Talk:Ideology of the SS/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 09:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to review this! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks man, we all really appreciate it. :=) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 10:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful! Glad to hear your advice. GAB^Hello! 19:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Just so you guys know, I need to take a wikibreak from tomorrow until Sunday. Since this review will need me to hit the books, it will probably take a little longer, so bear with me :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. You let us known when our attention is needed. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't get around to it today as well. I am trying to finish the review as soon as possible! Sorry for the delay... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, I'm really sorry to drive-by comment like this (I know how irritating it is!) but I just wondered if the article could really be considered complete without a consideration of what made the SS distinct from the Nazi Party, Foreign Office or Army which is a key matter of debate in WWII historiography. I quote from a recent review of After The Fall: German Policy in Occupied France, 1940-1944:

“ While the military government tried to exploit French industrial resources, the SS was focused more exclusively upon pursuing Nazi racial policies (often to the detriment of the wider military effort). In turn, the SS felt frustrated in the pursuit of their racial policies by a lack of assistance from the military. Meanwhile, the diplomatic service was frustrated in its attempts to spread Nazi propaganda and promote Franco-German reconciliation by Hitler's refusal to approve the substantial economic or political concessions that were needed to make this policy effective. Outside this circle of rivalry, caught in a battle that they did not understand, the French leaders tried to demonstrate their loyalty to Hitler's New Order by cooperating with the various competing German agencies. ”

I think this is already touched on in the article but could do with a dedicated section. Slightly less pressing, but I think still important, would be a mention that, by 1944, the SS ideology had effectively collapsed as more and more "non-German" and "non-Germanic" troops were pressganged into its formations. I don't mean to be critical though, and well done to get the article this far! Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: You've actually touched my main point of critique there, thanks for your comment. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

So here we go:

• Brigade Piron has already pointed to the biggest problem with the article. What distinguishes the ideology of the SS from the one of the NSDAP, and of other Nazi and German organizations? I feel that there is quite a lot of work here to be done to point these differences out, espacially considering there is not yet an article on the Ideology of National Socialism, which should really exist...
  • Well, as the article partly explains, the SS was an elite Nazi organization and had a certain level of discipline, ruthlessness, competitive nature and more defined set of rules than the SA, for instance. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Training: Mein Kampf is not an autobiography per se. You should rather write "autobiagraphical manifesto".
  • Done. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Religion: I feel that you should elaborate on the Pagan ersatz religion. I believe there was quite a lot written about that.
  • Obenritter perhaps you have some reliable stuff or info on this? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Animal welfare: The section, especially the last paragraph, does not really cover just the ideology of the SS, but of Nazism in general. This again points to problem #1.
  • Will tweak, but Himmler's personal attitude towards animals, as head representative of the SS, is important though. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Violence: You cannot write that last sentence like you did. certainly without moral consideration is 1) not NPOV and 2) implies that not a single member of the SS had any moral considerations, which is certainly not true.
  • Will tweak. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Tweaked. Please modify further if my revision is not quite there yet. GAB^Hello! 19:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Restored. It's an integral part of a quote from a leading specialist. what RS makes this claim?? [implies that not a single member of the SS had any moral considerations, which is certainly not true. It's a bad idea to argue with the RS when you have no contrary sources. especially on this topic. Rjensen (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Sorry. GAB^Hello! 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
        • @Rjensen: Regarding the Larson quote, here is the context: "Even the language used by Hitler and party officials was weirdly inverted. The term 'fanatical' became a positive trait... Nazi-controlled newspapers reported an endless succession of 'fanatical vows' and 'fanatical declarations' and 'fanatical beliefs,' all good things. Goring was described as a 'fanatical animal lover.' Fanatischer Tierfreund." So it is in fact the Nazi press calling him this, as the full passage shows. Sorry for any confusion. GAB^Hello! 22:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Obedience to criminality: When speaking about mass killings and how they were carried out, what is missing is the development towards death by gas, which was originally implemented as a measure to have a more anonymous killing mechanism which could be carried out by SS members who were not strong enough to execute humans by shooting them. You could try Dwork/van der Pelt - Holocaust as a source for that, as far as I recall that should be covered there.
  • Addition as to methods done with cites and links; see what you think. Kierzek (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• References: In general, I have a huge problem with citing History Channel shows as reliable sources. You should find better sources here.
  • Please see the section "Just to be clear..." further above regarding the use of The History Channel. As for World Media Rights, Kierzek, who extensively reviewed one of their episodes, will support me in saying they make some A-Okay neutral, reliable historical documentaries. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that the History Channel is not an RS source to be used. As for the World Media Rights programs, I have not seen this one but I did review another series program by them, entitled "How Hitler's Bodyguard Worked" which tracked Peter Hoffmann's well regarded RS book; the documentary was a reliable source. I removed the History Channel material and cite. Kierzek (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• References: Also, there are several harvard style ref errors, namely for Gutmann, Straubinger, Hilberg, Breitman (both).
  • Will fix. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I feel that the article is quite a way from obtaining GA status. I place it on hold for now and give you ten days to adress the issues for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm eating atm. I'll get onto this afterwards. Thanks! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Being back from Korea, I was finally able to look at the article again. It has definitely made a big step forward! I still feel though that two points should be adressed: One is the fact that the article still fails to really point out what is special about the SS ideology compared to National Socialism in general. Your reply does not quite satisfy me here. discipline and competitive nature are present in the NSDAP just as well. By the way, you actually mention an important thing here with the SA. It should probably also be included how the SS developed out of the SA. The full obedience of the SS to the Führer is an integral part of the ideology and sets them apart from the SA. In this context, I still feel that the animal welfare section is quite weak. Yes, Himmler's attitude towards the issue is important, but can it be proven that his views differ significantly from the NSDAP doctrine?

Also, no additions have been made to the Ersatz religion part. I have often heard about this aspect of the SS and would consider it an important part of the ideology. Any chance to find more on this? Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

According to noted SS Historian Heinz Höhne which is mentioned in the article, Himmler's attempt to institute a new religion and his obsession with "neo-pagan customs"...remained primarily a paper exercise". As you'll surely recognize, the SS pagan religion was important to a handful of Nazis like Himmler but many maintained their Christian faith. However, they could not be clergymen or have leadership roles in the church as a member of the SS. [See: Dorothy Bergen, Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), p. 71.] Even Hitler did not think much of Himmler's obsession with mystical paganism from what Albert Speer recalled. [See: Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich (New York: McMillan Publishing Company, 1970), p. 49.] Therefore, I am not sure this warrants any more attention than is already present. Regarding your stance on how SS ideology was differentiated; it was not in many ways but their ideology certainly drove how Nazi policy and ideology developed. Intellectuals within the SS were instrumental in the course the Nazis took and their research (like that of the Ahnenerbe for instance) provided scientific justification for the racialism of Nazi Germany and the subsequent marginalization of other races. Please reread the final paragraph of this article. Why you feel the need to separate them when the SS was intrinsic to the Nazi's doctrine befuddles me. It is part and parcel and not separate in any way. The place where I do slightly agree with you concerns animal welfare. This is probably not that important but it demonstrates the twisted worldview the Nazis held, as they were in many cases more kind to pets than racial "others" and thereby - the section merits attention in that regard.--Obenritter (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, hope you had a nice vacation. I honestly think that adding more material on the SA would be a step in the wrong direction; this article is about the ideology of the SS, not the origins of the SS. One must also assume that when clicking on this article, those readers must have some idea about what the SS was. I also agree with much of what Obenritter is saying. The wiki article on Hitler says he thought Himmler's pagan and cult beliefs to be "nonsense". Furthermore, the vast majority of German SS men were Christians (Cats/Pros) so I don't think we should give the reader the belief that Himmler's personal Pagan beliefs dominated SS ideology in terms of religion. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Or, indeed, they could be muslim. I don't think this is an insignificant. Change over time needs to be addressed here. Otherwise how can we explain the presence of French, Balkan and other groups in it by 1945? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sooooo, having read your comments and looked over the article again, I was and I am still concerned about point 3a (broad in its coverage). Mainly because of the following points:

1. I still believe that the article should distinguish more clearly what makes the SS ideology special in the cosmos of NS ideologies.

2. Since I remembered to have read and seen so much about the Ersatz-religion aspect, I felt that more should and could be added here.

3. Last but not least, it becomes quite clear that the ideology of the SS is often vague and - more importantly - gets confronted with the realities and necessities of wartime in the later years, the article should better reflect how the SS managed those ideological dilemmas, e.g. when integrating Fremdvölkische into their ranks, which were supposed to be the Aryan elite.

Having spent the last couple of days reading books and articles on the matter, I found myself confirmed that there is more ground to cover here. The more I read, the more it became clear to me that it makes no sense for me to continue nagging you guys to include stuff which I now spend time researching myself. Sooo, I decided what I want to do is, I'll spend the next 2-3 days working my findings into the article (and maybe the SS article as well, where necessary). You can follow my progress, make changes, and tell me where you agree and disagree, and together we should have the article at a very good level come the weekend. Is that OK with you? I am sorry that this review is taking so much longer than I (and you certainly as well) have expected. Best regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

While I can only speak for myself, your assistance is certainly warranted since there remains some disagreement about somehow distinguishing SS ideology from NS ideology - which for me is unclear since they (the SS) were the primary ideological shakers and movers of Nazi policy and ideology. Having worked with and studied under significant historians of the late 20th century study whose expertise is/was the Third Reich and having conducted post-graduate research on "Germanic" and Nazi ideology (which they fused in many respects) I feel pretty qualified to disagree with you a bit here. Concerning the "Ersatz" religion, you're going to quickly come into agreement with Heinz Höhne (God rest his soul) - especially once you hit the German sources. You'll find it leads to esoteric rituals, strange obsessions with ancient Germania, Runic writing, and occultism and that it never truly gained traction across the vast majority of the SS or the Nazi leadership but don't take my word for it. In some ways, Himmler and Rosenberg had more in common on this front. If you're thinking of National Socialism / Nazism as an Ersatz to Christianity (especially Catholicism) or as its own political religion, then yes - you can look at the work of Steigmann-Gall, Doris Bergen or David Dennis. Here's something from Steigmann-Gall that may come in handy in repudiating the actualization of any "Ersatz" religion within Nazi Germany: [Just as Hitler had no time for Rosenberg's plans to create a new, mystical religion to replace clerical Christianity, so he found Himmler's dilettantish religious explorations absurd. As he told a circle of confidants, "What nonsense! Here we have at least reached an age that has left all mysticism behind, and now he wants to start that all over again...] (See: Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 (New York & London: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 130-131. Back to Albert Speer - he wrote about trying to temper the extreme ideology so as to make the regime "more respectable" since according to him Himmler was "going his own way". He also relates that along with Hitler, Goebbels took the lead in ridiculing Himmler's fantasies in this regard. (See: Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), p. 122.) Essentially, I am trying to spare you the effort of going down that rabbit hole to find that Höhne's original observations hold true. Besides, when Hitler himself pretty much marginalized this development as did other leading Nazis, its importance diminishes accordingly. Hence the short but notable mention it was given in the article. Make your case nonetheless and we all can edit and discuss accordingly. --Obenritter (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Obenritter, thanks for your comment! I have now extended the religion section. I believe it goes in the direction you mentioned, just stating more of the attempts Himmler made. Feel free to go over it and give me your thoughts :) I will continue with more expansion tomorrow. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Das finde ich ganz lustig. You are definitely German and I feel like I am in my home away from home visiting friends and family. When I tell people Germans argue with their family and friends and that they expect to disagree with one another as part of the learning process, it befuddles many Americans. Traversing both worlds over my life, I can tell you there are things both cultures still need to learn from one another. More than that heutzutage, we all need to find a solution to this refugee crisis! Back to topic: Now for all my fussing for which I concede may have been a bit over the top, you've made a substantial improvement here with how you've expanded the section. Apparently my little tirade provided inspiration and you dug into a couple excellent German sources. Thanks for that. Looking at the first pages of Hein's book, nobody ever told me that auto license plates were restricted from having the letters SS in combination throughout Germany. Interesting factoid he started with there and one that makes sense. Übrigens, hast Du je der Wartburg besichtigt? Quedlinburg Abbey sieht ein bisschen ähnlich, mindestens von was ich auf dem Foto sehen kann.--Obenritter (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've not been to the Wartburg yet :( Btw: You are not allowed to have SA, KZ or HJ either. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been somewhat inactive recently in this review, mainly due to me, Kierzek's and Obenritter's work on the main SS article, but I did notice your latest expansions Zwerg Nase, and as long as they are supported by reliable sources, I think it's good. Let me know if my help is further needed. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 10:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the provess of including everything now. I might also add some stuff to the main SS article, mainly about SS moving from being a division of the NSDAP towards becoming more and more a state organisation, practically police unit. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, thanks for the work; my time has been limited of late so I have not been as active. Do remember that when working on a main article such as the SS, it is to be an overview of sub or related articles; in those sub or related articles much greater detail can be added on a certain subject, such as the LSSAH or SD, SiPo, Gestapo, Kripo, and Oripo. One main problem with the main SS article is its presentation or layout and that has been a focus of late. Anyway, keep up the good work; Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Kierzek, thanks for your comment! I believe that it might be worth contemplating giving the SS article a new structure, away from a chronological to a more topical approach. That could help in presenting certain aspects and dynamics in a more understandable matter. But I'll take a look at it and possibly comment more on the talk page over there when I'm done here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My understand was that people preferred the chronological order, as agreed in this discussion, but if we keep sharing new changes on the talk page, I think it'll be fine. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

All done?

Dear Jonas Vinther, Kierzek, and Obenritter, I am done with my changes I think. I will proofread the article again tomorrow, with a little distance to what I wrote today. Please look at the article and check if you're fine with everything I've done. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would like to propose that we scratch the Animal Welfare section, I don't see how it adds anything of substance to the ideology of the SS in particular. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article has for a long time been adequate for GA-status, and since your additions aren't vandalism, I'd say yea, you could safely pass it now. Regarding the animal welfare section, I would oppose removing it, but I don't insist. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks a bunch for your thorough review, mate. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I wanted to add and I cannot at the moment given I am not at home with my books in hand is a small part the read like this, off the top of my head, (needs cite): "Himmler instituted these rites and rituals to try and foster a greater sense of belonging to a fraternal order. For example, each year on the anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch, the SS men bound for the military units were sworn in at 10:00 pm in front of Hitler. There by torchlight they swore 'obedience unto death'. Himmler also rewarded SS men who were found worthy with rings and swords." Kierzek (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to add once you get the chance! We could then also add that the rings of fallen SS-men were stored in the Wewelsburg. Any more thoughts on Animal welfare? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I know I've been basically worthless at this stage, but I see no real need for animal welfare unless we can include more exclusively-SS material. GAB^Hello! 21:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to say it...perhaps removal of animal welfare is warranted as it's not important in the overall ideology. Maybe later on we can add a small section on ideological social norms within the SS where things like family, marriage, academics and even the treatment of animals can land. Until then and as part of expediting the article to GA, my vote agrees with Zwerg here. BTW - you must visit the Wartburg as it is SO important to German history as you very well know and the tour is quite enjoyable. What shocked me was how short Frederick the Elector must have been.--Obenritter (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

While I love most of the changes ZN has made here (except the removal of some of the English language sources that could have stood side-by-side with the German ones), I would like to see Violence vice Religion or Animal Welfare as the last segment with a short final sub-headed section about the post war trials - which means borrowing or moving some of the content I contributed from Ingrao's book. Anybody else with some feedback here. ZN has done some excellent work.--Obenritter (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I will add that small part tomorrow night. And as for the animal welfare section, yes, removal I agree. Kierzek (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Obenritter: Thanks for your words! I'm sorry if I removed too much, I tried to keep as much of the content intact and moved some English sources around to keep them, apparently some I missed. Maybe you can point me to any particular instances so that I can restore the references? Apart from that, I feel that I can pass the GA review now. I took out the Animal welfare section for now per consensus. Everything else we can still do in the next couple of days. Congratulations to everyone involved! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, well done everybody. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg - it's not important as the salient points are all cited from reliable sources. Thanks to all for their work over the last many months on this. Kierzek will surely find a strong and concise close-out.--Obenritter (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Now, I am done. I added the piece I mentioned above (on 23 October). Vielen Dank an alle; not an easy subject to tackle; it is much improved. Now on to the next one, gentlemen. There is always plenty more to do around here. Kierzek (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Gents - hopefully my final touches on this are acceptable to all. I felt pretty strongly with changing the way the article ended and had to add a little meat. Now I too --- am officially done with this article. --Obenritter (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)