Talk:Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts

Exemption for those conscripted after 1943

"Waffen-SS conscripts sworn in after 1943 were exempted from the judgement owing to their conscription." This seems like an important sentence, but is very vague. Does it apply everywhere? or only certain countries? Is there a SPECIFIC DATE involved? Does "after 1943" mean beginning in January, 1944. Is there a reference?

Serbian volunteers

Hi @Obenritter I cannot find the content supporting the participation of Serbian volunteers within the Prinz Eugen Division, All I could find on the source provided (Gilbert 242-243) was: On October 1942 the division … was 92 percent Volksdeutsche, the remaining percentage coming from Reich Germans occupying senior or technical positions maybe you meant a different page or I could also have a different edition! would you mind double checking? thank you Aeengath (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, they were ethnic Germans living in Serbia that helped form the Prinz Eugen Division. So Serbian is misleading if not a misnomer in this case if one is thinking in terms of ethnicity. However, they would have still be counted among Serbians, as it stands, geographically speaking. Actually, many of the Waffen-SS volunteers were ethnically German but of varying nationalities. This raises the question, do such persons constitute Serbians? If we're thinking along racial lines like the Nazis would have...perhaps not, but in a modern context, people of varying ethnicity stemming from Canada but fighting abroad would be labeled Canadians, right? So what you are trying to say is that because these volunteers are of German ancestry, they're not from Serbia? Maybe this whole article should be scrapped if we're using their genetic lineage as indicators of nationality. Thoughts? --Obenritter (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Obenritter It is indeed a misnomer as they were Volksdeutsche from Serbia, they also came from Croatia, Hungary, and Romania. The multi-ethnic composition of Yugoslavia adds another layer of complexity to the discussion but according to the Yugoslav census of 1931, some 21.64 percent of the Bačka's population and 20.58 percent of the Western Banat's population were "German".[2]

I agree with you that in a modern context, individuals fighting abroad would be labeled based on their nationality, but the motives behind joining the Waffen-SS, are more complex due to the ideological and ethnic motivations behind volunteering. Aeengath (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed their motivations were very different, but I think the point is that these people were technically Serbian from a geopolitical perspective, which is why the authors imply there were "Serbian" persons serving this way. Do we then delete the Serbian Waffen-SS units from this list due them being Volksdeutsche, as I see no other way to reconcile this matter. We either accept them as people stemming from their more recent geographical home or we do not. Anyone else have any input here? --Obenritter (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The majority of foreign Waffen-SS divisions consisted of individuals without recognised states (Belarusians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Tatars, Cossacks, etc.) It is unclear which countries or regions this subsection is referring to, from what period and why it includes Caucasian and Turkic peoples. A clearer presentation could involve a list similar to Waffen-SS divisions by number. Volksdeutsche can be listed according to their region of origin, as this seems to be the common practice in most sources. Aeengath (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to improve the Foreign Waffen-SS units section

Following the previous conversation with @Obenritter I suggest converting the section Foreign Waffen-SS units recruited by Nazi Germany into a list/table format, as shown below. I believe this change would improve clarity and conciseness in that section of the article while also addressing inaccuracies. Aeengath (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Foreign Waffen-SS formations and foreign units under SS control

@Obenritter; @ Kierzek; @ Brigade Piron list proposal and new name for foreign units section

Designation	Formation	Personnel	Peak size	Notes
33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne	Feb 1945	French	7,340	Formed from LVF, Brigade Frankreich and other French military collaborators.
30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Belarusian)	Aug 1944	Belarusian, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian	10,000	Formed from Schutzmannschaft-Brigade Siegling personnel
7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen	March 1942	92% Ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) from the Serbian Banat, Croatia, Hungary and Romania. with some Reich German cadres	20,624

References

Bibliography

• Gilbert, Adrian (2019). Waffen-SS: Hitler’s Army at War. New York: Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-30682-465-4.
• Littlejohn, David (1987). Foreign Legions of the Third Reich Vol. 1 Norway, Denmark, France. Bender Publishing. ISBN 978-0-912138-17-6.
• McNab, Chris (2009). The SS: 1923–1945. Amber Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1-906626-49-5.
• Rein, Leonid (2011). The Kings and the Pawns: Collaboration in Byelorussia During World War II. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-0857450432.
• Tessin, Georg; Kannapin, Norbert (2000). Waffen-SS und Ordnungspolizei im Kriegseinsatz 1939-1945 (in German). Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag. doi:10.1080/13518040701378360. S2CID 144741225.
• Zabecki, D.T. (2015). World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia. Military History of the United States. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-135-81242-3.
• Zakić, M. (2017). Ethnic Germans and National Socialism in Yugoslavia in World War II. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-17184-8.

Aeengath (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks promising to me. Kierzek (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Good idea Aeengath and better, if not more accurate representation to me as well. --Obenritter (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I've renamed the section and added subsections. It's a lengthy list with numerous references hopefully the new format will be easier to update. I've attempted to add more sources, hopefully RS. IMO the last section " by country" created from the old content should go. Aeengath (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Aeengath - Unfortunately, you've added a good deal of content based on the specious work of Chris Bishop. His books are not considered RS, so I have tagged the citations accordingly. Please find a more reliable source for the information you added, which was attributed to him. Also, be aware that the works from Bender publishing are not generally considered trustworthy. Another Nazi-content author to watch out for is Gordon Williamson, since much like Bishop, he does not exercise sufficient academic rigor with his content. --Obenritter (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok potentially WP:INACCURATE content which cannot be attributed to a reliable source, and unsourced content have been removed. Aeengath (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Aeengath - Well, I was hoping you would have alternate sources for the new material, but respect your decision to eliminate non-RS content. The fact that so many lay-historians are borderline fans of the Nazis makes it tougher than it should be to edit articles on related topics. My advice is to stick with respected publishers and academic historians and you'll find it less frustrating to edit such articles. Just my advice...--Obenritter (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

My goal wasn’t to fill everything up with content but rather to kickstart the new layout. Considering the contentious nature of this topic, the best approach IMO was to eliminate all unsourced and non-RS content. Echoing Jimmy Wales’ words: 'Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.' Hopefully, this new layout will help screen content and make the article more accurate and credible. Aeengath (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you’ve done a good job overall, but I see you added: Massimiliano Afiero. “An information technology teacher and programmer, he has been interested in military history since his youth, specializing in the history of Axis units during the Second World War.” Cannot say he would be high on the RS list, but possibly acceptable. I have never heard of him. Littlejohn is certainly acceptable and should not have been removed. David Littlejohn, received his doctorate degree from Harvard; “a professor emeritus of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley … His many awards included a University of California Distinguished Teacher Award (1985), and a Berkeley Citation (1997) — the university’s equivalent of an honorary degree.” I have re-added him accordingly. Also Obenritter, with due respect, contrary to your statement, Bender books by consensus, have been found to be RS and used by me and others in GA articles. As to the others, I agree, especially: Bishop, Williamson. Kierzek (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Kierzek for your feedback. It's good to know that a consensus was reached regarding the reliability of Bender books. I will re-add both Littlejohn and Bender to the article. If any issues arise, we can address them here.

According to Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, Massimiliano Afiero has been Editor-in-Chief of the bimonthly magazine SGM (Seconda Guerra Mondiale) and in January 2017 started his own magazine: The Axis Forces in World War II. The introduction to volume one of The Axis Forces in World War II magazine states: "The publication of The Axis Forces deals exclusively with subjects of a historical military nature and is not intended to promote any type of political ideology either present or past, as it also does not seek to exalt any type of political regime of the past century or any form of racism." If there are any concerns about his inclusion, I am open to further discussion. Aeengath (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve still never heard of him, but I won’t object. At least he doesn’t sound like a pure amateur and since he has no political ideology attached to his writings, that is good. I was going to say, unless something is controversial or a strong core statement or certain pov, one does not need to have more than one RS cite to support a sentence or paragraph. It’s more streamlined that way and not needed. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok will proceed with this approach in mind moving forward, thanks for the feedback and input. Aeengath (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Kierzek Generally speaking, there are some issues to keep in mind R. James Bender. While this press is well-known for its specialization in military history, particularly regarding World War II and the Third Reich, the trustworthiness of books published by them have been criticized over the years by academic historians. This was brought to my attention many years ago by professors in history departments in both Germany and the U.S. They may suffice for some content in Wikipedia tied specifically to military regalia and other detailed military matters, but I would caution against using them for sensitive issues. If I recall, a couple well-respected editors have voiced this matter in other places—namely K.e.coffman and/or Buidhe. My experience with some of R. James Bender's works brought to question: (1) Content Quality and Accuracy – their books are often very detailed, with extensive photographic documentation and information, but such depth of detail does not inherently guarantee accuracy or impartiality; (2) Author Expertise and Bias – from what I have seen, the credibility of their books is overwhelmingly contingent solely upon the authors' expertise and any potential biases are very rarely, if ever, addressed, which in case where the author has ideological biases, this affects the presentation and objective interpretation (lack thereof in many cases) of historical events; (3) Scholarly Reception – As a historian, I can categorically tell you that the reception of these books within the academic community is generally negative and works from this publisher are not looked on favorably; (4) Publishing Focus – they concentrate on niche subjects that are often not rigorously peer-reviewed like mainstream academic publications, which otherwise contain loads of cited sources by recognized scholars and tend to be far more reliable; (5) Historiographical Critiques – Scholars have criticized certain publications from R. James Bender for their potential biases, particularly regarding the portrayal of the Third Reich and its military, raising concerns about glorification or insufficiently critical perspectives; (6) Lack of Contextualization – there have been instances where books from R. James Bender have been critiqued for their lack of critical perspective on the Nazi regime. For example, certain works have been noted for their detailed depiction of uniforms and insignia without sufficient context or critical analysis of the ideology and crimes associated with those symbols.

Now I convey all this not to deliberately disparage this publisher, as in some cases, its authors provide valuable detailed information one might not find elsewhere; however, I caution against trusting the information without careful consideration, and I'd stress that it is essential to approach them with a critical eye—considering potential biases in the process—and always cross-reference their content (when possible) with other scholarly sources for a well-rounded and more objective understanding. You can use them if you so choose, but I will not.--Obenritter (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to go into a long-winded response. It’s not necessary. My education, credentials and awards speak for themselves; as have the GA articles I have been involved with and the other articles I have written and I am auto-patrolled. You and I have known each other a number of years and worked together quite often. Therefore, some of your comments are disingenuous. Littlejohn has good credentials as shown and I have not found a problem with his work. As an attorney and editor here for over 15 years, I can tell you that I look at everything as objective as possible and analyze it accordingly, as to bias, context and including comparison with other RS works. Use what you want to or not (as long as it’s an RS source and consensus does not say, otherwise). Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Whoa...Kierzek, you've taken my concerns about this publisher as a direct disparagement somehow, when it was never directed at you as a person or editor. You're well-respected for your work and very much trusted, credentials and all. That has not and will not change for me. My apologies if my misgivings with that publisher made you feel some kind of way. Often times, they publish works with details that cannot be found elsewhere and some of its authors are experts to be sure. It's just that many are not and the publisher does not take the effort to QC the content all the time the same way an academic or big-player publisher might otherwise do. This makes me averse to using their works, that's all I was explaining. Again, it was not my intention to diminish anyone for using them in any way. Going forward I'll keep my opinion to myself.--Obenritter (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe both of you make valid points from different perspectives. Unlike peer-reviewed academic works, the credibility of Bender's book relies on the expertise of its authors. Therefore, researching their backgrounds first, as @Kierzek does, makes sense. When in doubt, cross-referencing with other scholarly sources, as @Obenritter suggests, is another good option, so thank you both for your inputs! Aeengath (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Aeengath Thanks for providing some additional perspective. Happy editing.--Obenritter (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Gentlemen: I am very busy with real life matters at the moment and that’s why I have not been on Wikipedia or written any response until now. I do not have a lot of time for Wikipedia at present. Obenritter, I found some of your tone to be akin to a head schoolmaster in your original post; I don’t need to be “categorically” told something. You say that was not your intent, so I accept that but just keep in mind language used when writing a post, especially when directed towards a specific person (and one you have known for years). There is no reason to stop stating your opinion on matters. Obenritter, you have been a valued contributor and have been helpful in keeping a eye out for unconstructive edits, so carry on. Enough said on that. All water under the brigade.

BTW, my intent is not one of defending all author’s of an entire publisher, only comments about specific books that I have read, reviewed, compared and used along with other editors of caliber in GA rated articles. One may declare Bender a mixed bag, but you can say that about other publishers, as well. And I was specifically talking about David Littlejohn, who has good credentials for Wikipedia. Anyway, I hope that’s enough said. And Aeengath, I agree with your comments. Remember we are writing for a general reader, herein. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Aeengath - Squabbling aside (my ill-manners and lopsided opinions having contributed to this), you're doing excellent work and what's most important is improving the encyclopedia.--Obenritter (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Obenritter, glad to hear that my contributions are appreciated, discussions like these are a great place to learn so thanks again to you and Kierzek. Aeengath (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest we should look for a better source, replacement for Rikmenspoel. Kierzek (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice work. Kierzek (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine

So, did Ukraine exist during the World War II or not? Ukraine appeared after the World War II as Ukrainian SSR and a member of the United Nations. How exactly the members of the Waffen-SS Galizien were calculated, based on their passports of the Soviet Union and/or Poland or by "say so" calculations from third party? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

When someone like to criminalize a certain nation, they are very fast to find the country, but when try to recognize the nation actual existence, they are being weird about it. Where is the consistency? The list states "conscripts by country"... How is the list consistent with the actual political situation of that time? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)