNab, Lumsden, Weale and Koehl, for example. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support moving to plain SS. The only competitor as the primary topic is the ship designator, which we don't have a specific article on, instead covering in several articles. The proper name will still redirect here, and should appear in the lead sentence, so there will be no difficulty for readers to find it if they only know the formal German name - though in fact "SS" is the most common term in German as well. It definitely shouldn't be at "Protection squadron"; that's an invented translation. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can support a move to SS, as this is clearly the primary topic of that desgination. As I said above, I cannot support the above proposed title, as it replaces the preferred WP:NATURAL disambiguation with parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 01:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Isn't it kind of odd to have an article taking place at an abbreviation? We have articles at National Basketball Association and World Trade Organization, not NBA and WTO. Sure, Schutzstaffel isn't English per se, but I'm not too sure about using the initials either. It feels out of place with everything else. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- tough call, I am guided by what seems most common in English. I am giving my very weak Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support move to "SS (Nazi Germany)" per nom. ONR (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Use the proper name of the organisation. People looking for SS will find it via the redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Not convinced there's a pressing reason for the rename, especially when a redirect will work. Intothatdarkness 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is the organisation's official name. JIP | Talk 21:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support move to SS per WP:COMMONNAME. By far the most common name of this organisation, to the extent that most people probably don't know what the full name is. And it already redirects here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. This move won't aid anybody's navigation and one of the first things you should learn about the SS is what the initials stood for. Srnec (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support per wp:commonname. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support SS only, per RGloucester. If that's too ambiguous, take it to WP:RFD. SS (Nazi Germany) would be unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should leave it where it is. This is the organisation's official name. If the page is moved, it should be to SS, which currently redirects here anyway, rather than the awkward and unnecessarily disambiguated SS (Nazi Germany). -- Diannaa (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom, WP:UE and WP:NC. This current title fails recognizability, naturalness, and consistency (with FIFA, with the FBI, CIA, KGB, etc.). 40% is not a passing grade at any school I know of. Red Slash 19:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's an abbreviation and thus used more often than the actual name. The organization was named Schutzstaffel in 1925, which is well before the Nazi's seizure of power. Besides, SS is already redirecting to Schutzstaffel, so I cannot see, why the latter article should be moved to SS (Nazi Germany).--Assayer (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom, clear common name. Agree with Red Slash above, "this current title fails recognizability, naturalness, and consistency (with FIFA, with the FBI, CIA, KGB, etc.)". Cavarrone 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, per OberRanks above. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- 25 June As of today, the current result is 14 Support votes and 12 Oppose votes! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Although I haven't been commenting, I have been periodically monitoring the !voting here, and it's consistently been very close, with no clear consensus emerging either way - at least numerically. That is why I haven't withdrawn this RM as I did the one at Talk:Sturmabteilung. Considering the situation, my preference is for it to be closed by an admin who would not only count votes, but also evaluate the quality of the arguments in terms of policy, much as an AfD is closed. BMK (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think its a huge deal but full names are more encyclopedic. That and the fact that the proposed title has a supefluous a disambiguator (SS already redirects to Schutzstaffel) are enough to make me oppose a move per WP:TITLECHANGES ("If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.") — AjaxSmack 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your vote makes the score almost equal! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is not some kind of competition, we're trying to determine the consensus of the community. BMK (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if my comment gave you the wrong impression! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Time for a revamp!
This article's structure and sections is not only a mess, but an unsourced mess. I propose these somewhat new and different sections in the following order. If enough people are in favor of seeing this rather than the current version, I'll compile body text for each section plus citations to sources. Let me know!
- Background
- Origins (describing the birth of the SS)
- Uniforms (describing how SS uniforms and what whatnot differed from the SA in the early days)
- Ideology (describing the ideological difference between the SS and SA)
- Expansion
- Early commanders (describing how Shreck, Berchtold and Heiden was unable to expand and properly lead the SS)
- Control by Himmler (describing how Himmler expanded and improved the SS compared to his incompetent predecessors)
- Status within the Nazi Party (describing how the SS became the dominant paramilitary group of the Nazi Party and how the SA lost its status and power after the Night of the Long Knives)
- Seizure of power
- Police forces and Internal security (describing how the SS took control of the police and security forces)
- Public image (describing how Nazi propaganda portrayed the SS after coming to power)
- Organizational structure
- SS branches (naming and talking a little bit about all, or at least the most standard and notable, branches of the SS including foreign departments sister groups)
- Women and civilian workers (talking mainly about SS-Helferinnenkorps and civilian workers employed or working for the SS)
- World War II
- Waffen-SS (talking about the birth and existence of the Waffen-SS and, importantly, how it differed from the Allgemeine-SS)
- Battles (talking about famous battles/victories the Waffen-SS participated/contributed to)
- War crimes (talking about war crimes committed in the name of the SS including its role in running/guarding the concentration camps)
- Post-war
- War crimes trials (talking about how only about 1,650 to 1,700 of the 70,000 members of the SS involved in crimes were put on trail and that the organization was declared criminal)
- ODESSA (little about ODESSA)
- In popular culture (about the SS in theater, films, poems, etc.)
Okay, how does everyone feel about these sections? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Looks pretty solid. My assumption is the SD and the Einsatzgruppen will be under * Organizational Structure. Don't forget their role early during the war in the section under World War II. About ODESSA - remember, the existence of this organization is disputed by historians so certainly don't expand on it much. Consider dropping the extant "Early SS disunity" segment altogether or substantiate it otherwise. Not sure it adds much to the article anyway. Try to add a little something from Nikolaus Wachsmann's new work KL when you get on the concentration camp system. If you don't - at some point early on, I will. It's full of the latest scholarship. Overall, I like your schema for organizational continuity here. Surely our illustrious group has some additional ideas. Don't feel alone on this Jonas - we'll all get a little piece of it once you've got the basic structure in coherent order. May the Force be with you. --Obenritter (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment Obenritter. Your were right in assuming that the SD and the Einsatzgruppen would fall under the SS branches section. Regarding ODESSA, I was planning writing about it as a WP:FRINGE per the historical consensus among historians, as you mentioned. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Looks pretty solid. My assumption is the SD and the Einsatzgruppen will be under * Organizational Structure. Don't forget their role early during the war in the section under World War II. About ODESSA - remember, the existence of this organization is disputed by historians so certainly don't expand on it much. Consider dropping the extant "Early SS disunity" segment altogether or substantiate it otherwise. Not sure it adds much to the article anyway. Try to add a little something from Nikolaus Wachsmann's new work KL when you get on the concentration camp system. If you don't - at some point early on, I will. It's full of the latest scholarship. Overall, I like your schema for organizational continuity here. Surely our illustrious group has some additional ideas. Don't feel alone on this Jonas - we'll all get a little piece of it once you've got the basic structure in coherent order. May the Force be with you. --Obenritter (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- You don't even really need permission to do what you are saying since it falls under WP:BOLD to some extent and the format looks good. The one comment on the other side I would make is try not to characterize any of the sections as "messes" or anything like that. This article actually has years of collaboration behind it and a lot of good people worked very hard to form the current structure. But, yes, change would be good. -O.R.Comms 01:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- When I said "mess" I meant in terms of structure and organization, no disrespect to the articles editors was intended. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- We all know what you meant, let's just say, it is organizationally suspect.--Obenritter (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- When I said "mess" I meant in terms of structure and organization, no disrespect to the articles editors was intended. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree a reorganization is in order. Some ideas:
- I. Origins of the SS
- a. The SA and forerunners of the SS
- b. Early commanders
- c. Himmler takes over
- II. Ideology
- a. culture
- b. uniforms
- III. Expansion
- a. Consolidating the police and security forces
- b. Blood Purge and independence
- IV. Organization and command structure
- a Allgemeine-SS & SS-Amt
- b. SS-TV and concentration camps
- c. SS-VT & LSSAH
- V. World War II
- a. Waffen-SS
- (including the foreign SS)
- b. Einsatzgruppen and racial war
- c. Major battles
- d. War crimes
- VI. Aftermath & legacy
- I love it, Kierzek! Will work on some body text and get back to you all. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- This looks great. EyeTruth (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Section break
- Okay guys, here is a suggested wording for the first section with three subsections:
Origins
Forerunner of the SS
When 29-year-old Adolf Hitler returned to Munich after Germany's defeat in World War I, he joined a small, political extremist group on the radical-right called the German Workers' Party (DAP). By 1921, he had imposed himself as chairman of the group and changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). The party rejected the Treaty of Versailles and advocated anti-Semitism as well as anti-Bolshevism. To police Nazi meetings and protect its speakers at rallies, a paramilitary force were formed. This became known as the Sturmabteilung ("Storm Section"; SA) and consisted of young party members who volunteered to provide muscle for security tasks. In 1925, as the parties membership began to grow, a special unit was formed to protect Hitler himself. This was the Schutzstaffel ("Protection Squad"; SS) which, at the time, was considered a mere sub-section of the much larger SA. Men of the SS had different uniforms than the SA, maintained tighter discipline and had higher entry requirements. Although officially subordinate to the SA, the groups members acted like the parties elite.
Early commanders
Julius Schreck was a co-founder of the SA and became the first SS chief upon its creation. Schreck was a close confidant of Hitler and had previously served in a Freikorps unit. He was succeeded as leader of the SS in 1926 by Joseph Berchtold, another SA co-founder. Berchtold was considered more dynamic than his predecessor, but became increasingly frustrated by the authority the SA had over the SS. In 1927, he handed the leadership over to his deputy Erhard Heiden. Much Like Berchtold, Heiden found it difficult to properly run the SS under the watch of the rapidly-growing SA. Membership of the SS declined from 1000 to just 280 under Heiden's rule. His dismissal was ensured when reports of him being a police spy emerged and he was succeeded by his deputy.
Himmler takes charge
With Hitler's approval, former chicken farmer Heinrich Himmler assumed control of the SS in 1929. The party officially stated Himmler's appointed was for "family reasons". Himmler displayed great enthusiasm and vision for the SS and was known to have good organizational skills. He became the official face of Hitler's bodyguard squad and over the year expanded the SS to 3,000 members. Himmler's aim was to turn the SS in the most influential branch of the party and most powerful organization in Germany. In 1930, Hitler allowed Himmler to run the SS as an independent organization, but still officially remained subordinate to the SA, which now numbered more than a million men.
- Let me know how it hits you! Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Jonas, I would use what is already there (and cited) for the most part; just rearranged; incorporating some from Julius Schreck, Joseph Berchtold, Erhard Heiden, Stoßtrupp-Hitler, etc. Kierzek (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- And are you talking about the "Background" or "History" section? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Both, which we are going to put into one section, with sub-parts, I thought. Kierzek (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it would be much easier for me to comment on such a wording if you could compile something together maybe? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- What's the opinion of others? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- What we really need to do is re-organize the article, not re-write it (although it can use ce work); so using what is there (with some addition with cites) is the way to go. As we say at the office, "no reason to re-invent the wheel". Input from others would be good, I agree. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's very optimistic to think we could get this article to GA-status by re-organizing the article. I think writing each of the sections you mentioned above would make this process easier given the amount of heavy copyediting we would have to do regardless. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was not talking about getting it to GA status at this time, just getting it organized better; I did not know that was what you were thinking about. But even if you are thinking about that, a total re-write is not needed. Kierzek (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Rewriting all of it is certainly not necessary. Large portions of it are solid. You could consider changing the citation style to 'harv' but for the most part, it just needs reorganized. Part of it needs some ce attention to be sure, but do not overload yourself by starting from scratch. Add substantiated content where the article is lacking in the process of reorganizing. That's sort of what I think many of us are expecting vice some major re-write. From what I've seen of the structure, the ideas thus presented look sound. Rest assured, some of us will add content and others will clean up the text. Joint effort brother. Machs' gut. --Obenritter (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was not talking about getting it to GA status at this time, just getting it organized better; I did not know that was what you were thinking about. But even if you are thinking about that, a total re-write is not needed. Kierzek (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's very optimistic to think we could get this article to GA-status by re-organizing the article. I think writing each of the sections you mentioned above would make this process easier given the amount of heavy copyediting we would have to do regardless. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- What we really need to do is re-organize the article, not re-write it (although it can use ce work); so using what is there (with some addition with cites) is the way to go. As we say at the office, "no reason to re-invent the wheel". Input from others would be good, I agree. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- What's the opinion of others? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it would be much easier for me to comment on such a wording if you could compile something together maybe? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Both, which we are going to put into one section, with sub-parts, I thought. Kierzek (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- And are you talking about the "Background" or "History" section? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Jonas, I would use what is already there (and cited) for the most part; just rearranged; incorporating some from Julius Schreck, Joseph Berchtold, Erhard Heiden, Stoßtrupp-Hitler, etc. Kierzek (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Let me know how it hits you! Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding more content (if necessary) with citation, getting the verifiability in very good shape, and reorganizing what is already there will get the article to any status. No need for a page-one rewrite. EyeTruth (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I get what you guys are saying. We're not rewriting this article. In any case, would someone like to compile a body text, like I did, but with using information that is already in the article and share it on this talk page? Would make it a whole lot easier to copyedit and reach consensus. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- After reading the "Background" and "History" sections, I get the feeling that some sections or subsections of this article might as well be re-written - while perfectly understanding we're not re-written the whole article. The "Background" section has only a few citations and makes weird time/subject jumps. Same problems are seen in the "History" section. I think combining sentences from both sections would produce a confusion and unnecessary long section. And as it became clear above, I'm looking at this totally with the eyes of a man who wants to see this article reach GA-status. I mean, why go through the trouble of reorganizing this article without getting it to GA-status given its historical importance? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Opinions? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- What you'll need to do is extract the information into a word doc - and then chronologically reorder the relevant information accordingly. It will be a bit painstaking (I've done this to a couple articles myself) and then fit it into the places where it best belongs within the construct(s) that have been thus far proposed. In some cases, you may need to edit the content for flow (moving it elsewhere) and in other places, you will literally cut and paste. Your observances about it "jumping around" is why we all reached consensus that it needs reorganized - so it does not "jump around" any longer. Somehow, I get the impression you may be overthinking this. It needs reorganized for chronological reasons and for the sake of subject matter continuity. Getting the content orderly and the citations consistent is a job unto itself. We can all begin copy-editing for quality once its basic structure is reworked.--Obenritter (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Been kinda busy lately with real life stuff, but will work on a wording tonight and share it with you all tomorrow, this time using info that is already used in the article. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- What you'll need to do is extract the information into a word doc - and then chronologically reorder the relevant information accordingly. It will be a bit painstaking (I've done this to a couple articles myself) and then fit it into the places where it best belongs within the construct(s) that have been thus far proposed. In some cases, you may need to edit the content for flow (moving it elsewhere) and in other places, you will literally cut and paste. Your observances about it "jumping around" is why we all reached consensus that it needs reorganized - so it does not "jump around" any longer. Somehow, I get the impression you may be overthinking this. It needs reorganized for chronological reasons and for the sake of subject matter continuity. Getting the content orderly and the citations consistent is a job unto itself. We can all begin copy-editing for quality once its basic structure is reworked.--Obenritter (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Opinions? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- After reading the "Background" and "History" sections, I get the feeling that some sections or subsections of this article might as well be re-written - while perfectly understanding we're not re-written the whole article. The "Background" section has only a few citations and makes weird time/subject jumps. Same problems are seen in the "History" section. I think combining sentences from both sections would produce a confusion and unnecessary long section. And as it became clear above, I'm looking at this totally with the eyes of a man who wants to see this article reach GA-status. I mean, why go through the trouble of reorganizing this article without getting it to GA-status given its historical importance? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
"Before 1933"
Guys, what is the greater purpose with this section? The title itself does not give in real clue to what the section is about. Moreover, the text describes SS Gau's, reorganization, membership, SS subordination to the SA, and department structures. I think we should come up with a new, more clear section title and also agree exactly what the section is supposed to detail. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed but not sure how to label this as I had no part in its creation. GAB or Kierzek might have more insight.--Obenritter (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I feel that some parts of the info could be placed elsewhere in the article and the remaining sentences could be deleted along with the section altogether? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- My idea was always to pull the info. from this section and the subsequent section of "Nazi Germany" and incorporate them into other sections or as you state Jonas, "elsewhere" in the article so it flows in a more chronological presentation. I just have not really had the time and that is why I turned it over to you, Jonas. Other sections under "World War II' can be better sorted, as well. I do think there should be a separate section for "SS Units and branches" and "Other SS groups" under: "Organization and command structure" & "World War II"; following my outline of sections listed above under the "Time for a revamp!" discussion or something similar. Kierzek (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree completely that with all the different paramilitary and military units of the SS, there should be a section on the command structure and such, as you indicated Kierzek. I'll come up with a proposed section, combining info already in the article and get back to you for some feedback and thoughts soon (as in, later today). Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Freinds, look at the new section "Membership and departments" I replaced with "Before 1933". Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sieht gut aus. Thanks for your efforts thus far.--Obenritter (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- My pleasure. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Guys, I also found the time to work on "Status within Nazi Germany" (formerly "Nazi Germany"). Please take a look at that section as well. Cya tomorrow. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- My pleasure. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sieht gut aus. Thanks for your efforts thus far.--Obenritter (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Freinds, look at the new section "Membership and departments" I replaced with "Before 1933". Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree completely that with all the different paramilitary and military units of the SS, there should be a section on the command structure and such, as you indicated Kierzek. I'll come up with a proposed section, combining info already in the article and get back to you for some feedback and thoughts soon (as in, later today). Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- My idea was always to pull the info. from this section and the subsequent section of "Nazi Germany" and incorporate them into other sections or as you state Jonas, "elsewhere" in the article so it flows in a more chronological presentation. I just have not really had the time and that is why I turned it over to you, Jonas. Other sections under "World War II' can be better sorted, as well. I do think there should be a separate section for "SS Units and branches" and "Other SS groups" under: "Organization and command structure" & "World War II"; following my outline of sections listed above under the "Time for a revamp!" discussion or something similar. Kierzek (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I feel that some parts of the info could be placed elsewhere in the article and the remaining sentences could be deleted along with the section altogether? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed but not sure how to label this as I had no part in its creation. GAB or Kierzek might have more insight.--Obenritter (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"Role in World War II"
The "Concentration camps" subsection in "Status within Germany" obviously need some expanding, but I think we can safely move on to the next section, namely the SS during World War II. I think that the first paragraph (or even subsection) should be about all the different SS divisions and major departments that were in existence at the start of the war. Consider these subsections:
- Divisions and branches
- Invasion of Poland and France
- Waffen-SS expansion
- From Barbarossa to Kursk
What yall think? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I will look at it in more detail later when I have time; but for now, I believe that the: "Concentration and death camps" subsection in "Status within Germany" should be merged with the latter section: Concentration camps (and the title used should be: Concentration and death camps" with the SS-TV being discussed therein, as well). Kierzek (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have no objection to that. I will go ahead and merge the two camp-sections right away. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay guys, I've written three our four subsections in the "Role in World War II" section (unsourced for now). Pleas take a look and let me know what you think. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Jonas, have a look at the Waffen-SS and LSSAH articles for some material of SS-VT and Waffen-SS combat/actions and you can pick up some cites from there, as well. Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Will do in a bit, cheers mate. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Jonas, have a look at the Waffen-SS and LSSAH articles for some material of SS-VT and Waffen-SS combat/actions and you can pick up some cites from there, as well. Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- The actual structure could still use some refinement. For now, the years move back and forth, from one section to the next. The "Ideology" however, was one overall constant, it could therefore be removed from the timeline and placed as first, followed by a timeline of events in their order of occurrence (including new SS branches) beginning in early years and ending in Germany's surrender. Invasion of the Soviet Union could be renamed as Barbarossa because when Operation Barbarossa began, the Soviet Union proper was a great distance away. Beyond the German-Soviet Frontier were the Soviet-occupied territories of the Second Polish Republic, i.e. prewar sovereign Poland, not the USSR. (This reference could also be utilized: N.M.T. (1945). Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals (PDF). Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. 542-543 in PDF (518-519 in original document). Retrieved 1 March 2015 – via direct download.
With N.M.T. commentary to testimony of Erwin Schulz (p. 543 in PDF).
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help)) Poeticbent talk 17:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)- The reference in question is deliberately structured that way to make them more visually similar to Harv refs. This is also done with all the other online sources. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay guys, I've written three our four subsections in the "Role in World War II" section (unsourced for now). Pleas take a look and let me know what you think. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have no objection to that. I will go ahead and merge the two camp-sections right away. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)