Talk:Karl Wolff

Untitled

Please feel free to revise and expand on the issue of Wolff's knowledge of the Holocaust. --Jstalin 17:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Who was involved in the later trial, because Treblinka was something that all humanity simply should be made aware of. 86.149.209.189 23:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, especially the account of Yankel Wiernik should be brought under public attention http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm ! --41.15.221.94 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Execution of Prisoners

"...Despite this, he openly admits in the television documentary The World At War that he witnessed an execution of Jewish prisoners with Himmler, going so far as to describe the splatter of brains on Himmler's coat...." - There is no mentioning in the World at War episode of the ethnicity or reasons of the prisoners being shot. So please take out the "Jewish" from the article. --41.14.211.41 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

By any standard, Wolff gets a 'free pass' in this article - much as he did in life. There's no mention of the CIA's role in protecting him in the post-WW2 years.

I believe his son, Thorismond, also went into the advertising game and handled some big tobacco accounts in West Germany. Father and son, both dealers in death. Surely there's material for a TV special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwanderinby (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And you are surely a dealer in bs. 2003:DA:970E:A621:B519:5B0:4A2:8347 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Friendship?

Heydrich didn't have friend in the SS and not particulary with Wolff !!--Bobybarman34 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Wolff continually displayed his anti-semitism throughout his career. After the war he was interviewed by CIC and others in the US Military, he made bigoted remarks as a matter of course. He complained about his inprisonment, whining about in comparison to the death of thousands of Jews. "A Jew is killed in the gas chamber in a few seconds, without having any idea or knowing it. My comrades and I have been allowed to die once every night for 21 months. This is much more Inhumane than the extermination used on the Jews. Too much has been grossly exaggerated." Jochen Von Lang, 'Top Nazi SS General Karl Wolff: the man between hitler and himmler,' New York, Enigma Books, 2005. Hesweeney (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Matched content

Please see the comparison to web content on http://ahnen.greyfalcon.us/rahn.html (sidebar). It matches word for word the unsourced content from this article. Sometimes it's hard to tell which content is the original one and which one is the mirror cite, but in this case I suspect that "greyfalcon" is the original source, due to unusual word choices such as "Messrs Heidemann and Kujau" and because of generally well rounded prose. Note that the "soap opera" content is not part of greyfalcon's narrative; it must have been added later.

I would like more opinions on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with rewrite/removal, Greyfalcon is not an RS source and it does appear to be a copyright violation; which you raise. Kierzek (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I also left a msg for Diannaa, since he has experience with copyvios. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, as I was assuming the information came first from that site, but it may be the other way around; I await her final verdict. Kierzek (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The text on the left hand sidebar of that other site appears to have been lifted from Wikipedia. The intro paragraph of this article, in particular the part about Wolff serving as Supreme SS and Commander of Italy, was added by me quite some time ago [1] and wasn't copied from that other site. -O.R.^Comms 14:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Checking using the Wayback Machine shows that the material was added to ahnen.greyfalcon.us sometime between May 9, 2013, and August 19, 2013. Looking at the revision of our article dated April 25, 2013 shows we already had the content on that date. The material on Wolff in the left sidebar was copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the information. Then the article needs ce work with RS cites added (like so many articles). Kierzek (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; I will use these tools in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have done some copy edit work and added cites; it is in better shape now. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Awards removal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as Moot. There is no clear consensus below about appropriateness of including SS awards in military/paramilitary bios, and it is not likely to be found here. The impetus of the dispute has, however, been moved to Service record of Karl Wolff, rendering a decision here moot. I'm certain that the editors involved know where to find AfD if they feel it necessary.(non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

---

I've restored the awards section and added citations. There has been no less than four attempts in the past few months to blank this information. Karl Wolff is one of the most extensively researched of SS generals and his award information is of academic interest. If there is an effort to blank it, this needs to be discussed with consensus, especially since this is now cited information. -O.R.^Comms 02:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As I have said in these discussions in the recent past, especially for high ranking members, awards and decorations should be included; and given it is a bio article on the man it is reasonable to include for that reason, as well. Like everything being considered for inclusion or to be removed, discernment should be used. It is fair that they be cited and that is now done. Kierzek (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It is good to have added a citation; though the question has other facets too, the main being: why have we to crowd bio pages with insignificant information?

Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918, Golden Party Badge, Honour Chevron for the Old Guard, SA Sports Badge (Bronze), German National Sports Badge (Silver), Olympic Games Decoration (First Class), Nazi Party Long Service Award (10 years), SS Long Service Award (10 years), Sudetenland Medal (with Prague Castle Bar), Memel Medal, Sword of honour of the Reichsführer-SS, SS Honour Ring, SS Julleuchter (that is even ridiculous here), as well as the long list of rank progress, don't add a penny to the historic figure of this personage, whose distinguishing de-merits lay elsewhere. Letting go of gifts, "awards" of commemorative sort, and other minimalia is only a boon. Carlotm (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Chronology of rank promotions is standard throughout Wikipedia, especially on military figures which Wolff was by the end of the war (he was the default Supreme Commander of all German forces in Italy at the time of the surrender). This section should stick to the awards as there hasn't been an issue (yet) with having his promotion dates in the article. -18:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Those are all official decorations authorized by the government of the nation in which the person served. Wolff was also technically a military general, since he was granted combat command in Italy as a Waffen-SS general. So a list of awards is completely normal for this type of article. The fact that he is an SS general and that these are awards of the Nazi state is neither here nor there. A good parallel would be the Army Service Ribbon and NCO Professional Development Ribbon which is listed on most articles about U.S. generals. Those too are minor awards, but is there any effort to blank them from articles? Also, as to the ranks, promotion dates in military articles are standard on this site. WP:IDONTLIKE I think is something to consider also. -O.R.^Comms 00:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If there is further issue with this, the matter should really be taken up at the military history discussion boards to get consensus. Right now, this appears to be simply the opinion of a few users that these Nazi and SS awards are not noteworthy and should not be included, perhaps simply because they are SS and Nazi awards. There is no basis in Wikipedia policy for this; if there were, then by your own logic, we should be removing the National Defense Service Medal and Air Force Longevity Service Ribbon from all United States military articles. And what of all the service medals and colonial medals of the United Kingdom, to say nothing about the self imposed orders and people's medals of the communist regimes. As one can see, it doesn't stand up. This has also been discussed before and the blanking of Nazi Germany awards and decorations has always been frowned upon. -O.R.^Comms 04:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

My intervention was not advocating any blanking, rather putting things to a reasonable, balanced level. To bring up a comparison with other military ensembles is quite amiss. Is somebody forgetting this specific case is about a member, of the highest level, of the SS, a criminal organisation, the operating genocidal hand of the Nazi regime? That is not my personal opinion; just read any of the leading scholars. When people use primary sources without any further topical argumentation or reasoning, plain verbatim, they undertake a dangerous game, they may hint at an undeserved eulogy, ultimately changing Wikipedia to a propagandistic conduit of those "good old days". At best it may be considered an unbalanced original presentation. Please, avoid to invoke other misplaced comparisons. Carlotm (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

To paraphrase editor Carltom from this thread, "The presentation of these awards could be warranted in an opus so deep and detailed that the publishing of any primary source may be justified." This is an encyclopedia entry and needs to follow the guideline of WP:summary style, which including an exhaustive list of minor party decorations goes against. Re: "has always been frowned upon" -- frowned upon by whom? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The blanking of Nazi awards has been extensively discussed on such articles as Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich as well as a much older discussion at Rudolf Hoess. In every case, at the end of the discussion, the users pressing the issue were asked to stop and, when they did not, the matter was eventually viewed as disruption and in at least one case (repeated blanking of Nazi and SS decorations against consensus) the user was blocked for vandalism. There are obvious strong feelings here, but the standard for the inclusion of award lists in publications of military history (per the standards set forth by the major US and UK publication companies of World War II works) is "an official decoration of the national government for which a citation, certificate, or orders have been issued". This is also the standard the United States National Archives uses when publishing reports on military figures (including German Army and Waffen-SS generals) and such reports do include all Nazi party awards, sports badges, and the German Occupation Medals since these are official decorations of the Nazi state which not only were issued with certificates but also annotated in service records maintained by the state. We can go around and around about thus, but this is cited academic material, we dont censor things on Wikipedia because we find Nazi Germany and the SS distasteful, and these awards need to stay in this article. -O.R.^Comms 16:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That opinion stated above I agree is relevant to the "Wehrmachtbericht reports", but that is comparing apples and oranges here. This is about historical listing which is part of the story of this person's bio, not propaganda. And if one digs deeper in understanding some are important indicators' of the persons life/career, so to speak. The Golden Party Badge tells us he was a Nazi Party member and if he had the upgraded version, it tells one that he was a favored member. The Honour Chevron for the Old Guard tells us he was an early member of the SS; when one has been awarded these, it diminishes later attempts of the person (which Wolff is guilty of) or writers on their behalf to state they were not Party members, nor more deeply involved in the Party or programs of the organization in which he belonged. Remember, we are to look at things objectively and present them in a NPOV way for the readers. Our opinions and WP:OR do not have a place in any articles. With that said, I agree there should be balance in presentation as with any article and believe here that most all should be kept as with any leading bio on a military or para-military figure. Kierzek (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@OberRanks: could you link to the discussion that you referenced? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Its archived on the talk pages I mentioned, I think the direct links are on your talk page. And those are the ones I know of; there have been others over the years. -O.R.^Comms 19:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

A listing of awards and decorations is antiquarian, not historiographical, let alone academic. Yes, phaleristics has become the subject of historiography, but mainly as a subject of cultural history. Which is not what this article is about. I have heard these arguments before: A list of awards, orders and promotions shows how deeply involved a person was with the Nazi system. Well, if that's important, why not write that comment into the article? Who knows right away what these awards convey about a person's career? I don't and I know a few things about Nazi Germany. What is more, this article elaborates about things which are simply not encyclopedic, like about some private photograph, presumably lost or destroyed, which presumably shows Wolff in a certain uniform. Isn't Wolff's involvement in the Holocaust more important? Is no one interested in what is known of Wolff's role in the Ardeatine massacre or in antipartisan warfare in Italy? What we do learn, however, is that he received the German Cross in Gold, because he managed to destroy partisans in areas "contaminated" by them and upheld the "war production in the Italian territory". Lest we forget, that he approved the project of the Marnate's Bunker. There is no "need" for these awards to stay in this article, and that has nothing to do with "censorship". It's a simple editorial decision, but indeed a problem of WP:NPOV. To maintain a neutral point of view in WP does not mean to remain neutral towards the Nazi system of values as expressed in their awards. I assume no one would suggest that we have to remain neutral towards, for example, Nazi legislation, either. As a guideline NPOV refers to "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Awards are not a reliable source on any topic. If anything they are a primary source. Besides, the display of each and every award gives WP:UNDUE weight to these awards, because they do not feature prominently in the major accounts of Wolff's career by Jochen von Lang and Kerstin von Lingen and if they are mentioned, they are put into context. I will fix some of the issues I have raised, and would suggest to confine the "awards section" to the relevant ones, i.e., those which are mentioned in the main body of the article. (If anyone should bother to ask, I do not discriminate between official decorations of any political system.) --Assayer (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Award and decorations lists are standard on Wikipedia for members of national military forces (of which Wolff was granted a military commission as a Waffen-SS general). As has been said before, the statements that certain awards are "insignificant" appears to be solely the view of individuals and not backed up by any Wikipedia policy nor the standards set forth in academic sources regarding lists of awards and decorations in military articles. And the idea that we should be removing Nazi awards because they are in some way offensive goes against numerous Wikipedia policies and is a double standard. One could argue the same for communist decorations, North Korean awards, awards of fascist Italy, Soviet Union, etc etc. I am making an appeal to editors not to edit war, since blanking of awards from a military article is, unless a substantial consensus can be reached, will be reverted. -O.R.^Comms 19:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of academic books which convey such information of promotions and awards, it is part of a subjects biography. There is no whitewash here about this persons life; your arguments Assayer smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. With that said, like other articles it could use some additional work and both Obenritter and myself have worked on it in that regard. As far as using a "primary source", it is from official documents in the National Archives. Kierzek (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"A listing of awards and decorations is antiquarian, not historiographical, let alone academic." - and your point? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for a general audience. It is not an academic publication. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Of all arguments, the argument "that's the way we've always done it", is the least convincing. First, consensus and "Wikipedia policy" are not the same. Given that there was some agreement between editors within a certain field, such a consensus is not enshrined forever. Second, I would like to learn which academic sources set forth the "standards" regarding lists of awards and decorations in military articles applied in Wikipedia. If there are "plenty of academic books", it should be easy to point out the books that deal with Wolff's awards in that detailed manner. R. James Bender Publishing certainly does not qualify as an academic publisher. Third, I noticed that this "Wikipedia policy", if there is one, is applied unevenly in the Wikipedia. Lists of awards are incomplete or absent in articles on Communist military or political leaders. See Iona Yakir, Nikita Khrushchev, Georgy Zhukov, Erich Mielke, Erich Honecker, Choe Yong-gon (army commander), Kim Il-sung, Mao Zedong, Zhu De, to name only a few. So even though certainly I did not argue, that Nazi awards should be removed "because they are in some way offensive", there may indeed be a double standard. If the SA Sports Badge, the German National Sports Badge or the Long Service awards were not be mentioned, that would be a "whitewash" of Wolff's biography? Given that Wolff had an appetite for awards and liked to pose with them for TV documentaries as late as the 1980ies, such a suggestion seems rather odd. Not only are official documents in National Archives primary sources, it is OR to infer just from the awards that people were "deeply involved in the Party or programs of the organization in which [they] belonged". Moreover, the article does not even suggest such a reading, but simply lists the awards. Finally, the Waffen-SS always remained a Party formation. Historian Bernd Wegner is very explicit on that. And have I just read a declaration of edit war? As far as I know, it needs at least two editors to wage an edit war. --Assayer (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You are right, there is no firmly established policy on Wikipedia on when, how, and in what manner awards should be included in articles. However, by practice, they are listed on most articles for military figures as well as political leaders who have amassed large numbers of decorations. For those who have extensive award histories, articles on the service itself have been created such as Service record of Heinrich Himmler and Service summary of Douglas MacArthur. As for the issues brought up here (repeatedly) we simply don't pick and choose which awards are listed based on personal feelings about their significance (read the article on the Army Service Ribbon, yet that award appears in every article on U.S. army generals for the past thirty years) or distaste as to the nature of why the award was presented or by what type of governmental regime. The given understanding is that the award lists may be cited from lists given in biographical texts or, if more practical, simply listed from a service record or a document like the DD Form 214 if its publicly available. With that said, I thank everyone for remaining civil in this discussion and avoiding edit wars. I've really said all I can on this subject and have posted the matter to the Military History noticeboard. That's about as much as I can offer. -O.R.^Comms 16:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Assayer, its not my job to educate you are the subject and you confuse how I am using the term "whitewash" here. To suggest that the National Archives, as a "primary source", somehow should not be used herein does not make logical sense in this application and if "[l]ists of awards are incomplete or absent" from other bios/articles (and thereby need additions and work), have at it. I am not going to go 'round and 'round on this when you appear at this point so firmly entrenched in your opinion and position. Nothing personal, and I await input from other editors. Kierzek (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Leave them there. It is common practice for all awards to be listed, and some articles even have a "ribbon farm" depicting the awards. If the awards can be reliably sourced, they should stay. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kierzek: The context of your posting suggested that your use of the word "whitewash" was to support your argument for the inclusion of promotions and awards. I'll discuss in more detail below, what I consider to be a useful referral to such awards. Documents located in archives are generally not easily accessible, so that the information is not easily verifiable. In case you refer to books based on archival sources - I have frequently seen Wikipedians who used personal files from archives for lists of awards and promotions. Once again, awards alone cannot be used to draw conclusions how "deeply" a person "was involved in the Party or programs of the organization in which he belonged", just like the Knight's Cross alone does not prove that the recipient behaved particularly bravely on the battlefield.

Wikipedia articles should rely on scholarly material when available. I doubt that such lists of awards are for the "general public".--Assayer (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It is amazing how easily SS service records are in fact accessible. The entire service record collection of the SS is on microfilm on the fourth floor of the National Archives (Archives II) building in College Park, MD. They also have a nice little finding aide folder to easily find individual SS members on the microfilm. It is all open to the public and the printing costs are not too high, I think last time I was there is was something like 30 cents a page but its probably gone up since then. The only SS members one might have trouble finding are the foreign legion SS members from the Latvian Legions and some of the Soviet conscript units formed out of POWs. Most everyone else is on those rolls, including all the big names of the SS. Its well worth the trip; stay in Maryland though, up towards Baltimore to get a cheaper hotel. Staying in DC up the road from the archives can get expensive. -O.R.^Comms 14:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Assayer the "context" of my use of the word "whitewash", you took that way, that is NOT what I meant and if you re-read my post you will see that what I am talking about there is the fact that this article does not have a POV bias and does not omit the facts that this man was both directly and indirectly guilty of war crimes and was involved in the Holocaust. That was my point; as for inclusion of at least 99% of his awards, I stated my position on that separately. Also, you have again raised in argument that "academic" sources are somehow the standard; they are not, as you have been told before. The standard is WP:RS. It is not our place to assume what is of interest and is not of the general reader we write for herein; it is common sense that a person's bio article should be reasonably complete. And lastly, the argument that the official records are not to be trusted here and not to be used as they are "generally not easily accessible" is frankly, misplaced here. If ever a primary source should be used it is here on this subject; further, the veteran editor who provided the citation has shown to be reliable in sourcing and on Wikipedia good faith is assumed; further, he has reviewed the records directly at the National Archives. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Starting to become a dead horse issue. It is obvious from the feedback of several veteran editors that these award lists are permitted and in fact encouraged on Wikipedia for these types of articles. These circular discussions about how certain SS awards should not be in articles, as well as implications that those adding them somehow favor the Nazis, really serve no purpose. -O.R.^Comms 14:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yours is not a "dead horse", but a horse of straw. In this discussion no one critical of the detailed awards section has implicated "that those adding them somehow favor the Nazis". That seems to be the universal way to fend off any argument by shedding a bad light on the other party. Neither did I suggest that this article is about "whitewash". I argued that awards are treated with an undue depth of detail. I also relied heavily on WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which is part of RS, and under the section headline Scholarship it reads Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible, which is very close to my wording "articles should rely on scholarly material when available". Further I refer to WP:INDISCRIMINATE: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. And I do not know of an exception to WP:OR, according to which "veteran editor"s are to be trusted, because of good faith, and because they have personally reviewed the records directly at the Archives. So far I did not claim that "the official records are not to be trusted", although I should have, because dates which are found in personal files of SS-men are not per se correct. You don't have to believe me, of course, although I consider myself to be a "veteran editor" as well, but I can provide a citation by historian Dieter Pohl or just take notice of Rudolf Höß' date of birth. I have to say that I perceive tips and tricks for research trips to the National Archive in College Park as arrogant and disrespectful. Although there is a significant number of editors in support of award lists, I do not see a "general consensus" for such a broad proposal like "lesser decorations such as campaign and service awards" should be included, "when such awards may be cited in reliable sources to include official service records and discharge/retirement government documents". This means nothing else than: Anything goes, because these documents mention pretty much every award imaginable. But now I know how "general consensus" and certain "Wikipedia policies" come about.--Assayer (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of SS trophies in award list

A list of awards is normal, but the SS Honour Ring and SS Julleuchter veer into the indiscriminate, since Wikipedia is geared towards the general reader, and not the collector of Third Reich memorabilia. There's nothing inherently informative about the SS ring, since (as I understand) all SS men received one. Various badges and non-combat decorations, such as the Memel Medal, could also go. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not correct. The presentation of the SS ring and sword were not automatic. They were decorations for exceptional service to the SS which were personally presented by Himmler. The SS rings were numbered and returned to a special SS vault upon the death of the bearer. So, in fact, to have ether the SS ring or sword was considered an exceptional honor. As for the julleucter, that's complicated issue as it was originally a trophy but then became an official award around 1936. It had its own line on official SS records and was no longer issued after 1938. -O.R.^Comms 04:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: "So, in fact, to have ether the SS ring or sword was considered an exceptional honor" -- this does not jive with Wikipedia's own articles on the topic:

• SS ring: "By 1939, it was available to any officer with 3 years service in the SS, and in World War II virtually the entire SS leadership, including the Waffen-SS and Gestapo, had been given the ring."
• SS sword: "It was also awarded to officers who graduated from the SS-Junkerschulen (Junker schools) at Bad Tolz and Brunswick."

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

K.E., first of all thank you for your civil discussion here and your raising of some valid points. The inclusion of the sword, ring, and SS julleuchter are definitely worth taking a look at. I will share what I know of these and how I came to include them in awards lists.

• SS Honor Ring: I reviewed the Wikipedia article as well and it mentioned a lot of the same points I had previously made. The SS honor rings were not automatically given out and they were in fact highly coveted by SS members as personal gifts from Himmler. They were inscribed, indexed, and if the bearer were to die or be killed the rings were to be retrieved from the body, even in a combat zone, and returned to a vault in the SS castle at Wewelsburg where Himmler maintained an archeology college. The SS rings were indeed considered of such importance as an award that there was a special space on the front of every SS service record reserved for recording its bestowal. The award of the SS honor ring is also mentioned in nearly every academic and biographical text I have ever read on the history of the SS and its members.
• SS Honor Sword: The Nazi manner of awarding swords and daggers as personal decorations has also caused some confusion and, with the exception of the honor sword, I agree we should not list them. The reason why the honor sword is a special case is because it was listed with a certificate and set of orders as if it were an actual award. The reason for this is that, within the Allgemeine-SS the bestowal of this sword was a high honor and seen as personal gift from Himmler for personal sacrifice to the SS. Not every General-SS officer had the honor sword and to wear it with the black uniform was seen as very prestigious. This all changed during World War II when the sword was issued by default to Waffen-SS officers. But, even then, the sword was only presented to regular officers of the Waffen-SS (full members of the primary Waffen-SS divisions) and was still seen as a point of honor to have earned it through the rigorous training at SS officer school rather than having earned a reserve Waffen-SS commission in the field. For this reason the honor sword isn't seen in the ranks of the later SS divisions and rarely within the Concentration Camp service, whose officers after 1942 were technically full members of the Waffen-SS. The fact that the sword came with orders and a certificate is what put me over the edge and I now list it on all award lists in professionally published works that I have written.
• SS Julleuchter: I used to not include this on award lists when I was doing research but then began to look more closely at this item since it was appearing (alot) in SS records as an official decoration. What I found out was that the julleuchter started out as simply a clay decoration given to SS members who attended a solstice ceremony. However, around 1936 to 1938 the julleuchter started being listed in service records as an award and by 1941 it was showing up with official orders and a letter signed by Himmler. What pushed me over the top on this one is that Amon Goeth received this award in a highly documented event which describes how it was ceremonially presented as an actual decoration, was issued with an award certificate, and then entered as an award into the SS record. Apparently only those who received the julleuchter in this fashion had it entered into service records this way. For that reason, and the julleuchter frequently mentioned in biography texts on SS members, I now record it on award lists and have done so even more in the past five years due to numerous questions about this when I speak academically with peers and students.

I hope that answers some of the questions here for why these three items should stay in awards lists. -O.R.^Comms 16:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• If they can be reliably sourced, they should stay. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• @O.R., this is not quite clear how the ring can be a special honour and "were not automatically given out", when ""in World War II virtually the entire SS leadership, including the Waffen-SS and Gestapo, had been given the ring" -- ? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC

I put a "citation needed" tag on that statement. I dont believe its correct that everyone in the senior SS leadership had that ring. For instance, with the exception of Oswald Pohl, none of the WVHA leaders did (Richard Glucks might have, but there are sketchy records on that point). -O.R.^Comms 14:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether they were a "special honour" or not. Even if they were a campaign medal issued to everyone, if they were issued to this fellow and we have a reliable source for it, there is no good reason why they shouldn't be listed. What possible harm is there in it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Question: I see the discussion about how many were issued/"how important is it if so many were issued". If we look at the US military decorations as a parallel, take Richard Nixon as an example. His bio lists his 2 Navy commendation medals. The NAVCOM is a lower level award, issued to thousands of people a year since 1943. Jimmy Carter's BLP lists the WW2 Victory medal, issued to every member of the US Armed Forces that served during WW2. If those merit mention in those articles, why would the fact that the Honor Ring was given out to so many negate the mention of it in this one? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Much the same point I was making, but better put. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Awards can be important for a person's biography, but they are not so per se and should be referred to and put into context in the text. Himmler's idea (as documented by a speech of November 1936) was not that every SS-member should receive a Julleuchter, but every married member should have one, because Himmler thought that the SS-member's wife and children would need something in place of the mythology of the church. As an award it is insignificant, although I would be curious about the presentation to Goeth. Nevertheless, it can become significant for a person's biography. When engineer Felix Wankel, a very early Nazi, but one who had run into trouble with other Nazis (he was not an easy person to deal with), was up for denazification, the Spruchkammer discussed how close he was to the SS, mentioning that he not only had received, but also displayed a Julleuchter. Such is not the case with Karl Wolff. His Julleuchter is but one of his many awards. If you are taking Nixon as an example: It seems that he has received no other military awards than the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal. There is no awards and promotions-section, the medal is mentioned in the text and, as I understand it, US presidents' service records are routinely put under scrutiny. My argument is that with Wolff too much weight is put on these awards. That something like Wolff's possible last promotion is mentioned in some literature does not mean that it needs to be detailed in Wikipedia, particularly since Wolff's documented appetite for awards and promotions is not conclusively discussed.--Assayer (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Re: "if they were issued to this fellow and we have a reliable source for it, there is no good reason why they shouldn't be listed" -- what would be the encyclopedic reason for doing so, if they are being cited to a primary source without any context? How does this enhance the reader's understanding of the subject?

The significance of the gifts is a valid question as it has been argued that these trophies "were decorations for exceptional service to the SS which were personally presented by Himmler", while the Wikipedia article on the SS ring does not state that. I hope that OberRanks can clarify. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I have generally been of the opinion that except for long service awards (congrats you failed to quit or be killed!) or 'wounded' awards (congrats! you failed to duck!) awards/medals for X should be included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Awards for being wounded in combat are usually highly regarded. For instance, in the United States, the Purple Heart allows tax breaks and free vehicle registration in some states. In Nazi Germany, the Wound Badge in Gold came with a lifetime pension for either the veteran or family member, which I think was maintained even after Germany lost the war. -O.R.^Comms 16:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The Wound Badge in Gold did not come with a lifetime pension as such. The eligibility for a pension was determined according to the degree of injury ("Kriegsbeschädigung") suffered. And it is not true that the decorations under review "are all official decorations authorized by the government of the nation in which the person served". Eight of the thirteen decorations initially mentioned by Carlotm are party decorations and not authorized by the German government, unless you want to make the case that the Nazi party, their organizations and the German government were one and the same. Which is not true either.--Assayer (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not authorized by the German government? If the SS was part of the National Socialist Party and they were the party controlling the German government. Even if you were correct under some technical interpretation, it ignores the realpolitik Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing debate

The result of the above discussion appears to be that Wikipedia articles should include lists of official state and military awards and decorations, including lesser decorations such as campaign and service awards, when such awards may be cited in reliable sources to include official service records and discharge/retirement government documents. While there is still some contention about including these lists in articles, there are literally hundreds of Wikipeida articles on military and political figures that provide award lists in this fashion. With that said, I recommend the following:

As this talk page discussion has gotten grossly out of control, I have recommended the above thread by archived in an attempt to end this circular debate which was also starting to infringe upon WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. I highly encourage subsequent comments should be made in an appropriate discussion page as follows:

• To discuss the merits of including Nazi awards and decorations in articles, please begin a new discussion at the WikiProject Military History talk page.
• To discuss including minor awards in articles, such as campaign and service medals, please also discuss at WikiProject Military History.
• To discuss specific awards earned by Karl Wolff, please begin a new talk page discussion at Service record of Karl Wolff.

I highly recommend that this talk page should not spin into another discussion about the merits of including award lists in Wikipedia articles. That is clearly outside the scope of this single article on Karl Wolff. -O.R.^Comms 05:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand this.... you've closed the debate with the recommendation that we start a new discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, the above is a recommendation to close this debate. The issue of discussing the merits of award lists in Wikipedia is off topic and the suggestion above was to take that discussion to another talk page if people still want to pursue it. -O.R.^Comms 18:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You altered the original post and made no mention of that, adding a 3rd "directive" and rewording the one that I questioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, since the original post was written prior to the creation of "Service record of Karl Wolff", thereafter requiring a rewording to advise of the new article. Users also don't typically need permission nor are required to post notification if they modify their own talk page posts. These are also not directives, they are recommendations. In any event, it looks like this discussion can be closed. -O.R.^Comms 10:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you needed permission, but making it clear would be polite since I raised a concern, then you went in and edited for clarity, making it appear that I wasn't able to understand it. But you're right, courtesy isn't required -Niteshift36 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your original question was answered here [2]. The editing of the original comment had nothing to do with your question or any suggestion about what you didn't understand, it was because a new article was created and the links had changed. That's a pretty normal thing to do; sorry about any confusion! -O.R.^Comms 16:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this discussion has a bad case of mission creep. This is not a forum for a wide-ranging conversation about Nazi awards, it is a place to discuss the Wolff article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karl Wolff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091014125227/http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Did%20Pope%20Pius%20XII.pdf to http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Did%20Pope%20Pius%20XII.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Logic ?

After the war, Wolff was forced to leave the army after the reduction of the German armed forces following the terms imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. In December 1918 Wolff joined a Hessian Freikorps - sounds somewhat illogical. Leaving the army, December 1918, because of terms imposed end of June, 1919 - ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Section: Alleged plot to kidnap Pope Pius XII

This reads like pop-culture trivia, with sources to match and the language of: Wolff testified...; Wolff maintained... and weak arguments by a nn author. I propose that a shortened version be moved into "Later life" since these claims were popularised by the 1972 documentary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've implemented the change. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)