Talk:Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts

Exemption for those conscripted after 1943

"Waffen-SS conscripts sworn in after 1943 were exempted from the judgement owing to their conscription." This seems like an important sentence, but is very vague. Does it apply everywhere? or only certain countries? Is there a SPECIFIC DATE involved? Does "after 1943" mean beginning in January, 1944. Is there a reference?

Disputing this article's accuracy

This article is certainly wrong in many ways. Here's just two examples.

1. The British Free Corps had ~1500 members? Wikipedia's own page on the BFC says it had something like 57. Why, then, is the number inflated by a factor of almost 30 on this page? 2. There was an Irish brigade of the SS with 400 members? That seems fanciful at best, but it's wrong, without doubt, to include Irish volunteers under the United Kingdom bullet. Ireland is not part of the UK.

Did you check the relevant citations for the numbers issue? Ireland isn't part of the UK, but numerous ethnic Irish live in Northern Ireland, and the Irish of the Free State volunteered in the British Army during ww2, leading to ostracisation post war Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Croatia

@Joy:,

about your recent edit, I don't understand why it would be "obsolete" or "offensive", in this page we represent the contemporary status-quo - as it is done in plenty of pages - but it does not mean we judge if it is fair or not etc., thus in case this change turns upside down the consistence of the article, I don't see a reason for that.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC))

I think now I understood....you meant that just the reference "Croatia" would be like that...well, we may solve it easily as really fully clarify what entity we are speaking about...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC))

Yes. Croatia != Independent State of Croatia. And the latter title in and of itself is offensive and shouldn't be used more than necessary - it's a historical lie by a bunch of fascists running a puppet state (d'oh!). And specifically the two Waffen-SS divisions were specifically recruited mainly from Bosnia, so it makes sense to mention that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well I think we cannot change history - sometimes unfortunately - back in time, so I would stick to the contemporary official name (= meaning the English one correspondent in WP), but of course, in the specific section you may add details about the recruitment from Bosnia or anything that is relevant ot the topic.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC))

Changing that section heading is by no means an attempt to change history. Those regions under the rule of the NDH were in fact commonly known as "Croatia" and "Bosnia" prior, during, and after that time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood me in a way, I just wanted to express that accuracy is very important, especially regarding contemporary status quo that may generate in some cases huge problems - experienced a lot since early medieval history until the modern era, i.e. with Hungary, having suffered many territorial/status quo changes in her territory - I never debated in this specific context that prior/during/after how any regions/countries would be called, but the section headings are following contemporary status quo precisely, regardless how commonly some regions were known. I mean there is no double measure, regarding any country/entity. Of course I have no problem with any further expansion with specific information, let it be official or just commonly known.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC))

Yes, that is fine. Just making sure we realize that that is an editorial decision, to make things consistent on the contemporary names of states, as opposed to some other naming scheme. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Finnish SS volunteers in Gross Born.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of Source Marc J. Rikmenspoel

@GeneralizationsAreBad:@Kierzek:@K.e.coffman:@Diannaa:@Beyond My Ken:@Nick-D:@Denniss:@Sbb:@Buidhe: - After reviewing the works of this recently cited author, Marc J. Rikmenspoel, I am a bit concerned that his work is not unlike the specious and unreliable scholarship from Chris Ailsby, Gordon Williamson, and Robin Lumsden. It does not really appear like academic work, but is popular history, some of which traverses the realm of glorification. Rikmenspoel has published previously under J.J. Fedorowicz, which as we all know, is not the most objective. Since I cannot be sure, I thought I would raise this matter with some of my fellow trusted subject matter experts for their take. Should we tag these as better source needed? As we all know, in 2006 historians Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies identified Fedorowicz among others, as leading publishers in war-romanticization literature and my take is that anyone who published under them deserves careful scrutiny. --Obenritter (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. This article needs high quality sources. (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to remember where I read that name and it came to me; he wrote a section/chapter in a book: "Slaughterhouse: The Handbook of the Eastern Front" (2004), which I bought and owned at one time for the parts/sections therein written by David Glantz. I only read the sections by Glantz and then got rid of the book. Otherwise, I do not know anything about Rikmenspoel or his work. But, I trust your judgment, Obenritter, and he should go if his work is like Williamson, Bishop, Goldsworthy and Lumden. Kierzek (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Buidhe:; it's such a generic popular history approach that I am suspicious of its academic integrity from the start. Tagging accordingly. @Kierzek: Yeah, I have a copy of that work as well, but I only purchased it because Glantz had also contributed to it. If anyone has the time or inclination to improve these refs once I tag them, by all means do your thing.--Obenritter (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hold the presses, I just noted that the cited work by Marc J. Rikmenspoel in question, appears in the USHMM catalog. See: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/bib227016 Now I am rethinking this work as possibly legitimate. --Obenritter (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

USHMM also has books by David Irving [1] and Mark C. Yerger [2] Doesn't make them WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that Aberjona Press isn't considered a high quality publisher, so this probably isn't a RS. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: - That I did not know, but that changes things for sure. @Nick-D:- My instincts were correct then.--Obenritter (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the USHMM library is giant. They have a lot of books that aren't found in other US libraries at all. I think they try to have a copy of anything even tangentially related to their area of focus. (t · c) buidhe 17:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)