Talk:7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen

Foreign equipment

Added mention that the 7th SS was equipped entirely with foreign equipment. --KobaVanDerLubbe 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What does 'foreign' mean in this context? Can you name the countries that the equipment came from? Do you have a reference source? Binksternet 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen.jpg

Image:SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Source

I would like to remove this as source, as it does not meet WP:RS criteria in supporting the claim in the article.

• Otto Kumm: VORWÄRTS, PRINZ EUGEN! – Geschichte der 7. SS-Freiwilligen-Division "Prinz Eugen", Munin-Verlag, Coburg 1978, page 79

This is a book by a participant in the events (memoirs); further it should be considered apologia as it was published by Munin-Verlag, which (according to the German wikipedia) is a right-wing extremist German publishing company. Please let me know if there are any objections or concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What claim are you challenging? Memoirs can be used carefully, it depends on what they are being used for. Just be careful with the censorship that de WP engages in, it is almost cultural nowdays and has a legal basis in Germany, but it can be at odds with the consensus on en WP at times. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This series of statements is sourced to VORWÄRTS, PRINZ EUGEN!:

• During the battle, the division received a task to move through the Italian zone in order to block the possible advance of Partisans towards the Adriatic sea and Albania, to close the south-east part of the encirclement and then advance north over mountainous terrain to crush the Partisan forces. In 11-day fightings from May 20 division captured Šavnik. For this success major (Sturmbannführer) Dietsche as well as commander Phleps received first two Knight's Crosses for the division.[12]

Separately, I wonder if there's a referencing error here: "...Kumm managed to avoid extradition to Yugoslavia by fleeing over the wall of the internment camp of Dachau.[30]" Kumm 2007, p. book cover.

The only 2007 book in the references is Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (2007). So I assume it must be the one being referenced in the extradition statement. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with that bit, do you have any source that contradicts what Kumm describes from a tactical perspective? Remembering that Kumm was not actually a member of the division throughout the whole war (if I remember correctly he was Phleps chief of staff at Corps-level for some time, and only commanded the 7th SS Division for a year), so much of what is in the book is recollections of other soldiers relayed to Kumm, war diary entries, reports, excerpts from letters etc. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker67, generally speaking, removal of sources does not help. You run the risk of getting yourself into an edit war. The editors on Wikipedia foremost have an obligation to present information in a WP:NPOV way. If you feel that information derived from a questionable source gives undue weight to a specific topic or viewpoint, the concern is better addressed by finding a counterbalancing source, putting the information into context, and adding their viewpoint to the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have some sources that call these unit histories "tendentious" and Otto Kumm an "unreformed Nazi enthusiast." His unit history is used uncritically -- who knows what he means by "crushing the partisans" and "bravery." For the unit movements it may be okay, though.

Here are the sources in context:

• Memoirs and histories by former Waffen-SS generals and bulky 'official' unit histories (often in several volumes) were produced with the assistance from HIAG since the 1950s. They invariably portrayed Waffen-SS men as "idealists who fought honorably and well (and had nothing to do with the concentration camps)"; these works were clearly "tendentious." HIAG also underwrote the publication of works by right-wing academics sympathetic to the Waffen-SS.

• At least through the 1970s, Kumm remained "the ever unreformed Nazi enthusiast" according to researcher Danny S. Parker, who was given access to the previously closed HIAG archives. Perceived by the West German government to be a Nazi organization, HIAG was eventually disbanded in 1992.

Sources

• Levenda, Peter (2014). The Hitler Legacy: The Nazi Cult in Diaspora: How it was Organized, How it was Funded, and Why it Remains a Threat to Global Security in the Age of Terrorism. Ibis Press. ISBN 978-0892542109. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• MacKenzie, S.P. (2014). Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415867771. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Parker, Danny S. (2014). Hitler's Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0306821547. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Sydnor, Charles W. (1990) [1977]. Soldiers of destruction: the SS Death's Head Division, 1933–1945. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691008530. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Sydnor, Charles W. (1973). "The History of the SS Totenkopfdivision and the Postwar Mythology of the Waffen SS". Central European History. 6 (4). Cambridge University Press: 339–362. doi:10.1017/S0008938900000960. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

How would you recommend handling -- integrate some of these sources into the article, to provide context? Or remove the non-NPOV language? --

PS - Still, on another thread, an editor pointed out that even a biased source has to meet "normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Given the above assessments, Otto Kumm's work does not pass. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, I have a copy of Kumm's book in English, and the frequent puffery aside, it is pretty solid and provides a contrasting account of the history of this fairly obscure division to that provided by the Yugoslav histories. I'll also point out that soldiers of all sides sometimes display bravery, even members of the Waffen-SS (and NKVD etc) who may also have been responsible for war crimes. Both the English and German versions of Kumm's book are widely cited in the literature. Used with care, it is fine, IMO. I would just trim the puffery like "crushing" resistance etc. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How about rewording as follows:

• According to the divisional history compiled by Otto Kumm, the division was to move through the Italian zone in order to block the possible advance of the Partisans towards the Adriatic Sea and Albania, then close the south-eastern part of the encirclement and advance north. In 11 days of fighting from May 20 the division captured Šavnik. Based on the results of the operation, Major (Sturmbannführer) Dietsche and the divisional commander Phleps received first two Knight's Crosses awarded to members of the division. (Will preserve any links or formatting from the original.)

Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, I've tweaked a couple of things. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Referencing error?

I wonder if there's a referencing error here: "...Kumm managed to avoid extradition to Yugoslavia by fleeing over the wall of the internment camp of Dachau.[30]" Kumm 2007, p. book cover.

The only 2007 book in the references is Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (2007). So I assume it must be the one being referenced in the extradition statement. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it is on p.273 of my English version of Kumm's book published in 1995 by J.J. Fedorowicz, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Should the article be updated then? It still says "Kumm 2007" and the link in "Kumm 2007" does not jump down to References. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Things that never happened ...

Line: [a SS unit] that served alongside but was never formally part of the Wehrmacht during World War II in Yugoslavia. - o. k. It was "never" formally part of Wehrmacht. Why this introduction discusses things that factually never happened, or why should it have been part of Wehrmacht ? SA was also never part of Wehrmacht, or Nazi German Police etc. Btw, never part of the Wehrmacht during World War II in Yugoslavia ? Awkward statement. In Yugoslavia ? That SS formation served in Yugoslavia, and nowhere else. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Readers can be confused about the status of the Waffen-SS, and it is important to explain that it was not part of the Wehrmacht but served alongside it as part of the fighting forces. The SA were never involved in warfighting. I will tweak the grammar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

why is it important to explain that SS was never part of Wehrmacht ? On the contrary, you confuse the reader somewhat with your own (prejudical) ideas of "normal" German military organization (should have been part of Wehrmacht, but never was) - ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It is self-evident. Waffen-SS formations fought alongside the Wehrmacht but were not part of it. In what way is that idea prejudicial? I never said they should have been part of the Wehrmacht. You aren't making any sense, frankly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It is also "self-evident" that, say, German Luftwaffe fought alongside German Heer but was never part of it - dance the redundance ! --129.187.244.19 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No, because they were both part of the Wehrmacht. The Waffen-SS was not. There is no redundancy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So who claimed that Waffen-SS was part of Wehrmacht ? In my opinion, your beloved remark ("was never part of Wehrmacht") suits for the overall-article "Waffen-SS", but needn't to be repeated in each Waffen-SS-unit-article. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You are on your own then, as not only I, but the GAN, Milhist ACR and FAC reviewers of the FA SS division articles have never raised this issue, because it is a non-issue. Do something productive with your time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

that i already have did, meacepaker. repaired your awkward introduction. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The article fails to mention their fate after surrender

That is, the mass executions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.104.13 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No-one is stopping you from adding that information with citations to reliable sources. This article is not of high quality as it stands. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Added language

Regarding the lack of prosecution of the war crimes by Allied personnel.

Incomplete statement removed

it's uncited, but it is also incomplete, I believe. Another article also says that this finding was also not applied to individual soldiers unless they could be shown to have personally participated in one or more atrocities. Possibly that was a different finding about a separate trial, in which case fine; statement can be returned if cited. Elinruby (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)