Talk:Sicherheitsdienst/Archive 1

Archive 1

EDIT JUSTIFICATION

The SD proper had very small membership to be the "main" source of security forces. In the Einsatzgruppen for example less than 5% were members of the SD and they were mainly NCOs and officers. The vast majority of security troops in occupied areas were Ordnungspolizei and Waffen-SS.

There are individuals in these SD units that are largely responsible for giving such a bad name to the Waffen SS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.125.188 (talk • contribs)

I would assume that the Waffen SS had a bad name by default. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the above comment adds anything of value. I didn't delete it because people can get carried with expunging other people's stuff, especially in an article on a sensitive topic like this one, and I don't want to start a "delete war". Yes the original poster should have provided a better argument as to how the small number of SD personnel in Einsatzgruppen allegedly gave a bad name to the entire Waffen-SS, but snarkiness doesn't solve anything. Alternate theories, like the conflation of the SS concentration camp system with the combat arm of the SS (although not entirely discrete by any means) could be debated instead. Historian932 (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The "above comment" is concise and to the point - the Waffen SS was a part of Nazi Germany, and its goals were evil -by default, it had a bad name. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Reichssicherheitsdienst seems to deal with the same subject as this article. --FJS15 (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. It is not the same at all. The Reichssicherheitsdienst (RSD) was an SS security force who guarded and protected Hitler (and a few other high-ranking Nazi leaders). They were SS and wore the SD sleeve patch but they were a different body. The Sicherheitsdienst or SD was the Security Service that was an SS agency that became the Nazi state agency for intelligence. You may want to read up on them in more detail. Kierzek (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: Two completely separate and independent organizations. -OberRanks (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Is there a way to make the difference clearer? I don't think is helpful to have the same images at the top of the article. They look just the same to me. --FJS15 (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Footnote-Clarified in the RSD article at the timeframe above. Now moot. Kierzek (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

New SS Intro Flag

The .svg file that I placed on this page was the one that is now on the main SS article. Therefore there is the "consensus". If it is deemed acceptable to be used for the top article concerning the whole nazi SS organization, then why on earth are you two being so pithy about this article? Or is it a little bit annoying when IPs edit this article, get a little hot under the collar, see this article in terms of WP:OWN? Any how I did not choose the .svg file in question. All I was doing was spreading the consistency of that consensus agreed with at the top article. Or bizarrely is your behaviour overlooking how a minor article is more important than the lead article in the group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.122.43 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed the header of this section to conform to WP:CIV. And the only one who is edit warring here is the anon ip address. There is a clear end result to that line of behavior, mainly the article gets semi-protected and ips thereafter can't edit it until consensus is reached. Right now, there is no reason to be changing any of the intro pics for this article. -OberRanks (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

86.184.122.43, not all articles are the same; they stand on their own two feet. The .svg file is not, for example, used for the articles: SS-Verfügungstruppe, SS-Totenkopfverbände, Allgemeine SS. You want to make the change therefore per Wikipedia policy the burden is on you to obtain consensus for the change. The flag is the proper flag used by the SD which was a direct "branch" of the SS. That is the other objection and the greater one for me. It is not correct to call it an "agency". That refers to a person who acts on behalf of another person; it would be more correct for the Orpo or arguably the Gestapo as they were taken over by SS personnel. The SD was a direct "branch" of the SS, formed in 1931, with a full name as of June 1932: "Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführers-SS". Kierzek (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Recommend page protection if this continues any further, especially in light of the recent personal attack which was removed from this talk page per WP:NPA [1]. -OberRanks (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As you know, OberRanks, everything revolves around consensus for matters that come up. In regard to working towards what is the best presentation for an article; such as here. There is no need for emotion on the matter, 86.184.122.43 / 86.179.180.192. BTW-I checked photographs in several books and the flag used here is an example of the official SS flag. The main article has both, the flag and runes. I do think the runes insignia should be left on the article page for Germanic-SS, for example, because the SS insignia (sig runes) were used on a regular basis to identify members of those foreign units of the Allgemeine-SS. Kierzek (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

SD in Austria

After taking the time to clearly distinguish the RSHA and the SD over the past couple of weeks through extensive editing, I would like to invite some of you to review and cleanup anything in need. Moreover, there is one important section that should also be included shortly before the segment on the "Intrigue against Poland", namely, somebody needs to cover the clandestine and subversive activities of Heydrich and the SD in overthrowing the Austrian government of Schuschnigg and the installation of Arthur Seyss-Inquart as part of the Anschluß for this article to be complete in my view. Your efforts are appreciated. I can add a little depth to the Austrian situation once I return from a short hiatus. --Obenritter (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Abwehr also had a large role in that as well. My knowledge of the specifics aren't too great, unfortunately. -OberRanks (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I will look into it further when I have time. I recall Heydrich was involved with the Austrian Nazis, at the time as to events mentioned. Kierzek (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No pressure folks. If it still remains uncovered, I certainly have the resources to beef it up later. It is at least worthy of inclusion given its international ramifications. --Obenritter (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

OK - so I have added a substantial amount since I had some free time today. Please clean it up accordingly. --Obenritter (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Done; only a few minor tweaks. Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

SD run Death Camps

I'm concerned with references in this article that the SD somehow ran the death camps...they didn't. Heydrich was ordered to start up the genocide program, but the operation was mostly left to the SS-TV. The only camp the SD ever significantly ran was Maly Trots in the Ukraine (they were also involved in the start-up of Chelmno, but the big camps were all non-SD affairs). This should be rewritten if not simply removed to avoid confusion with readers unfamiliar with the topic. -OberRanks (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be tweaked. Chełmno extermination camp was overseen by then SS-Standartenführer Ernst Damzog, who was a Security Police and SD commander from the HQ in Posen. Damzog selected the staff for the killing centre. Damzog formed an SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV) unit commanded by then SS-Hauptsturmführer Herbert Lange for the camp and Lange was the first camp commander. Lange had been with a Gestapo office and then the SS-Totenkopfverbände. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked it accordingly with book cite. See what you think. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up Kierzek as its current form is much more accurate. I think the follow-on sentence about Heydrich involvement may have been a tad unclear but it did specifically state that Chelmno was unlike the other camps which were run by the Totenkopfverbände - this doesn't matter since it was given over to the TV anyway in the end. Hey something else is bugging me - perhaps one of you has the Lumsden book.

Questions about Lumsden's book

Is his research academically substantiated in his book as I have never come across it before? Who is this author? If it is not sourced, I'd like to see other works cited in its place as a collector's guide to regalia, military memorabilia, and the like is not considered a scholarly source among academics. If it is accordingly cited, my apologies to the author. Gents?

The work is an expanded version of his Osprey Publishing work; "The Allgemeine-SS (Men-At-Arms Series, 266)"; Thereafter, he wrote another expanded version titled, "Himmler's Black Order 1923-45". He is detailed, best known as a leading expert on German medals and regalia, writing one of the best regarded book on the subject, "Medals and Decorations of Hitler's Army" - which I recall OberRanks uses; But nothing is written in stone as to works used in articles as long as they meet WP:RS; ofcourse, when it comes to certain subjects some rank higher than others, such as certain works regarding Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich, for example. Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - sounds like solid work to me. Since I am not into collecting regalia and the like, I am just not familiar with this author. It was not my intention to rack and stack citations by order of academic respectability by any means, I just wanted to be sure that somebody knowledgeable of the subject was familiar with this work - which is indeed the case. --Obenritter (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have changed my mind and have decided to remove Lumsden as a source. Although he is considered an expert on medals and regalia and for general facts that most everyone knows I don't believe he is the worst source; however, in the end, there are better sources to use. So, @Obenritter:, if you have the time, any assistance in the change outs would be appreciated. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty busy these days, but I will try to help out when I can. Do you have a running list of the Wiki-pages where you used Lumsden? That might help speed the process for me and/or anyone else interested in assisting on the issue.@K.e.coffman:.--Obenritter (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well as I told K.e. I am waiting for my Browder book to be returned and will use that. This article, RSHA and SiPo are a good place to start. Diannaa already took care of the main SS article and I already changed out one other. It will take some time and I don't want to comment out or remove text, just replace it with better cites/books on the subject. For any help, I am grateful. Kierzek (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

SiPo is done and this one, too. RSHA still has one. Thanks for the help. Have a look at Gestapo, next. Gestapo need more citing, anyway. Kierzek (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I changed out the ones for Gestapo and several others. Kierzek (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

POV / Improper synthesis / OR (??) | Tasks and general structure - plz help!! (Oct 2014)

The following uncited statement in the section "Tasks and general structure"...

Correspondingly, SD affiliated units, including the Einsatzgruppen followed German troops into Austria, the Sudetenland, Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Lithuania, as well as Russia. Since their task included cooperating with military leadership and vice-versa, suppression of opposition in the occupied territories was a joint venture, so any attempt to feign ignorance on the part of the military leadership loses credibility in light of the orders passed up and down their respective commands. There were however, territorial disputes and disagreement about how some of these policies were to be implemented. Leaving nothing to chance members of the SD strove diligently to fulfill the orders of Heydrich and Himmler.

...while intuitive to some, should be backed up w/ reference to a reliable source so as not to be considered POV, bias, improperly original research or synthesis or otherwise concocted from brilliant personal opinion of an editor, but not reflected in present scholarship, no? User:Sturmvogel_66 I'm talking to you because I know you are very knowledgeable on these matters and can provide a credible, experienced voice. Please contribute your thoughts on the matter - on the propriety of this very controversial statement. Thank you, Sir! 98.236.50.229 (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This really is a side issue and should be addressed in a note with supporting citations. And it needs to be reworded to show that German army-level commanders and above knew of the SD-activities because they sometimes had to support the "anti-partisan" efforts with a concrete example or two. I believe that Manstein is on record as admitting that he knew about Einsatzgruppen activities in his area. I've also cut some of the biased language used elsewhere and added a request for more information about Abwehr and SD rivalries. I'll add this page to my watchlist to monitor further changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sturmvogel, it needs ce work and should be cited; it would be easy enough to do by pulling from the GA rated Einsatzgruppen article, for example. I don't have time right now, but will look into it further when I can. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the statement placed in bold. See Philip Blood, Hitler's Bandit Hunters or Wolfram Wette's book on the Wehrmacht. Either of those are replete with examples about the SD's involvement (especially cooperation with the Einsatzgruppen who accompanied them into the occupied territories. It is assuredly not "Improper sythesis". It is not concocted nor unreliable. Any collaboration which occurred between the Wehrmacht and the Einsatzgruppen (who were attached to the SD by the way) is evidence of their mutual knowledge over radical policies. Not only did Manstein know about the radical policies and actions of the Einsatzgruppen - he explicitly told his troops, "Soldiers must show understanding for the harsh measures against the Jews". Field Marshal Walter von Reichenau told his troops, "soldiers must fully accept the necessity for the harsh but just expiation enacted from Jewish Untermenschen" and goes on to say that the mission of German soldiers was "ruthlessly to eliminate the treachery and brutality of non-German individuals and thereby secure the lives of German military personnel in Russia." General Franz Halder once wrote that: "Troops must participate in the ideological battle in the Eastern campaign to the end".. Those are just 3 among the many statements confirming the Army's intimate knowledge of the atrocities being carried out. Feel free to use these as examples in place where you had concerns and cite them accordingly.

By the way: not reflected in present scholarship, no? Perhaps might I recommend you expand your reading. Take a look at the following data from the Einsatzgruppen and their activities in Lithuania: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Einsatzgruppen+and+Wehrmacht+collaboration+exhibit&spell=1 If you are German capable, take a look at the following interview: http://www.ushmm.org/online/film/display/detail.php?file_num=4890 There's a discussion of the interview's content if you're not able to follow along. This was first-person knowledge. Bill Niven says something about the Wehrmacht and SS/SD collaboration in Facing the Nazi Past: United Germany and the Legacy of the Third Reich on page 142. .

But wait - here's a book where there's lots of dialogue about the joint ventures between the SD-connected Einsatzgruppen and the Wehrmacht in exterminations in the east in particular: Hartmann, Christian (2010). Wehrmacht im Ostkrieg: Front und militarische Hinterland, 1941/1942 (De Gruyter Oldenbourg Verlag, 2010), pp. 635-699. More on the collaboration between the SD and the Wehrmacht is mentioned by Rolf-Dieter Müller in his book, Hitlers Wehrmacht 1935-1945(pg. 153). In fact, von Brauchitsch explicitly ordered the troops to cooperate with the SD.

Here's an article "Schießen müßt ihr! Beim Massaker von Babij Jar bei Kiew teilten sich Wehrmacht und SS die blutige Arbeit," inside Die Zeit magazine online by Wolfram Wette that you can read online: http://www.zeit.de/2001/48/Schiessen_muesst_ihr_ . In fact, Wette expressly states in the first paragraph that at Babi Yar, the Wehrmacht and SD closely cooperated. Cooperation requires knowledge thereof; thus the Nazi chain of command was intimately aware and supportive of working with the SD/Einsatzgruppen. If you'd like to simply substantiate the statement which troubled you in terms of needing a citation, you could also just use: Fritz, Stephen G. Ostkrieg: Hitler's War of Extermination in the East (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2011), pp. 94-98. This book was published in 2010. That would be considered current scholarship unless you can demonstrate that there was not knowledge between the various Nazi organs about the unsavory activities? I'd sure like to see it as it would be eye-opening indeed. By the way - on page 179 of Anatomy of the SS State:

"Co-operation with field security officers or field security units will be governed by the 'Principles for co-operation between the State security police and the field security organization of the Wehrmacht' agreed with the security branch of the Reich War Ministry on 1 January 1937."

Might I recommend that you read pages 179-180 and the tasks outlined in Anatomy of the SS-State. The cooperation and mutual knowledge was obvious. There were early voices of concern from the Wehrmacht, but in the end, there was knowledge and even cooperation - of course some were more zealous in advocating brutality than others.--Obenritter (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's saying that there wasn't cooperation between the Wehrmacht and the SD, but the statement, as currently worded, isn't exactly relevant to an article on the SD. Which is why I said it should be relegated to a note, not the main body. It's also pushing a POV, which is why I said it needs to be reworded and backed with actual examples, preferably where frontline troops cooperated with the SD, not just ordnungspolizei or sicherungstruppen, to show that cooperation was fairly common at one level or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we need a section over the Einsatzgruppen activities with further clarification. I've already done a fair share with this article, so feel free to jump in since you feel there is confusion.--Obenritter (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

References