Talk:Schutzstaffel

Reversion without explanation

So, I made this, very small, revision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schutzstaffel&diff=prev&oldid=977080556

(If there's a better way to cite a revision, please educate me.)

This was reverted by kierzek (talk · contribs) with the comment "rv not an improvement and not accurate as revised." I re-reverted this with the request that they explain what I got wrong. No response, but after a short delay, I was reverted again by Obenritter (talk · contribs) with "not an improvement".

I don't see either of the reversions as being made in good faith, but if I do another re-revert it's an edit war. So, one more time: please explain your reversions. What facts do I have wrong? Why is this change not an improvement? --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Whenever something has been written with concision, and you add more verbiage (increase the character count), it is generally not considered an improvement. That is why both Kierzek and I reverted your edit. What have you changed that is so significant or can you explain "why" the edit you made is better than the previous version?--Obenritter (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I explained in my edit comment: I added an important fact. Omission is not concision.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edit ignores the first sentences of the next paragraph entirely (which already contain information on the "military" element) and so it does not improve anything. Read the entire opening again and you'll see that you added pointless verbiage. Here are the follow-up sentences that open the paragraph: "The two main constituent groups were the Allgemeine SS (General SS) and Waffen-SS (Armed SS). The Allgemeine SS was responsible for enforcing the racial policy of Nazi Germany and general policing, whereas the Waffen-SS consisted of combat units within Nazi Germany's military."--Obenritter (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, TFT the SS was military is repeated further down. So is the fact that the SS was originally paramilitary. Do we leave that out of the introductory graph too? Here's my point: "The SS was a paramilitary organization" is not strictly true. It started out as a purely paramilitary organization, but it eventually fielded 38 divisions of not-paramilitary soldiers. So when you introduce it as a "paramilitary organization" without qualification, you're saying something untrue, even if you correct yourself later on. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad:@Kierzek:@K.e.coffman:@Diannaa:@Beyond My Ken:@Nick-D: So the editor above raises an interesting point. Do we need to tweak the introductory paragraph with this in mind? --Obenritter (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I reverted because of the vague and ambiguous statement that “elements” of the SS were military; that is not a correct statement. It’s also redundant and not as well written as to what is stated in the second lead paragraph. I believe the second paragraph states clearly that one branch of the SS, that being the Waffen-SS (not the SS as a whole or the other two main branches or additional subbranches) was composed of “combat units” (although it cannot be forgotten that the Waffen-SS made up mobile killing squads and also rotated in and out of concentration camps and death camps); even the Waffen-SS predecessor, the SS-VT cannot strictly be said to be composed of military troops, by definition. Kierzek (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Their main function was not as military units. Their main duties were concentration camps, security, and genocide operations. The Waffen-SS were a separate military force outside of the regular army and under Himmler's control. — Diannaa (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. the SS was primarily a paramilitary organization, not a military one. The existence of the Waffen-SS does not make the SS in its entirety a military organization, any more than the existence of the U.S. Postal Police makes the U.S. Postal Service a police agency. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Where did I say the SS was "primarily military"? My only point is that it was an important military entity. With 800,000 soldiers, the Waffen-SS was 40% of the personnel of the SS as a whole. (Incidentally, Postal Inspectors are 0.3% of the USPS.) They deployed 1200 tanks. If it still existed, the Waffen-SS would be the 6th-largest army on the planet. § Please look at my proposed change. I'm asking that the SS be categorized as both paramilitary (its original role, and the role of 60% of its people during the war) and as an important military entity during the war. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit in question does not reflect contemporary historiography and appears to have been inspired by "watching an SS-centric episode of Combat!" (see edit summary: [1]). Combat! was a TV show that ran in the 1960s. It would be more helpful if Isaac Rabinovitch brought some contemporary academic sources for discussion vs basing his suggestions on personal opinions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"Scholarship"? I'm not introducing any new facts. I'm making an extremely small change presentation that makes the facts easier to follow. Two important notes:

• • • I used to write technical documentation for a living. In that job, I learned that how you present and organized facts is as important as including all the facts. An essential fact that's buried in dense prose gets missed. (If you look at my contribution history you'll see that most of them are informed by this concept.) Note that organization is what separates a GA-class article from an A-class article. Which is required if you want a Featured article. Aren't these worth aspiring to?
    • Where did I treat that TV show as source material? Using my reference to argue "bad scholarship" is not a good-faith argument. I mentioned it only to indicate the way I came to this subject. Consider that a lot of Wikipedia readers come here to satisfy curiosity about subjects they first heard of on a TV show, or a movie, or fiction. How many of you developed an interest in military history from reading military fiction?

The only subject we should be arguing about is whether my change makes the article easier to read. On that note, I've incorporated some of the feedback I've gotten on a revised revision. To avoid the edit-war thing, I've done so on my sandbox page. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit in the sandbox proposes the addition of the material marked in bold:

...was a major paramilitary and military organization...Under his direction (1929–1945) it grew from a small paramilitary formation during the Weimar Republic to one of the most powerful organizations in Nazi Germany, with both paramilitary and military components. From the time of the Nazi Party’s rise to power until the regime’s collapse in 1945, the SS was the foremost agency of security, surveillance, and terror within Germany and German-occupied Europe, as well as a formidable military force.

The Waffen-SS was a subsidiary organization. The information about the military units already is covered in the second paragraph of the lead. If we're going to mention it at all in the opening paragraph of the lead, it certainly doesn't need to be there thrice. Suggestion: include the middle one: "Under his direction (1929–1945) it grew from a small paramilitary formation during the Weimar Republic to one of the most powerful organizations in Nazi Germany, with both paramilitary and military components."— Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me for neglecting this issue. Perhaps its just as well that every had time to get calmer. Anyway, I think I have a concise summary we can all live with on my sandbox page. To expedite further discussion, I'm giving everyone who reads this permission to edit the text on my sandbox page. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The SS was not "within the government"; it was not part of the government. You've omitted the fact that it also existed during the Weimar Republic. And you've omitted mention of WWII, which might seem obvious to us but will not necessarily be obvious to young people studying the subject for the first time. We don't need to wikilink common words such as "police" and "military" - everybody knows what those words mean. Overall, the prose is not as good as I would expect to see in a Good Article, particularly the final sentence of your first paragraph. To sum up, I don't see the proposed edit as an improvement; it's the opposite of an improvement in my opinion, because the prose isn't as good, some key facts are omitted, and part of it is incorrect (the SS was not "within the government").— Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Concur with @Diannaa:. The suggested editorial changes are not an improvement in any way. --Obenritter (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Folks, you all know what I'm trying to do here: correct a statement that is simply not true: "The SS was a paramilitary organization." That's what it was at first, but at the height of its power, the SS fielded 900,000 soldiers (real soldiers, not paramilitaries) and 100,000 police/security officers. § How about instead of obstructing and objecting, some do some actual collaboration? Suggest wording that corrects this not-true state with something that is. Please. It's probably just a matter of reworking that not-true sentence, but I can't seem to find a way to do that doesn't provoke an edit war. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the consensus is against your changes here. Instead of trying to change/edit an article that is in good shape, maybe consider working on the many ones that need citations and bolstering. For some reason, you are convinced of something that none of us agree with in the end. We've collaborated and you just don't like the outcome. --Obenritter (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact his point is legitime, we should avoid inaccueacies if it may be solved easily, per common sense.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC))

As has been clearly pointed out, there’s no inaccuracy to say the SS was a paramilitary organization. The overall organization was (primarily) paramilitary. The one subsidiary branch, the Waffen-SS was the military branch. It was under the organization and control of the mother organization, the SS, which again was paramilitary. Kierzek (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

So there were both paramiliitary and non-paramilitary sections. "(primarily) paramilitary" does not mean exclusivity of the latter, even such may differ per period, so sharing the concerns is valid.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC))

No, that is not what I wrote and that is not what I’m saying. Read what I wrote above on September 8, there’s no reason for me to repeat myself. Kierzek (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not say you say it. I read, for me this comes through: "..cannot strictly be said to be composed.."(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC))

Paramilitary organization issue AGAIN

To the attention of Diannaa, Beyond My Ken, Kierzek, K.e.coffman, and @Nick-D: The user Isaac Rabinovitch has placed an illegitimate tag on the word "paramilitary" in the lead and threatened my reversion as an "edit war" despite the fact that this has already been discussed by this group and it ignores the fact that an RS, namely, (Sax, Benjamin C., Kuntz, Dieter. Inside Hitler's Germany: A Documentary History of Life in the Third Reich. Heath, 1992) describes the organization as "paramilitary" on p. 329, among others. Any additional thoughts about this? This is repeat behavior. --Obenritter (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Currently the consensus is that the sources back up the statement that the SS was primarily a paramilitary organization. Their primary function was rounding up and killing Jews and operating/guarding the concentration camps. Only one branch, the Waffen-SS, was composed of military units. I have placed a note on Isaac Rabinovitch's talk page inviting him to visit this talk page to discuss.— Diannaa (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a pretty ignorant statement. Even the paramilitary component had responsibilities beyond Jewish genocide. ¶ As I've already pointed out, the SS at its height consisted mostly of military assets (the Waffen SS) and police (they controlled every cop in Germany). I'm really getting tired of responding to people who don't read my arguments. ¶ Adding a tag is meant to make people aware of the argument, some of whom will hopefully pay attention to my arguments before responding to them. ¶ Finally, responding in this way to good-faith edits is itself the worst kind of edit warring. ¶ I lack any inclination to continue an argument against closed minds. But it's past time that you folks learned that bullying people into silence is not consensus. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the consensus is per the RS sources that the SS was primarily a paramilitary organization. There is no reason for a change as to the use of the word "paramilitary" herein or for a "drive-by tag" to be placed on the article as to same. Kierzek (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to make my statement crystal clear, "rounding up and killing Jews and operating/guarding concentration camps" are NOT military activities. — Diannaa (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus agrees with fact: the SS was primarily a paramilitary organization. Saying otherwise is profoundly ahistorical. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks folks, just wanted to be sure I was not missing something. --Obenritter (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Be advised, Diannaa, Beyond My Ken, and Kierzek, we've been identified below in a dispute. We should also note this editor's threats against Kierzek and I on this very Talk Page with the matter or "literally" concerning the translation of "Staffel" as if we deliberately misrepresented the word, atop his claim that we're both uncooperative editors; it's clear a pattern exists. Either he/she gets their way or else. Also consider the example this editor chose (Leck mich im Arsch) instead of something less offensive like "Drücken wir die Daumen" as part of that Discussion (prefaced by an assertion that we should not be offended). Let's ensure that gets addressed too. --Obenritter (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've taken this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Schutzstaffel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Rabinovitch 21:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus above that "paramilitary" is clearly supported by the sources.

This should not have been taken to DRN in the first place, and I consider that a form of WP:BLUDGEONing the process. Moderator Robert McClenon has described the DRN as a one-against-many dispute, and I concur. That DRN is doomed, and will likely be closed soon if not withdrawn.

In my opinion, User:Isaac Rabinovitch should now drop it and move on to something else. I would consider further advocacy on their part on this topic as WP:DISRUPTIVE to the goals of the project. Mathglot (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Revert message: Staffel is not typically translated as "echelon"

Wrong. https://www.britannica.com/topic/SS

Not going to die on this hill. Obenritter's insistence on using "literally" here is illiterately non-concise and makes the article look dumb. "Literally" is used when the literal translation wouldn't make sense in English. See Idiom#Translating_idioms.

For an example of correct usage, see Leck mich im Arsch. (I did try to find a less spicy example, but couldn't find one. Please try not to be offended.)

But "literally" is not misleading, it's just dumb. (Unlike "Paramilitary".) So I'm not going to treat it as a life-or-death issue. But please consider how silly it would look to put "literally" in front of every direct translation in the article.

And in fact, I made this edit to make a point: Obenritter is not interested in collaboration. If he were, *he* would be the one creating this section. He wouldn't keep hiding behind the word "consensus," when there clearly is none. Same goes for Kierzek. Both of them have their opinions and aren't interested in discussing them. Which is why they both initially couldn't be bothered to explain their reverts.

Guys, I'm going to give you a choice: make more of an effort at good-faith collaboration, or defend yourselves when I escalate this. Because I will.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Soviet-occupied territories

“ On 30 October 1942, due to severe labor shortages, Himmler ordered that large numbers of able-bodied people in the Soviet-occupied territories should be taken prisoner and sent to Germany as forced labor. ”

The reference to "Soviet-occupied territories" (territories under the occupation of Soviet troops) doesn't make sense in this context (since Germany wouldn't have any authority in territories not under their control). Did the writer mean to say German-occupied territories in the Soviet Union? DHN (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Fixed Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Black Guard

Writers in the 1930’s often referred to the SS as the “Black Guards”. This was also the name of their official paper “Das Schwarze Korps” (the Black Guard). Is this an historical reference? It is not an obvious translation of “Schutzstaffel”.

The term was fairly well known in any case; see this Time Magazine extract from 1940. http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,883963,00.html Some explanation of this could improve the article. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:8C8B:AC7:1936:ACA5 (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The name(s) of the organization are covered in the "Forerunner" section. With the final name being: Schutzstaffel (Protection Squad; SS). I am not sure what you want done. I don't see any reason the add the so-called nickname you mention. Kierzek (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Das Schwarze Korps" translates as "The Black Corps", not as "The Black Guard". Remember that TIME was noted in its early days for the breeziness of its language, so I don't think we can necessarily assume that "The Black Guards" was in general usage at the time - although it may have been. I certainly don't recall ever having seen the SS referred to in that manner in other sources. Shirer would be the most contemporary to the 1940 TIME article, and he sometimes uses "Blackshirts", but never "Black Guards" in The Rise and Fall.... The same goes for Toland in his 1976 bio of Hitler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"Black Guard" was a slang term that rarely appears in any academic RS but more frequently appears in fan-boy works or at least those who seem to idolize the Nazis, like that from Chris Ailsby, Robin Lumsden, or Gordon Williamson. There are periodic references from 20 years ago or more (not much in scholarly sources either way), but given the moniker is now rarely employed in describing them -- perhaps with the exception of documentaries that use such language sometimes for dramatic effect, there is no reason to include it. We should stick to the accepted academic reference for the SS in my opinion. --Obenritter (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)