Talk:Paul Hausser

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of postwar fate?

It seems like someone considered the father of the Waffen-SS would have be sentenced very heavily at Nuremburg, however, this article mentions only that he testified there. Perhaps a short paragraph detailing his postwar fate? Historian932 (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that if hausser had more to do with the SS that he would have been tried and convicted at the trials.

From what i have read about Hausser, the 'Papa' name was given by his troops under his command, not so much as SS Nazis.

IT should also be noted that there were 2 seperate SS sects, that being the infamous hunter killer groups tasked with 'purging' areas of Jewish people and others, and the regular fighting brigades, such as the SS Gross Deutschlad, das Viking, leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, totenkompf, among others... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.172.232 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Aside from an element of classic apologism (and i presume some language issues as the word sect is not used in English in a military context) there is also a rather basis mistake - Gross Deutshland was not a Waffen SS division - it was a Heer (army) one. And to go back to the apologism - Totenkpof was of course formed originally from troops from the Totenkopfverbande - ie concentration camp guard units.

Missing from this article is WHY he wasn't hung by the neck until dead at the end of the war.

The Waffen-SS (the millitary branch of allgemeine SS) took part in serious war crimes. Ranging from extreme brutallity, systematic slaughter of POWs, to systematic murder of civilians, rape and direct participation in Holocaust, both in the shape of "front line" murder commands and also by sharing manpower with the concentration system. The term Waffen-SS, dosn't include other SS organisations such as SD (Security Service), and different murder-groups, socalled "Einsatzgruppen" that perpetrated some of the most henious crimes known to man. Nevertheless even "elite" combat formations such as SS Division "Wiking" particiated in well documented jew-slaugthers, "Das Reich" well known for massacres like e.g. Oradour sur glanes, SS 12 Hitlerjugend Shocked even germans by their senseless murder of british and Canadian POWs (after all "humans" and not subhumans like in the east, where russian POWs where routinely murdered!). Looking further to other Waffen SS units like SS Brigade 1 and 2, the cavalry division etc. mostly deployed in so called "Partisan fighting" in the east, perpetrated massive crimes against humanity and war crimes by slughtering entire villages (Women, children, elder, males), by the thousands. One of the most infamous units of the Waffen-SS was "SS gruppe Dirlevanger" named after its commander Dr. Oscar Dirlevanger, a sadist and child molester, who conducted unspeakable crimes in the east with thousands if not tens of thousands of victims. To give the picture: Oscar Dirlevanger is known to have boasted that "His men, first raped, then killed (the slavic) women". As one of the few, this sadist got his just punishment when he was beaten to death by his polish guards while in french custody.

At the same time it is true that some of the SS divisions and formations achived at their peak remarkable combat strength. First and foremost Reichs german manned core divisions (leibstandarte, Das Reich, Wiking and Totenkopf, but also the reichs and volks deutsche "Hohenstaufen", "Frundsberg", "Götz von Berlichingen" together with the germanic volunteer units "Nordland" and the french (wallonie), fleemish (langemark) and dutch units) Also these units showed a willingness and ability to continue the fight far longer than it made millitary sense and dispite massive looses. But the Waffen SS was almost 40 divisions and other major units towards the end of the war, and many of these was of limited combat value, a fair number completely disintegrating when confronted with trained combat soldiers, and only usefull in "partisan war" (read: terrorising the civilian population).

The waffen-ss was a criminal organisation par excellence, they were not an army, but a "party guard" and mercenary-run together. They internalized the nazi doctrine and achived a level of brutallity and readiness to do violence that's quite unparalleled in modern times. Paul Hauser, perhaps the foremost of the higher generals of the SS and spokesperson of the afterwar HIAG association did a good job trying to part the Waffen-SS from the "other SS", pretending that Waffen-SS was kinda a 4th arm of the german millitary, and different from the murderous crimes of the SS and the regime in general. But it wasn't so. Waffen-SS was instrumental in the crimes.

   93.161.80.130 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Service Dates

The service end dates given for Heeresgruppe Oberrhein and Heeresgruppe G, don't match the dates when those groups are shown as disbanded on their respective pages. Kevink707 (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Inserts

The "Authorship" section mentions the book Waffen-SS im Einsatz and translates it as Waffen-SS in Action. But "Einsatz" means "something inserted." "Wirkung" means "action." The SS Einsatz groups were inserted into the regular army as special units whose task was to ruthlessly destroy specific local populations.Lestrade (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

"Einsatz" means something like "effort" . F.ex. One can do a "einsatz" (effort) to get something done. So einsatz gruppen, means groups who are committed to do an effort. To me "Waffen-SS im Einsatz" takes the meaning "Waffen-SS deployed" or "Waffen-SS deployed in action" Or "Waffen-SS making an effort"

In danish, my lanquage, and akin to german, the danish word is the noun "Indsats" (notice the s). Though the noun "Indsat" means an "inmate" or somebody or something that have been put some where. The, i think it's called an adverb? "Indsat" means "inserted" , the verb is "indsætte" (to insert).

So while "indsats" is a different word it holds a derived meaning from "indsætte": e.g. "To put (them or your self) in". "to insert (them or your self)", "to make an effort", "to apply (them or your self)".

The related "SS sonder kommando" means "special units" and is yet another example of the vaque lanquage that SS used to disquise the true scale and intent of the attrocities to outsiders.

The Einsatz gruppen were not part of the waffen-SS, but the coorperation was close. E.g. Einsatzgruppen (I think it was) 11a, followed, as in "inbedded", the SS 4 wiking division under F. Steiner during it's drive to Mariapol - committing an orgie of violence and murder under the protection, if not direct assistence, of the combat division. 93.161.80.130 (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Expanding section World War II

I would like to expand the section to add more context around: "At the Nuremberg Trials he vigorously defended the military role of the Waffen-SS and denied that it was involved in war-crime atrocities." I've been reading Hausser's testimony at the trial and found it elucidating:

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 20

One Hundred and Ninety-Sixth Day

Tuesday 6 August 1946

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-06-46.asp

Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That the guy is lying. Hauser (ab)used the fact that at the time of the Nurenberg trials the scale and extend of the massive war crimes was undocumented, expecially in the east. Also the crimes in Italy (after the fall of the facists) hadn't really surfaced yet (One SS division, The ReichsFuhrer, alone killed 2000 civilians, or about 20% of the total murders of italien civilians by germans). And note, Italiens were, in the views of the SS, first class race people, not slavics destined to be deported for slavework or simply killed to make room for the germanics, or jews who just had to be killed, or after a while worked to near death and then killed. So the italien and as well the french massacres has more to do with the extreame level of brutallity that these units had learned in the extermination campaigns in the east. Something they couldn't "de-learn" when inserted amoung or against "race people".

I believe that it's Hauser who at the Kursk offensive, commands his troops to take prisoners, not because it's the right thing to do for a civilized army, but because the war-industry demands workers! Note we are dealing with an organisation who actively encourages men to take "slaves". Note We are dealing with an organisation that has to order it's men, not to kill prisoners (a serious warcrime), logically because the standard modus operandi is exactly not to take prisoners.

The sheer scale of the attrocities and the meticulous "zeal" that the killings had been done with often left a "perfect crime", with no surviving wittnesses, other than the perpetraitors. So it was relativly easy to put the blame elsewhere or/and put the crimes under the umbrella of "partisan fighting" - a main occupation for many Waffen-SS formations . Truth is that many or most, if not all, of these "partisan fights" were massacres. When large units like brigades reports kill ratios like "1000:1" you know that something is rotten! "the brigade killed 1200 partisan and only lost 2 men" - well then you know that the 2 guys probably died in a car accident and the 1200 died in a ditch... And executing enfants and children is not reciprocal action - regardless of any insurgency action.

At the polish campaign one kompagnie of the Liebstandarde recives orders to kill everybody in a village, the unit ask back for clarification: "Does that include women" and gets the answer "yes". Then the units executes the order.

Just criminals, not soldiers - and Hauser knew all about it. 93.161.80.130 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Nickname

In the literature that I have, I've not seen Hausser referred to by his nickname. I suggest rewording the lead as follows:

Paul Hausser (7 October 1880 – 21 December 1972) was an officer in the German Army, achieving the rank of lieutenant-general in the inter-war Reichswehr. After retirement from the regular Army he became a leading commander in the Waffen-SS. A popular commanding officer, he led Waffen-SS troops both on the Eastern and Western Fronts of World War II...

Any objections to this revision? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I will go ahead and revise. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

B class review

The article very thoroughly covers the postwar era. However, there is nothing on his World War II history. For example, Hausser commanded the German 7th Army in the Normandy Campaign. Therefore B2=no (obvious omission). Djmaschek (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I will see if I can pull something together from WP:RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation for Nuremberg

via Stein (1984): mentioned on pages 250 and 264. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions/queries

G'day, I had a look at this article due to it being posted for re-assessment on WP:MHA. I have a couple of queries and suggestions, which might hopefully bring it up to B-class and maybe even GA: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• the Early life section should mention his date of birth;
  • I do not have much information on his life, but apparently there's a source in German: Mark P. Gingerich's biographical sketch in Ronald Smelser and Enrico Syring, eds., Die Militaerelite des Dritten Reiches. 27 biographische Skizzen (Berlin: Ullstein, 1995), pp. 223-235. It's 12 pages so should be pretty meaty. I don't read German nor have access to German language sources. Perhaps someone does? ~K.e.

• in the Citations, there is a ref called "Sydnor 1973", but this doesn't seem to correspond to a full reference in the Bibliography. Is this the same as Syndor (1990) [1977]?
  • Added. ~K.e.

• this sentence probably should be attributed in text (per Wikipedia:Quotations): "As part of its lobbying efforts, HIAG attempted to "manipulate historical record or simply to ignore it"." For instance, "As part of its lobbying efforts, X argues that HIAG attempted to "manipulate historical record or simply to ignore it"."
  • Attribution added. ~K.e.

• this sentence probably should be attributed in text: "The work epitomised how HIAG leaders wanted the Waffen-SS to be remembered and was equally tendentious". For instance, "According to X, the work epitomised how HIAG leaders wanted the Waffen-SS to be remembered and was equally tendentious".
  • Attribution added. ~K.e.

• same as above for: "HIAG's rewriting of history included significant multi-prong propaganda efforts, including tendentious periodicals, books and public speeches..." For instance, Mackenzie argues that HIAG's rewriting of history included significant multi-prong propaganda efforts, including tendentious periodicals, books and public speeches..."
  • This is roughly a summary from HIAG#Historical_revisionism; Stein, Sydnor, Wilke, MacKenzie, Steiner, Large are consistent in their descriptions. How could I improve the phrasing? ~K.e.

• "offering apologetic accounts" --> suggest just removing "apologetic" here, unless it can be attributed;
  • The words "apologia", "apologetics" and "apologist accounts" are used by most sources for HIAG#Historical_revisionism. So I believe it's well established. Or should I expand / clarify? ~K.e.
    • Understood, and I am by no means sympathetic to Hausser's cause, but the policy is pretty clear. You are using Wikipedia's voice for someone's opinion. My suggestion is to remove the word in this case, and present the attribution of the opinion elsewhere and then let the reader decide. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Removed description, as this is discussed in the section on the books. ~K.e.
• "so-called" --> probably should be avoided as a term per WP:WEASEL
  • The idea of Waffen-SS "multinational force" was largely war-time Nazi propaganda, which was after the war repurposed by Hausser and Steiner. This is covered by multiple sources. How can I phrase that better? ~K.e.
    • I suggest something like this. For instance, "The book described the growth of Waffen-SS into a multinational force where foreign volunteers fought heroically as a "militant example of the great European idea". Historians such as Smith, have refuted this characterisation, though, arguing that it was largely Nazi propaganda... " Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Adjusted. I also expanded the "Historical revisionism" section. ~K.e.
• if known, perhaps it could be mentioned if he married and had children.
  • Unknown. ~K.e.
    • No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• the lead should be expanded to summarise the article a bit more, as currently it doesn't give a full account of the subject's career
  • Expanded, please let me know what you think. ~K.e.
    • Reworked again. Feedback welcome. ~K.e.
• this note should probably just be presented in the body of the article: "The study, together with contributions from Rudolf Christoph von Gersdorff, Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz, Wilhelm Fahrmbacher and Heinrich Eberbach, was published in 2004..." as the section is small enough to accept the full explanation;
  • Implemented. ~K.e.

• the body of the article should mention his date and place of death, and cause, if known.
  • Unknown. ~K.e.
    • G'day, Williamson mentions the date and place of death. I have added this for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for your efforts on the article so far. Good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article and your suggested improvements. I added my notes above. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: I implemented the suggested changes, please let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for your efforts. I added the date of birth, wife's name and some postings from the Mitcham work. Hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly sure who penned this history of general Paul Hausser but it is full of inaccuracies and fails to mention that he was an excellent field commander,,, I really kind of curious just exactly who is Hans Guderian,,, Really — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:2:809:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ranks and awards

Per same issue raised here, I restored some of Hausser's awards and all of his dates of ranks. I anticipate the creation of a Service record of Paul Hausser article in the near future. I need to get a hold of his SS record copy to scan the cover page first. -O.R.^Comms 18:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit in violation of BURDEN and am preserving the material by giving this link.

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." In addition, please see this post at MilHist Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Record Group 242 from the National Archives is about as reliable as one can get. The SS record material is taken from the original SS records themselves which are maintained on microfilm rolls. This same material has been used in war crimes trials and as primary source material for hundreds of books and articles. But, as there is now the beginnings of edit warring, even after asking that this matter be resolved on WP:MILHIST, I'll back away from this one for now. -O.R.^Comms 03:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I am confused. The first post states I need to get a hold of... and the second mentions as reliable as one can get. Meanwhile, I did not see any citations in the diff. In any case, I would consider this material possibly undue and indiscriminate collection of information (cited to primary sources, if produced). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Fox was only a Colonel (three ranks lower than Eicke), maybe you should purge his awards too? And to clear up your confusion, I was referring to scanning the cover page of Hausser's SS record from RG 242 at the archives for use in a future article. -O.R.^Comms 03:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. On the revert: the material was removed because the content was restored without providing an inline citation, in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations, a core Wikipedia policy. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I just find it interesting that you appear to be targeting only SS articles for the removal of ranks and awards when, by your own logic, you could be doing the same thing across Wikipedia to US, British, Soviet, etc articles. But of course, you are not doing so, and I think most of us have figured out why. -O.R.^Comms 04:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: most of us have figured out... -- most of us who? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Now RS cited as to rank progression. Kierzek (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)