Talk:Germanic SS

Norway SS

For the record, sources I hav eon the Norwegian Germanic-SS state that the ranks were not capitlized. Ths SS prefix was considered to be the start of the word. Probably something to do with the Norwegian language but since I dont speak it, I dont know (I'm going by the textbooks). So, the Norway SS ranks are not typos. They are supposed to be lower case, as far as I know. -Husnock 13:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Swedish SS

While not wanting to change this for the moment I believe that the extra attention giving to swedish volunteers in the SS is a little strange. Having read in several places that only approximatly 180 swedes fought with the germans compared to far more Norwegians or Danes. I think this should be looked into and possibly changed, as at present it paints sweden being very pro nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.208.251 (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the literature that I have read suggests that a Germanic SS organisation was ever actually created in Sweden — even if one may have been planned at some point. —Zalktis (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen in Title

Why is the title hyphenated? Shouldn't it be Germanic SS? --Jan Onbekend (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Standard way the Germans did it: Allgemeine-SS, Waffen-SS, Germanic-SS, Reichfuhrer-SS. There are numerous historical primary source documents that also back this up. -OberRanks (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that so? Because it doesn't make sense to me. The article on Allgemeine SS doesn't use a hyphen as Allgemeine is an adjective, isn't it? And the same would apply to Germanic, as it is not a conjunction as in Waffen-SS, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe you could point out some of those sources to me. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We had this discussion some time ago at the article at Talk:Reichsführer-SS#Hyphen_in_rank and posted several scans of original SS documents. The original source documents clearly showed the hyphen in all of the titles. The transliteration is also indicated in primary SS textbooks by Mark Yerger and others. Not sure why Allgemeine article doesn't have the hyphen. Seems a very minor issue. -OberRanks (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you got me confused. In Reichsführer-SS the hyphen is clearly joining two nouns. But in Germanic SS it would join an adjective and a noun. That can't be right. It certainly isn't in German. I would really like to see those scans, but can't find them. Any chance, they are online somewhere? --Jan Onbekend (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

On corresponding Wikipedia articles, Waffen-SS is hyphenated, Allgemeine SS is not. Probably should start a discussion somewhere at one of the noticeboards to get consensus. I'm fairly sure also you should be able to find some SS documents scanned on line. -OberRanks (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Which, as is observed above, reflects German usage. Whether English does reflect German usage is another question; but that it departs from it to always hyphenate seems unlikely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

image caption

Dutch Allgemeine-SS officers in The Hague in June 1940.

According to the caption the picture shows members of the Nederlandsche SS. Alas, the picture was taken before the Dutch SS was formed. In addition to this, the person in the center is identified as Friedrich Wimmer, General Commissioner of the occupied Netherlands, he's Austrian by birth and German by nationality in 1940. The SS-officers around him show the SD-rhombus, so they are unlikely to be Dutch. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC) BTW: The year of formation in the box should be 1940, not 1939.

Hyphen or no hyphen

Archived, discussion moved here for broader discussion. -OberRanks (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Germanic-SS → Germanic SS – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No consensus was reached, either here, NOR under the recent discussion on WP:MOS. Impasse has occurred. Kierzek (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The common name of the organization seems to be Germanic SS rather than Germanic-SS. Cf. TM-E 30-451 Handbook on German Military Forces [3]; Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 4. TWENTY-THIRD DAY, Wednesday, 19 December 1945, Morning Session p.171[4] (see also [5]); George H. Stein, The Waffen-SS, p.148 [6]; Germany and the Second World War: Organization and mobilization of the German sphere of power. Wartime administration, economy, and manpower resources 1942-1944/5, Bernhard R. Kroener, Rolf-Dieter Müller, Hans Umbreit (eds.); translated by Derry Cook-Radmore ... [et al.] ; vol. V,Part 1 Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt/Oxford University Press, 2003, ISBN 0198208731, p.122 [7]; E. K. Bramstedt: Dictatorship and political police: the technique of control by fear, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0415175429, p. 93 [8]; Christopher Ailsby: Hitler's renegades: foreign nationals in the service of the Third Reich, Spellmount, 2004, pp.39,72 [9]. However, some editors consider Robin Lumsden [10], [11] and Chris McNab more authorative. NB: Hugh Page Taylor: Uniforms of the SS, Vol 2: Germanische-SS 1940-1945, Windrow & Greene, 1991, ISBN 1872004954 [12] uses the hyphenated version on the cover, but the non-hyphenated version throughout the text. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the links above don't appear to work correctly, at least on my browser, or they don't link to pages or documents displaying the term "Germanic-SS". What would be prefered would be a direct link to a document or book term actually showing the term. I inserted one below. -OberRanks (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OPPOSE: There is currently a much broader discussion (see above) at the WP:MOS regarding the hyphenation of Nazi Germany organizational titles. The previous discussion above also had four editors weighing in that the majority of mainstream sources list this organization as "Germanic-SS". A move at this time would only add to the growing problem of redirecting and constantly moving Nazi Germany groups which has been prevelent for years. Strongly recommend leaving this article where it is until a firm decision can arise with regards to hyphens in Nazi paramilitary titles. -OberRanks (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be no consensus as of this point. Even the discussion at WP:MOS didnt really reach a firm conclusion. -OberRanks (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

SUPPORT on the whole, unless these massive numbers of English sources which hyphenate actually turn up. The question whether to retain a German hyphen is close, although I note that Shirer generally doesn't; but I see no benefit to the reader in introducing an artificial hyphen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I draw the attention to these source: [13], [14], [15] (Item #4); the first one is also considered one of the leading reference books on the Germanic-SS in current circulation. The main issue here is what is the predominant English spelling usage - in all such cases, the hyphen appears to be present. -OberRanks (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The first link in the above post is to Taylor's book mentioned above. The second is a reference to a book using Wikipedia content [16] (hardly reliable), the last one refers to Lumsden, also mentioned above. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - WP:TITLE is the policy that governs this. It says to follow whatever usage is most commonly found English language sources. That means we have to determine whether the hyphenated or the non-hyphenated version is significantly more common than the other. It's not enough to look through the five or six books we happen to have on our shelves (where sources a, b, and c may hyphenate, but sources e, f, and g may not). We need a broad sampling, to get a big-picture idea of usage in English language sources, over-all. (has anyone done a simple Google/Google books search to get an idea of raw hit-numbers for each?)

Now, it may be that neither usage is significantly more common than the other ... in which case this comes down to consensus. To help us form that consensus, we can look to things like the MOS (and other policies and guidelines) as tie breakers. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Google doesn't differentiate between the two versions ([17], [18]). So I would suggest we go by the version used in academic publications rather than popular literature. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OPPOSE until WP:MOS done. This is English Wikipedia and how it is refered to by the majority of english sources should be used. For verifiability reasons, English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources to non-English ones (unless we are talking original docs). With a hyphen is how it has been listed for the most part over the years. I will agree that there are examples given showing that different sources list it either one way or even both ways, at times. BTW-"Handbook on German Military Forces" was put out during World War II by the US Gov., I read it years ago; it has errors in it and can't be consider as authoritative. With that said, the burden is on the one who wants to change it; consensus has NOT occurred thus far. I believe the matter should be allowed to go through WP:MOS regarding the hyphenation of Nazi Germany organizational titles first. Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Footnote: This started with "Germanic-SS" but does have an impact on several others. In that vain, I add to be noted another book; this by authoritative historian, Mark C. Yerger. "Allgemeine-SS: The Commands, Units and Leaders of the General SS". As one will note he uses a hyphen. Kierzek (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Yerger can hardly be considered "authoritative", cf. Jürgen Förster, Die Wehrmacht im NS-staat: Eine strukturgeschichtliche Analyse, p. 90, Fn 76 [19] who considers Y. completely insufficient and apologetic. --Jan Onbekend (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another author's opinion of Yerger is completely irrelevant. Mark Yerger has published peer-reviewed texts on the SS and is recognized by the U.S. National Archives and the Holocaust Memorial Museum as one of the more well respected SS historians in the business. I work for NARA and met Yerger several years ago - he is, without a doubt, a legitimate historian. -OberRanks (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that explains everything. OAO --Jan Onbekend (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Note The normal German form is Germanische SS], (not always capitalized, but we capitalize by default) even in compounds (germanische SS-Freiwillinge); using a hyphen is not natural English syntax, except by doubtful analogy with Waffen-SS (which is the German form for that word). If neither language supports it, why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: unsourced WP:OR; WP:NOTMANUAL; c/e for concision & npov; c/e lead for notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)