Jump to content

Talk:Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Content excised from list of SS foreign units

The following content was excised this date from the above list (as inappropriate for a list):

Some of the SS-soldiers from Norway had not volunteered as soldiers for Waffen-SS.
In Norwegian, the term "frontkjemper" ("battlefront" + "fighter") has been used since World War 2, about the circa 700 soldiers in Regiment Norge, and other SS-soldiers from Norway. (About 38 % of dead SS-soldiers from Norway, died while serving Regiment Norge,[1] as a "part of"[2] 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland.)

It may be integrated elsewhere in the article, or worked into that section as a superscript accessible note. Wikiuser100 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


I have modify and add some numbers (Albanians, with "Division Skanderbeg" of Gordana Kostic), and others general but reliable sources , like Mark Rikmenspoel, and Axis History Forum debates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.201.25.17 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

British Free Corps

To be accurate and for the sake of completion it ought to be included that there was a British platoon of Waffen SS members, called the British Free Corps. The wore the Union Jack and three Lions. The comprised of British fachists and former POWs who were seeking a better life. The British Free Corps was formed in 1944. Werner 18:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In the known (talk • contribs)

Latvians

115 000 — 150 000, not 60 000. --Kurlandlegionar (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

List by nation and unit

UK?

The UK list needs fixing, as the BFC contained on non UK residents (and New Zealand is not part of the UK).81.151.116.120 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this on (en.metapedia.org

List by nation and unit
===List by nation and unit===

An estimated 325,000 to 500,000[3] non-ethnic German volunteers and conscripts served in the Waffen-SS:

References

  1. ^ Rydne, Jon H. (2011-10-29). "- Frontkjempere flest var velutdannede bygutter". Verdens Gang (in Norwegian). p. 47. Rundt 235 nordmenn mistet livet som følge av tjeneste i regimentet. — Dette utgjør om lag hele 38 prosent av alle de norske soldatene.
  2. ^ Rydne, Jon H. (2011-10-29). "- Frontkjempere flest var velutdannede bygutter". Verdens Gang (in Norwegian). p. 47. Dannet i juni 1943. Ble en del av 11. SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Division Nordland under III. SS-Panzerkorps.
  3. ^ Many joined the SS with a false name, others asked to be germanized, still others destroyed all papers, therefore the true numbers of foreign volunteers could be substantially higher. In the last days of the war, the Waffen-SS burned division records and gave out workers' passports to volunteers who wanted them.
  4. ^ The name comes from an Albanian national hero and military leader Gjergj Kastrioti Skanderbeg (born approximately 1405, died on January 17, 1468), who led the anti-Turkish freedom fight.
  5. ^ Romuald Misiunas (Author), Rein Taagepera (Author), The Baltic States: Years of Dependence, 1940-1990, University of California Press (1993), ISBN 978-0520082281
  6. ^ The battalion was praised by many Waffen-SS commanders, even Heinrich Himmler, for its combat performance. Himmler said "Where a Finnish SS-man stood, the enemy was always defeated." Neither the unit nor any of its members were ever accused of any "war crimes".
  7. ^ Source: Tim Ripley, The Waffen-SS At War: Hitler's Praetorians 1925-1945, 2004, ISBN 978-0760320686
  8. ^ This unit, the 8th SS Volunteer Sturmbrigade France was led by a former Foreign Legionnaire, Obersturmbannführer Paul-Marie Gamory-Dubourdeau. The 1st battalion of about 1000 men was attached to SS Division Horst Wessel and sent to Galicia to fight the Soviet advance. In fierce fighting the battalion suffered heavy casualties.
  9. ^ 1 motorised infantry regiment (3 regiments from October 1944, but with French, Belgians and Spanish volunteers)
  10. ^ In the later stages of World War II Lainé decided to separate from Bagadou Stourm and integrate with the SS in the face of the assassination of several leading figures of the Breton cultural movement. One of those assassinated was priest and Breton language defender Abbé Jean-Marie Perrot, murdered by the communist terrorists of the French Resistance. The militia had originally been named Bezen Kadoudal, after the anti-Jacobin Breton rebel Georges Cadoudal. The 1943 assassination of the priest prompted Lainé to change the organization's name in honor of Perrot during December of that year. It had already been envisaged by German strategists that in the event of Allied invasion the Breton nationalists would form a rearguard, and that further nationalist troops could be parachuted into Brittany.[1] However, the rapid American advance from Normandy into Brittany forced the group to retreat along with the German army. In Tübingen many members were provided with false papers by Leo Weisgerber.[2] Following the war many of the organization's members, including Lainé, Heusaff and the nationalist poet Fant Rozec fled to Ireland.
  11. ^ At least 30,000 Georgians served in the German armed forces during World War II. The Georgians served in thirteen field battalions of up to 800 men, each made up of five companies. Georgians were also found in the Wehrmacht's North Caucasian Legion and in other Caucasian ethnic legions. The Georgian military formations were commanded by Shalva Maglakelidze, Michel-Fridon Zulukidze, Col. Solomon Nicholas Zaldastani and other officers formerly of the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918–21).
  12. ^ SS-Waffengruppe "Georgien" was formed on December 11, 1944 and commanded by Waffen-Standartenfuhrer der SS Michail Pridon Tsulukidze.
  13. ^ Romuald Misiunas (Author), Rein Taagepera (Author), The Baltic States: Years of Dependence, 1940-1990, University of California Press (1993), ISBN 978-0520082281
  14. ^ The Litauisches Polizei Regiment 1 was formed in July 1944 and was only used as a front-line unit. It ist not sure if it belonged to the Wehrmacht or the Waffen-SS. It ended the war in the Courland pocket (German: Kurland-Kessel)
  15. ^ The Lithuanian units were often put under control of the SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA).
  16. ^ 40% of the members later went to the Waffen-SS in different divisions (mainly 5th, 15th, 19th, and 20th), the Lithuanians did not have their own Legion.
  17. ^ Until September 1944, Luxembourg was part of the German Empire, therefore the men were drafted into all German armed branches, no records were kept as "foreign fighters" because they were considered German.
  18. ^ Source: Tim Ripley, The Waffen-SS At War: Hitler's Praetorians 1925-1945, 2004, ISBN 978-0760320686
  19. ^ The history of Poles in the Wehrmacht, the unified armed forces of National Socialist Germany, began with the German "Poland Campaign" in 1939. More than 225,000 citizens of the Polish Second Republic served in the Wehrmacht, and some in the Kriegsmarine and Waffen SS.
  20. ^ Fought in the Royal Yugosalv Army uniforms, but were under the command of the Waffen-SS.
  21. ^ Source: Heimdal "Dictionnaire historique de la Waffen SS", 1998.
  22. ^ The most Swedes served directly in the Finnish Army, one of the Axis powers and therefore allies of Germany. The last major fighting Sweden took part in was during the Napoleonic Wars. When the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939 though, at least 10,000 men volunteered for service with the Finnish forces to fight against the Soviets. This number is especially significant because there were approximately 6.5 million people living in all of Sweden at the time. Sweden and Finland are both Northern European countries and had much in common, therefore, when the Soviets invaded, many Swedes felt compelled to join the Finnish Forces. Another at least 1,500 Swedes volunteered for service with Finland between 1941 and 1944.
  23. ^ The thousands of Swiss, who fought for Germany, mainly entlisted in the Wehrmacht instead of the Waffen-SS. The numbers for members of the Waffen-SS range between 300 and 2,000 depending on the source.
  24. ^ Robert A. Best in his book from 2010 The British Free Corps: The Story of the British Volunteers of the Waffen SS (ISBN 978-1904911906), lists the names of 165 BFC members, with their fates (where known). He also quotes a source which indicates that by January 1945, some 1,100 Britons had applied to join the formation. Additionally, there was also an SS Irish Brigade, which was about 400 men strong.
  25. ^ In March of 1945, a BFC detachment was deployed with with the 11th Waffen-SS division "Nordland," which was composed largely of Scandinavian volunteers. Although most of the Corpsmen were dispersed throughout the division, a squad-sized unit was assigned to the 3rd company of the reconaissance battalion, which consisted primarily of Swedish SS men. The BFC contingent was commanded by SS-Scharfuehrer "Hodge." ("Scharfuehrer" is sergeant; "Hodge" is mostly likely a nom de guerre and not his real name.) Richard W. Landwehr Jr. reports (Britisches Freikorps: British Volunteers of the Waffen-SS 1943-1945, ISBN 978-1475059243) , "The Britons were sent to a company in the detachment that was situated in the small village of Schoenburg near the west bank of the Oder River (p. 83)." On March 22, as the company was entrenching, it was partially overrun by an advance element of the Red Army which had blundered into its position by accident. Although taken by surprise, the SS troopers, including the BFC volunteers, quickly regained their wits and launched a vigorous counterattack, driving off the Soviets. One BFC fighter, a Cornishman named Kenneth Edward Berry, was captured during the brief but fierce battle, and was subsequently interned. Another Corspman who distinguished himself during the battle for Berlin was Eric Pleasants, of Norwich. Pleasants is easily the most colorful figure in a formation that was full of colorful figures. Before the War he had been a Blackshirt security officers in Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists. Unwilling to fight against Germany when war broke out, he aligned himself with the Peace Pledge Union, and was assigned agricultural work on the Channel Islands as an alternative to military service. Pleasants was interned with the other adult males when the Germans occupied the islands in 1940. He was an early volunteer in the BFC. Pleasants was naturally strong and athletic, and he had an iron constitution. He had experience in boxing, wrestling and the Oriental martial arts. Unsurprisingly, he became the physical instructor for the BFC. As part of his duties, he represented the BFC in exhibition boxing matches with the other Germanic SS units, and in time became the middleweight boxing champion of the SS. During the climactic battle for Berlin, he managed to fight his way through the Soviet encirclement, killing two Communist soliders in hand-to-hand fighting in the process. He surrendered to the Americans, but after further adventures, he was interned by the Russians and spent seven years in a Siberian slave labor camp. Shortly before his death, he returned to England and died peacefully in Hethel, near his home town of Norwich, at age 87.
  26. ^ At least eight American volunteers are known to have been killed during their service in the Waffen-SS. They were Francesco Mattedi, a soldier in the Italian SS Division who killed in Nettunia, 30 April 1944; Charles MacDonald, KIA near Johvi/Estonia, 14 March 1944; Raymond George Rommelspacher, died in Normandy/France, 6 October 1944, Edwin/Erwin Peter, KIA in Latvia, 2 July 1941; Andreas Hauser, died in Welikij in Ukraine, 18 January 1945; Lucas Diel, died on 9 December 1944 in Hungary; and Andy Beneschan, KIA in Bosnia, 16 April 1945. There were also numerous German-Americans who served in the Wehrmacht and as Waffen-SS officers during World War II. Among others were SS-Hauptsturmführer Josef Awender, a medical doctor in the SS ‘Frundsberg’ Division who born in Philadelphia in 1913; SS-Untersturmführer Robert Beimes, a signal officer in the SS ‘Hitlerjugend’ Division, born in San Francisco in 1919. His father was a translator in the SD; SS-Hauptsturmführer Eldon Walli, born in New York City in 1913 in the SS-Kriegsberichter Abteilung (war reporters); and SS-Hauptsturmführer Paul Winckler-Theede, born in New York City in 1912 and served as a military judge in the SS ‘Das Reich’ Division.
- 91.65.17.225 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

These sections (20 Kb of material) were added by 91.65.17.225 (talk) on 28 June 2013 (UTC). I’ve collapsed them to save space, but as it says exactly the same as the list section of the article (which was added at the same time by the same editor), I’m inclined to delete it altogether.
I also notice it’s copied verbatim from the corresponding article on Metapedia, which doesn’t strike me as a reliable source. So should it be removed from the article as (a) a copyvio and/or (b) unreliable content? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dutch-Indonesians in Waffen SS

According to many papers, like this one; http://dare.uva.nl/document/145035 Eurasian ( Indo people ) served with the Waffen SS, also pictures in the Dutch databank of the National Archive shows Indo-people in Waffen SS uniform. Native Indonesians didn't serve so it's best to change Dutch Indonesian into Eurasian or Indo-People, otherwise it leads to misunderstanding about Indonesians serving in the Waffen SS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmTheInsane (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Just make sure you don't confuse them with NSB-members of Indonesian descent. The NSB, believe it or not, did have some members of Indonesian descent. --41.150.99.67 (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(numbers of volunteers)

I have modify the numbers of the volunteers by country, with the help of Rikmenspoel book "Waffen-SS encyclopedia". and others books and sources too. for exemple, it is impossible that 15000 belgium walloons were in SS !! Eddy De Bruyne (best historian of SS walloons) gives some 7700 mens recruted for Legion/Sturmbrigade/Division Wallonien. about these 7700 we can put off the strangers (russians, spanish, some french) AND all the walloons who serve ONLY in Legion Wallonie/Heer (1941-1943). So I think 6000 is a reasonable figure.

about french, no exact figure is available, but division Charlemagne has 7300 mens in december 1944. We can add the hundreds of ex-Sturmbrigade not enlisted the division (at least 2500 enlisted in 43-44, probably not more of 1500 lasted their adventure in Charlemagne division), maybe one hundred in SS units of Skrozeny, at least one hundred or more in Walloons units. So, 8500 to 9000 french is a correct number. source : Robert Forbes "For Europe", and Grégory Bouysse "Waffen-SS Français volume 1 : officiers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.162.192.235 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As for French and Belgium (Wallonie) both countries have larger ethnic German populations. They may be misattributed. --41.150.99.67 (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

according to the "official" version of wwii

the nazi party was anti-slavic. how do you explain all of these volunteers. 71.212.210.137 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Presuming you are using the epithet and mean the NSDAP. Where was the party programmatic against Slavic people? Please show us from official documents. --41.150.99.67 (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable Source?

The article cites "Robert A. Best: The British Free Corps: The Story of the British Volunteers of the Waffen SS. London: Steven Books, 2010. ISBN 978-1-9049-1190-6". Based on what appears about Steven Books at Keith Thompson (politician), I suggest that this sources, and all information which relies on it for citation, should be deleted as unreliable.Alekksandr (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The Steven Books controversy relates to online sales which are unrelated to Robert A. Best or any of the books sold in the process. On top of that, Wikipedia cannot be used as an opinion source about anything. We need a reliable third-party source for that sort of thing. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia itself should not be used as a source for anything. I was referring to the source which is cited in Keith Thompson (politician) (and therefore presumably considered a reliable third-party source), namely Searchlight acts to stop Tesco sale of Nazi books 'Steven Books. This British-based publisher and book distributor is a front for Keith Thompson, the man who ran the elite hard-line Nazi group, the League of St George...Steven Books appears to have cornered the market in republishing some of the worst hate material that has been around since the First World War.' On the issue of whether Steven Books can be considered a reliable source, I note that its website http://www.stevenbooks.co.uk/jewish-holocaust contains the following (under the weasel words 'Steven Books are only an information resource and make no further comment.') 'Did Six Million really die?' 'Forged War Crimes malign the German Nation', 'The Auschwitz Lie'. http://www.stevenbooks.co.uk/national-socialism states that it contains 'works which reveal a more positive view of the ideology and practise of the National Socialist German government' including Mein Kampf itself, 'The triumph of reason - the thinking man's guide to Adolf Hitler' and William Joyce's 'Twilight Over England'. I suggest that these facts raise a prima facie case that a 20-page pamphlet (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-British-Free-Corps-Volunteers/dp/1904911900) published by this organization should not be considered a reliable source.Alekksandr (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Please explain to us, why we should find books from a publisher that also publish books critical of certain aspects of historiography, unreliable, but must find at the same time *any* pro-Allied source reliable. --197.228.16.36 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I did not and do not suggest that anyone 'must find at the same time *any* pro-Allied source reliable'. I suggest that 'books critical of certain aspects of historiography' is an understatement when referring to the content listed above.Alekksandr (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A troubling development

I would expect User:Jonas Vinther who moved the article and made drastic changes to this article just about now, to give us a proper run-down of his intentions here on the article talk page. Nothing so far. Only one cryptic summary in the removal of (-8,976) bytes‎ . . (first phase of my improvement). – What is it than? Poeticbent talk 18:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

First off, look at the lede; three editors including myself have produced that—which is vastly better (and sourced) than the previous one. Secondly, I've converted all the sources and references I added so far into beautiful Harv links (which I also intend to do with all the other references in later phases of my improvement). Thirdly, most of the stuff I removed were ... well, let's say odd combination of confusion information to put it civilly. Lastly, this is a list, not an article, so let's make it look like one. I can also inform everyone that I won't have much time to be on Wikipedia for the remainder of the evening and most of tomorrow. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to say that, but the removal of (-8,976) bytes including infobox and a bunch of books, coupled with the above personal pep talk, only made the situation worse. Poeticbent talk 20:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, but do as you wish. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I know it is a "list" but I think a brief paragraph as to each nation's Waffen-SS history as to its units and formations would be helpful for the general readers. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I suggest, we restore the article to its original form first, look at the difference between revisions and make step-by-step improvements based on whatever positive ideas came out of it. – Would you be OK with that sort of thing? Poeticbent talk 16:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I leave it up to you two guys, as I don't have the time right now to work on this article; my thoughts of the end product are stated above. Kierzek (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The current lede, which both myself and Kierzek worked on, is obviously much better than the previous one. Also, the individual subsections where everything is sourced should stay that way. If you insist on bringing back some other sections, be my guest. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Article improvement

I saw a recent edit which brought me back over here. The article needs work. Poeticbent, if you have the time, give it a go. It needs some ce and restructuring with a brief paragraph for each unit with RS cites. Checking the main article for each unit, should help with the information and cites needed. Kierzek (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, Kierzek. Got a friendly note about this on my talk page from K.e.coffman as well. I will read it tomorrow top to bottom including article history. The lead is too long per policy, and a brief intro to each section, like you say, would really help. BTW, raw bullets are not the best way of listing things, although this might require even more time and effort. Poeticbent talk 04:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not agree with this sort of treatment. Please comment. There's no anchor to confirm anything and no military formation. The internal link leads to an ethnic group; repeated over and over again, throughout the entire article. This is a POV nightmare.
===Belgium===
* [[Flemish people|Flemish]]: 20,000+
The names of actual divisions should be used instead because they are far more informative and precise. I believe, they were split according to languages spoken. Among them were: SS Freiwilligen Legion Flandern (SS FLF), SS Freiwilligen Verband Danemark, Finnisches Freiwilligen Bataillon der Waffen SS and so on and so forth. What do you think? (Here's my source.) Poeticbent talk 21:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I concur on the POV issues; they are definitely not needed here. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, K.e.coffman. Here's a sample of how the remaining POV groupings can be replaced with languages spoken according to names of specific divisions, as described at Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front 1941-1945 By Ian Baxter. [1] Poeticbent talk 22:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I can tell you that the total numbers for units are only estimates in the end and not all sources agree. If I have time later I will check some and post them here. Certainly the actual unit names should be used. Kierzek (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The more I look at the Waffen SS volunteers through the eyes of book authors I quote, the more resemblance I see between the Nazi propaganda techniques from 1941 and the modern-day online recruiting among youth by ISIL. The SS training bases are usually listed in those books, the only missing part is what the recruits actually did in those places. This comes through only in making a comparison with the known dates and sites of massacres in occupied Poland, as in the Heidelager camp with 7,000 Jewish prisoners, 5,000 Soviet POWs, and 3,000 Poles, most murdered before July 1944. Again, ISIL comes to mind. But I think it is important that we state the units' locations in this article, not just their names, so more sense can be made of what is being said. Poeticbent talk 07:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This is interesting (ISIL parallels), but are there reliable sources that say that? Otherwise, it would be WP:OR -- K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see the "video" cites removed and replaced with better RS cites. I will work on it as I have time. Also, the lede and history sections over-lap and need some further work. Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Please, go ahead. Poeticbent talk 16:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that we use the same format for all subsecs whenever replacing the "cn" tags with the new data. Firstly, we do not identify (nor wiki-link) ethnic groups at all, only Waffen SS corps and their organization. Here's where the new problems begin. The actual foreign groups were frequently renamed, and therefore might create the impression that there were more of them (with more volunteers), which might be false. Here's one example of proposed new format (with already existing old problems): Poeticbent talk 16:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Finland
SS-Division "Wiking", 1941: 1,000 men trained at Truppen-Ubungsplatz Heuberg; deployed with Army Group South in June 1941 for Tarnopol. Renamed as Panzer Division in 1943.
Which is which? According to http://www.feldgrau.com/finland.html and http://www.feldgrau.com/5ss.html these names might relate to one and the same group of servicemen: Nordische Division (Nr.5), SS-Division Germania (mot), SS-Division "Wiking", SS-Panzergrenadier-Division "Wiking", and 5.SS-Panzer-Division "Wiking" as the war progressed. Poeticbent talk 16:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mitcham 2007, p. 155.
Some observations, In Hungary not all German speakers were conscripted into the Waffen SS-only those men who choose German not Hungarian nationality in the Hungarian census, 22,000 served in the SS and 35,000 with the Hungarians. The "iron law of German ethnicity" was not recognized by the Hungarians. The trivia about British, Indians and Americans is not necessary, these units were never employed in combat and were formed for propaganda purposes only. As for casualties there are no reliable figures for the non Germans in eastern Europe. According to Overmans the data base of the Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) encompassed only foreign nationals of "Germans by ancestry" in East-central Europe and for foreign nationals in western Europe. According to Overmans casualties of foreign nationals in western Europe were 63,000 with a ? next to the estimates for each country. And finally I own the Mitchem book if you guys have questions. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Woogie, I agree several were for propaganda purposes but I don't think they should be cut; that should be noted instead. BTW- if you can improve the info. and cites with the Mitcham book, have at it. The article needs work, as you know. Kierzek (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention of editing this article, I am here to provide sources that I am aware of, that's all folks--Woogie10w (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for article structure

To the comment from @Poeticbent: above, I agree that the current way of presenting the information is a problem. For example, Div Wiking link appears 7 different times in the article. I.e. Wiking was not formed in Finland, and it's an overstatement to list it under Finland. Perhaps, list the unit that was formed in the country / predominantly staffed with one country's volunteers under the country's heading, and use text to describe that this unit was attached to another SS div at some time? Is there a better solution? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy and misrepresentation are both a problem; for example, under France is listed several units but most of them folded and the remainder became known as the "33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne". Maybe we should list the units in final form with a brief history of the prior units and nationalities which made up said unit over time. What a can of worms. Kierzek (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there's is a solution. No more sections according to countries ... most of them were occupied anyway. We list the formations instead, and in that list, specify the ethnic make up of servicemen providing that the data exists. Here's our base information, or the starting point, borrowed from Zweiter-Weltkrieg-Lexikon.de. in Wayback. The SS and the Waffen SS divisions beginning with # 1, as of October 1943:
Waffen-SS und SS Mit Wirkung zum 22. Oktober 1943 erfolgte die Durchnummerierung der Waffen-SS Verbände. Organisation einer SS-Panzerdivision Nicht kämpfende Einheiten
1. SS-Panzer-Division "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" (1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler)
2. SS-Panzer-Division "Das Reich" (2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich)
3. SS-Panzer-Division "Totenkopf" (3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf)
4. SS-Panzer-Grenadier-Division "Polizei" (4th SS Polizei Panzergrenadier Division)
5. SS-Panzer-Division "Wiking" (5th SS Panzer Division Wiking)
6. SS-Gebirgs-Division "Nord"
7. SS-Freiwilligen-Gebirgsdivision "Prinz Eugen" (7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen)
8. SS-Kavallerie-Division "Florian Geyer"
9. SS-Panzer-Divison "Hohenstaufen" (9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen)
10. SS-Panzer-Division "Frundsberg" (10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg)
11. SS-Freiwilligen-Panzer-Grenadierdivision "Nordland"
12. SS Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend" (12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend)
13. Waffen-Gebirgsdivision der SS "Handschar" (13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian))
14. Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS "Galizien" (14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician))
15. Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS "Lettland" (15th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Latvian))
16. SS-Panzer-Grenadier-Division "Reichsführer SS" (Sturmbrigade Reichsführer SS)
17. SS-Panzer-Grenadier-Division "Götz von Berlichingen" (17th SS Panzergrenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen)
18. SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadierdivision "Horst Wessel"
19. Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS (lettische Nr. 2) (19th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Latvian))
20. Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS "Estland" (20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian))
21. Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS "Skanderbeg" (21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg)
22. SS-Freiwilligen-Kavalleriedivision "Maria Theresa"
23. SS Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Division "Nederland"
23. (2) Waffen Gebirgsdivision der SS "Kama"
24. Waffen-Gebirgs-(Karstjäger-)Division der SS (24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger)
25. Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS "Hunyadi" (ungarische Nr.1) (25th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Hunyadi (1st Hungarian))
26. Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS (ungarische Nr.2) (26th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Hungarian))
27. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division "Langemarck" (27th SS Volunteer Division Langemarck)
28. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division "Wallonien"
29. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS "RONA" (russiche Nr.1) (29th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS RONA (1st Russian))
29. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (Italienische Nr.1) (29th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Italian))
30. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS "Russland" (russische Nr.2) (30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS)
31. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division
32. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division "30. Januar"
33. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS "Charlemagne" (33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French))
33. (2) Waffen-Kavalleriedivision der SS (ungarische Nr.3)
34. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadierdivision "Landstorm Nederland"
35. SS-Polizei-Grenadier-Division
36. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS )
Example of possible expansion of this one slot with the suggested format to follow all the way through the list: 36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, formed in February 1945 from soldiers of SS-Sturmbrigade "Dirlewanger" created in August 1944 from SS-Sonderbataillon Dirlewanger (a.k.a. Wilddiebkommando Oranienburg) created originally in June 1940.[1] Due to heavy casualties, by February 1943 about half of the 700 men were native Russians and the Soviet Volksdeutsche.[2]
37. SS-Freiwilligen-Kavallerie-Division "Lützow"
38. SS-Panzergrenadier-Division "Nibelungen" (38th SS Division Nibelungen)
Poeticbent talk 22:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jason Pipes, SS-Sturmbrigade "Dirlewanger". Composition. Feldgrau.com. German armed forces 1918–1945.
  2. ^ The Waffen SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War, 1939-1945 By George H. Stein
I agree with your proposal. Although, as to "36. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS", Pipes is not a source I believe should be used for citing. I am sure we can find the RS info. somewhere else; it just will take time. Kierzek (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem. We don't need Pipes to state the obvious; the same info can easily be found elsewhere. — For example, identical list (per above) borrowed from Zweiter-Weltkrieg-Lexikon.de in Wayback has also been copied at Feldgrau.com "word-for-word". The problem with Jason Pipes is that he does not reveal his sources. Poeticbent talk 23:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree with "no countries" approach. Very good point on the countries being occupied to begin with. All these "pan-European military force" themes are really grating. I'm reading a good source relating to the topic and would like to contribute on that down the road, esp. as it applies to post-war developments. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I added internal links to articles we already have, above; which is a majority apparently. I have one last radical proposal, but this is a bit different. There is an article called List of Waffen-SS divisions where everything is pretty much already worked out in detail. Should we propose a merger...? However, the difference between our approach in this article, as oppose to the other one, is the proposed unit history in brief as well as its ethnic breakdown. The "List of Waffen-SS divisions" article does not have that. Regrettably, it does not have a reference section either; therefore, it is useless by itself and indefensible. Poeticbent talk 03:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about the merger - List of Waffen-SS divisions article is a List of *divisions* and not all foreign-staffed units were divisions. The title is Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts - I think it's an interesting topic and is worth exploring. What drove people to join? What were the different trends across the occupied Europe? Why did Nazi Germany pursue this route? How did the units change over the course of the war, with the rise and fall of Nazi power? Where did these people end up after the war? (My hunch is some of the original intention from a certain editor was the concept of "Nation Europa" and perhaps that's why the article ended up listing the countries to create such an impression.)
What if we focus less on the list of the units (that could be more of endnotes), but more on the questions of why, how and what was next? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
BTW, there's a List of Waffen-SS units article, which includes a section on foreign legions. Perhaps kill the difficult-to-deal-with list we have now, and use this one instead, while we review the copy for sourcing and POV issues? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You got some good points here. Just like the other article I mentioned, the List of Waffen-SS units#Waffen SS Foreign Legions which by itself could be a valuable resource, has no reference-section of any kind. We should be able to establish how many foreigners served in the Waffen SS in round numbers at least, in order to make the article complete based on reliable third-party sources. In that context, it does not matter if they were formed into divisions or not. The only distinguishing factor is the Waffen SS membership, as oppose to the Wehrmacht army for example, where the foreign nationals were also conscripted under threat of court martial. This article is only about one particular facet of World War II. Poeticbent talk 12:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
There is an example of an article I never knew existed: "List of Waffen-SS divisions". I wonder where the editor(s) got the numbers for the division(s) strength; the whole thing, as you say, is not cited. "List of Waffen-SS units" frankly could be merged or scrapped in the end. Kierzek (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I have a suspicion that the article List of Waffen-SS divisions was compiled (not entirely) from the Wikipedia Category:Waffen-SS divisions via copy-paste, that's why it does not have a reference section at all. Meanwhile, in German Wikipedia we also have the de:Kategorie:Ausländische Freiwilligeneinheit der Waffen-SS which attempts to specify where in the Waffen SS the "foreigners" served, thus excluding some of the divisions which I listed from #1 to #38 at the top. Poeticbent talk 13:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: I found a proof that the article List of Waffen-SS divisions is lying. It says that: 4th "Polizei" Division had 19,377 (1941) members. According to George H. Stein (The Waffen SS) the number was 17,347 (1941). [2] Poeticbent talk 17:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
To Kierzek's point about the unknown reaches of the Wikipedia, I found this article List of Waffen-SS division commanders, which also includes the foreign units.
In any case, what should be done about the Waffen-SS volunteers/conscripts article? Should we work out an acceptable outline? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
There are too many SS "list' articles which give little information and are not RS cited. We should build this one up along the lines we discussed above and move to merge the "List of Waffen-SS units" over to here (basically doing away with it). Kierzek (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
How can we possibly merge the List of Waffen-SS units into this article if it does not have a single citation. A round Zero! We can perhaps cannibalize it using our own sources before doing away with it. Poeticbent talk 09:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
As an aside, here are more another examples of the "Nation Europa" / "Battle of the European SS" messaging: "...the development and transformation of the Waffen-SS, as an armed wing of the Nazi Party's Schutzstaffel, into a multi-ethnic and multinational military force of Nazi Germany" -- from lead para at Felix Steiner). Or "... was created as the armed wing of the Nazi Party's Schutzstaffel, and gradually developed into a multi-ethnic and multi-national military force of Nazi Germany" (from lead para at Waffen-SS). How can the force be 'multinational', when most of these nations were occupied? For the unoccupied countries, we have Italy, Hungary, Romania and not sure which else. Do you guys think these references represent POV issues? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
PS - Ah, also Finland, which provided a battalion :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Russian book (2001)

For those folks who read Russian-РОССИЯ И СССР В ВОЙНАХ XX ВЕКА -Г. Ф. Кривошеева has an estimate on page 508 of 357,000 military dead of Volksdeutsch and Soviets. I am not saying that this is is correct, only that the source is reliable and should be considered. Official German figures are different, these are Soviet era estimates
http://www.pseudology.org/colonels/Russia_USSR_Voiny20veka.pdf
Таким образом, безвозвратные людские лотери вермахта состави­ ли 11 млн. 844 тыс. чел. (см. таблицу 196) из которых 4 457 тыс. не вернулись с войны. В их числе: немцев — 3 600 тыс., австрийцев -270 тыс., судетских немцев и эльзасцев — 230 тыс., граждан других государств, в том числе «фольксдойче» и советских граждан - 357 тыс. чел.
I hope this helps--Woogie10w (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how you managed to discover that 580 page book in PDF Woogie10w, published in 2001 in Russia; with content by 8 historians under professor and former general Г.Ф. Кривошеев (G.F. Krivosheev). Looks reliable; we can confirm accuracy by looking at others. However, their statistics say nothing about the SS specifically nor the Waffen SS numbers. They include only the combined Nazi casualties and soldiers, as well as the (rounded up) "Volksdeutsche" understood as originating from the Soviet Union and/or the Soviet citizens understood as born of non-Germanic blood. The book was published in 2001. Therefore, these are not Soviet era estimates, but the present-day Russian estimates based on the (possibly declassified) Soviet era sources. Below is what it says on page 481 / 580 in PDF:
  1. Wehrmacht total casualties of war: 11,844,000 men
  2. Missing (presumed dead): 4,457,000 (including)
  1. Germans: 3,600,000
  2. Austrians: 270,000
  3. Sudeten Germans and Alsatians: 230,000
  4. "Volksdeutsche" and Soviet citizens: 357,000 (not the above total which is 317,000)
Nazi Germany (Wehrmacht and SS troops, without the allied forces) during the Second World War
  1. In military service before March 1, 1939: 3,214,000
  2. Mobilized from 01.06.1939 on 04.30.1945: 17,893,000
The number of enemy prisoners of war captured by the Soviets (484 / 580 in PDF)
  1. Total: 3,777,290 as of May 9, 1945
I don't know how we can utilize this. Poeticbent talk 08:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


Poeticbent ,the source cited by Krivosheev for the figures is from the Soviet era, these figures are not his estimates from 2001. See footnote page 508 (2) М юллер-Гиллебранд Б. Сухопутная армия Германии. 1933—1945.— М->1976. Т. Ш , с. 338-339.
Statistics are not correct just because they are published in a reliable source. Reliable sources are not always in agreement. It is not our job as editors on Wikipedia to decide the correct figures and censor out what we believe to be wrong. When a topic is disputed we present a range reliable sources as they appear in print and leave our own judgments off Wiki.
Perhaps the best title for the article would be Foreign Nationals in German military service 1939-1945. The SS was only part of a bigger picture. For example Poles and Soviets were conscripted into Organization Todt and wore German military style uniforms, [3] they served in combat zones but non-German Organization Todt casualties are not included with German war dead. Polish and Soviet nationals are not included in German post war military casualty figures unless they are considered "German" by the post war military German search service.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
You're going off the deep end here. This one article is about the Waffen SS foreign volunteers and conscripts, good enough subject for a full size Wikipedia article like all others. If you want to pile up stats about everyone you can find by bringing in more and more books loosely related to SS, we have a separate article for that. There's no "Waffen SS" data in :::::s book. Poeticbent talk 12:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


The neo-Nazi crowd has gone off the deep end and loves to point out that the SS was multi-national, they try to make the Waffen SS into a gallant pan-European struggle against communism, the Americans(Amis) finally woke up in 1948 and formed NATO. The reality was that the Nazi war machine conscripted Poles and Soviets and then ignored their deaths in the post war era. I don't expect the article title to change but note should be made of the big picture.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Go to page 513 of Krivosheev he puts the number of Vlasovite forces at 800,000. And don't forget the many of these men had blood on their hands. The US and the UK admitted many as refugees from communism in the cold war era. John Demjanjuk is a poster boy for this group.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

To Woogie's point above, the article that covers foreign nationals in the Wehrmacht is here: Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts. It's much more neutral in nature vs what we are discussing here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have added a bit on racist criteria of selection in Waffen SS. The whole multi-ethnic claim should be dropped as it is cherry picked, and misses out on how it was wholly racist organization with racist criteria and whose primary aim was to exterminate other nations. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Multi-national force

I would also like to revisit my earlier comment around the "multinational force" statements -- before I raise the issue on the other articles, I'd like to poll you guys here, if you don't mind:

  • Felix Steiner "...the development and transformation of the Waffen-SS, as an armed wing of the Nazi Party's Schutzstaffel, into a multi-ethnic and multinational military force of Nazi Germany".
  • Waffen-SS "... was created as the armed wing of the Nazi Party's Schutzstaffel, and gradually developed into a multi-ethnic and multi-national military force of Nazi Germany"

Do you guys think these references represent POV issues? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry K.e.coffman, I would have responded to your earlier comment right away, except that I got confused. In Wikipedia lingo, these are not "references". They are POV statements that need to be removed or replaced with a more neutral statement of fact, for example Waffen-SS was created as the armed wing of the Nazi Party's Schutzstaffel squadron, which gradually began to draw on Germanic foreigners and volunteers from every occupied country. The loaded language you quote is so persuasive that it has already made its way to a recently published book, however, it has no place in Wikipedia.[4] Poeticbent talk 19:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me check some RS sources when I get a chance later tonight for better phrasing and citing. We need something like, "... was created to be the armed wing of the Nazi Party's Schutzstaffel (SS), and included formations of both volunteers and conscripts from occupied and un-occupied lands. Kierzek (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
A related issue on the Walloon Legion article: listing "Belgium" in the unit infobox - see my diff. Something to keep in mind if any of us happen on more instances of this. Another example here: 27th SS Volunteer Division Langemarck - still in original state. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
It was made up of Walloon Belgians but I am not comfortable with the official stamp of the nation upon it. Does anyone agree? Maybe a good way to phrase the "multi-national problem" is to say "multiple ethnicities were present to form foreign or part-foreign Waffen-SS units and divisions" or "multiple ethnicities formed foreign or part-foreign Waffen-SS units and divisions." Or just leave it to what I stated earlier above: "...included formations of both volunteers and conscripts from occupied and un-occupied lands." Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I like this approach - it's simple and factual: "...included formations of both volunteers and conscripts from occupied and unoccupied lands." I got an autocorrect for "un-occupied"; and perhaps change "lands" to "countries"? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
How about: ... formed of volunteers and conscripts from foreign lands under strict German command. To my knowlege, not a single commander originated from those nations. Check out the List of Waffen-SS division commanders if you want. Poeticbent talk 21:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Poeticbent: Léon Degrelle was not German; Franz Augsberger was Austrian; for examples of non-German Division commanders and certainly for the smaller legions and units I am sure there were more non-German commanders. With that said, most were German; but not all. Kierzek (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Next steps

There's been a lull here... Should we just go ahead and remove the non-POV 'units-by-country' list altogether? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the "country" part of the sections, as we discussed above, can be done. Kierzek (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you clarify what was discussed? I'm not clear on what the outcome was. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
We decided to identify units only; like was done here: [5] Kierzek (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Concur, except that we also agreed to provide citation for every change we make, so perhaps the most convenient way to prepare for a complete overhaul of that section would be to make a draft here to which all of us could contribute, and than paste it to mainspace as soon as we're ready. The starting point for us are the legions, divisions, and units where the foreigners served. Poeticbent talk 06:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree as to the estimates/numbers of members and make up of said units, but just removing the "country" part, can be done before other work which needs RS citing, don't you think? Kierzek (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

History of the Waffen-SS section

Would there be any objections by replacing content in this section with the link to the main article?

Main article: Waffen-SS

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe it needs some sort of introductory paragraph. And I still believe there should be at least a brief history of the prior units and nationalities which made up said unit over time with a list the units in final form.
@Poeticbent: what do you think? Kierzek (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Kierzek is correct. Some kind of introductory paragraph is necessary. But the section "History of the Waffen-SS" can be safely cut in half. Everything before the sentence which reads: "Following the campaign in the West in 1940, Hitler authorized the enlistment of "people perceived to be of related stock..." can easily be replaced with the link to the main article, because nothing there is related to the actual "foreign volunteers and conscripts" as far as I can see. However, without an intro, the whole article becomes a mere list of names of divisions, which is barely comprehensible. I hope this helps, Poeticbent talk 03:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I made edits for concision along the lines above and added a cite and removed books no longer used. See what you think. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Poeticbent:@K.e.coffman: I am still not happy with the current layout. The lede is too long and detailed and really there is still too much redundancy between it and the "History" section. As you know the lede is only to be a summary of the main points of an article. The lede needs to be shortened and some of the detailed information in it should be put into the "History" section; and then the redundancy (of detail) removed in the latter section. And as I said in my edit summary, the "Reference" section needs work (including sfn of the cites). Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've done some edits for NPOV and concision. Will go back later and work some of the background back into the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomenclature

This appears to be non-notable detail, cited to a work published by Game Marketing. I think it could stand to be taken out, but I'm open to other points of view:

  • A system of nomenclature developed to formally distinguish personnel based on their place of origin. The formations with non-German volunteers of Germanic background were officially named Freiwilligen (Scandinavians, Dutch, the Flemish, Walloons, and the Frenchmen), while the units with preponderance of the so-called non-German Volksdeutsche from satellite countries – organized into independent legions – had a designation Waffen attached to their names for the ease of formal identification.[1] Due to the manpower shortages, frantic recruiting of all available manpower including SS takeover of complete army, navy, and air force units was introduced in 1943 in order to rebuild understrength regiments.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b W.V. Madej (2002) [1981]. German Army Order of Battle 1939 - 1945. Vol. Vol. 1. Allentown, Pennsylvania: Game Marketing. pp. 151, 155–156. ISBN 0941052028. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Please let me know what you guys think. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I reworked it and replaced the above. I added RS cites, as well. Kierzek (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks -- looks good! I made a small change to replace Freiwelligen (as propaganda term) with more neutral language.
BTW, the infobox image may contain a copyvio (same image used as was removed from HIAG during GA review: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_June_10). So we may want to think about a replacement image. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The images can be replaced. That is fine. Kierzek (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Cross checking with sources

I'm checking in Hitler's Foreign Executioners (2011) by Christopher Hale, and book uses a different method -- by listing the units, rather than population (which I think may have been the original intent). I'm looking in the Appendix "Foreign Divisions Recruited by the Third Reich", pp 385-391:

  1. Nothing is listed for "Yugoslavia" which makes sense as the country technically did not exist during WWII
  2. Croatia is listed w/o Bosnia; Bosnia is not listed
  3. Serbia is listed, but no Waffen-SS units in the list
  4. Slovenia is not listed

Separately, now that I looked at the list, the units also appear to be presented in such a way as to create a perception of much larger participation. For example:

  • Finland: Total: 1,000[33] to 3,000[15]
    • 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking -- not listed in Hale; is this wp:coatrack, as this looks like Wiking came from Finland?
      • Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS -- the only one listed in Hale
      • 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland[31] -- not listed in Hale
    • SS-Standarte Kurt Eggers -- not listed in Hale

Foreign volunteers / conscripts may have served in these units, but the presentation appears undue. Should these "hanger-on" units be removed? What do you guys think? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I need the help as there are few sources which actually have "total number" estimates and I have not had time to check them all yet.
As for the Finns, what I can tell you is: After training, this unit was attached to the SS Regiment Nordland of the division. About 430 Finns who fought in the Winter War served within the SS Division Wiking division since the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. In spring 1943, the Finnish battalion was withdrawn. During that same timeframe, the Wiking's SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment Nordland was removed to help form the core of the new 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland. They were replaced by the Estonian infantry battalion Narwa. Littlejohn (1987) p. 53.
Above, I had mentioned listing by unit instead of country as was suggested back in December. We could do that to simplfy listings and mention the "make up" of the units therein. What do you guys think? @Poeticbent:, @K.e.coffman: - Kierzek (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waffen-SS_foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts/Archive_1&oldid=1252253192"