Talk:500th SS Parachute Battalion

Updating this Page

I'm going to give the old college try to update this topic, as I have plenty of information on this particular battalion. I came across it while studying the German airborne assault onto Drvar, and I think that it is interesting enough to write the article.

Cheers UEL 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Madanrushka-Banja

I think that name is false. That place is in Serbia (as a part of Yugoslavia) and on serbo-croatian it should be written as: Mataruška banja. I do not know how to write that at english but letter š is something as 1st voce in "shoes", and nj is one letter (voice) and it sounds like first voice in word "new". Banja means spa in english.

This must clearly be wrong

"Himmler supposedly got the idea in September 1945". After the war ended? It must have been another year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.3.194 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How about that being a typo?--71.185.193.245 (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

600th SS Parachute Battalion

Is there a reason why the (misspelled) article on the 600th SS Parachute Batallion redirects to this article? Is the 600th notable enough to receive its own article? Are these 2 battalions the same (if so, that should be made clear in the article)? I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in this area to attempt a new article on the 600th. Vgranucci (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

They are indeed one in the same, the 500th became the 600th after rebuilding after the Tito HQ operation.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy

"The idea to form a paratrooper unit within the Waffen-SS allegedly came directly from Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler" and "Adolf Hitler supposedly got the idea in September 1943."
These two quotes appear in the Introduction and 'Creation' sections respectively. Unless I am missing something, they directly contradict each other.
Which is the correct statement?

Similarly, I am confused by the 'Raid on Tito's HQ' section, para 1 which talks about the following two companies arriving by DFS 230 glider. [my emphasis] A rapid click of the DFS 230 article shows that one glider could carry ten men including the pilot. Does this mean that they had an awful lot of gliders or that Fallschirmjäger sub-units were extremely small?
Even if it is the latter, it says in the 'After the Raid' section, para 1: "they were down to a strength of 90 men", I presume this is the battalion strength well after the raid, so at least nine or ten aircraft would have been needed. (And this is when one takes over-simplification to extremes).

RASAM (talk) If it meant that they arrived in one DFS 230 glider it would say they arrived in a DFS 230 Glider - the way its been written is perfectly intelligible and not an over simplification at all - if one wrote that the Britsh Airborne Divsion came (or even went) to Arnhem by C47 Dakota no one would be confused and wonder if that meant all 6ooo men crammed into one Dakota - or in normal conversation say "the Royal Party came to Windsor by Rolls Royce" I doubt anyone knows how many gliders were used so conflating the mode and precise model of transport they went in is just as valid as saying 'they arrived by DFS 230 gliders' which sounds worse (as would the Royal Party came to Windsor by Rolls Royces)

Forgotten Legions: Obscure Combat Formations of the Waffen-SS

The book Forgotten Legions: Obscure Combat Formations of the Waffen-SS is not a reliable source. In their book The Myth of the Eastern Front American historians Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies describe in detail how while its author Anthonio J Munoz conducts in-depth research, his works tend to romanticise the German military of World War II and are typically self-published. They also discuss this book on pages 185-186, noting that one of its main themes is to present "a picture of desperate but heroic SS soldiers resisting an unstoppable force and in the end sacrificing their lives in a lost cause". As such, statements from the book about this unit supposedly fighting off far larger Soviet forces can't be considered reliable. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two sides to every story. Maybe you'll win a barnstar for this. hahaha.Fury 1991 (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

Fallschirmjäger der Waffen-SS im Bild

Non-RS source published by extreme right Nation und Europa Verlag. Pls also see Nation Europa.

Fallschirmjäger der Waffen-SS im Bild by Kunzmann-Milius; published by Coburg, Nation Europa Verlag, (1998)

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No. You only want your version of truth out there which is why schools won't allow their students to use Wikipedia. Milius is not even on that list.Fury 1991 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

What are you hoping to achieve by making ridiculous accusations? Please see WP:RS. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Both of those sources I used are pro Nazi. Get real. Like I said two sides to every story. You have a black and white view of the world like a junior high kid.Fury 1991 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991