Talk:12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend

"Armoured" redirect

Hey, the "Armoured" redirect that redirects to a wiki page about a film called "Armoured", someone fix? I would fix it myself but i really don't know anything about armoured division and since "armoured division" redirects to "division" and there's already a redirect to "division".... or someone could just remove the "armoured" redirect? lol I dont know i'm new to this stuff... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.11.27.204 (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary header

It is true that the whole of the SS, including the Waffen SS, was delared a criminal organisation at the Nuremberg trials. However, it is also true that the West German government of the 1980's (not sure of exact date) legitimised the W-SS by recognising the service they performed as a fighting force and granting them their war pensions. To remove this fact is to misrepresent history and as I understand it contrary to the aims of Wikipedia. It is not true that the '12th SS Panzer-Division in particular established a reputation for atrocities'. The division did commit atrocities, but as these were commited by a number of units, on both sides, there is nothing unique about the record of the 12th. Thanks. D.Mellor 6.7.06

On the contrary, many histories of the Normandy campaign mention the 12th SS specially for their murder of Candian POWs. Of course they were not the only unit to kill POWs, but they are particularly well-known for it, and for the large numbers killed. "Legitimized" is your word and is original research. Claiming that it is a reversal of Nuremberg is misrepresenting history, is it not? DMorpheus 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But surely, a democratic government can not recognise and grant funds to an organisation it regards as illegal. Therefore it must be legitimised.

That would be: original research (since it is your conclusion) ; a POV statement ("legitimize" is a volatile term to use when describing the Waffen-SS) and incorrect (pensions are given to individuals, not the Waffen-SS organization). DMorpheus 19:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I got to say that the HJ deserves a better name.

surely any mention of this unit must include mention of the events that made them notorious, like the killing of Canadian prisoners at Abbaye Ardenne. This was major news in the days after D-Day and resulted in intense fighting disregard on both sides for prisoner welfare.

• well, you can edit the page as well. Personally I don't have the details of that but feel free to add them! The Land 16:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that under the 'referances' section (and even in this discussion) no one has mentioned 'The history of the 12thSS Panzer Division 'Hitlerjugend'; Volumes 1 and 2' by Hubert Meyer as it is really the major source for anyone looking to write about the 12SS as he backs himself up with offcial documents and eyewitness accounts from both sides. Even though he does not dwell on the War Crimes caused as it's mainly looking at them fighting, he does mention the SS patrol finding the Officer stapped to the front of the Sherman, and other Allied War Crimes (even though the allied war crimes isn't the topic of this article i just thought i'd mention it) I would also like to say that dispite one person's comment 'Grenadiers' by Kurt Meyer is still a usefull resource in looking at the 12SS. After all, who said that the British and Canadian accounts arn't lying or have forgotten/added facts? Also look at 'SS-Hitlerjugend; The history of the twelth SS division 1943-45' by Rupert butler. I may add some information to this article but if anyone else would like to then i do recommend these books (especially Hubert Meyer's one as it's very detailed about the fighting, what units took place (offcial Allied reports were frequently wrong, especially when inventing Tiger companies) and also the casualties (you get the idea reading it that Meyer was frustrated with the lack of casualty information from Allied records when compaired to the Germans who were excellent at keeping them). Like i said before that little rant, this is showing people helpful resources if you wish to add anything to the article. I largely agree with this article, but i do have one thing to grumble about which is the fact that in everything i've read i've seen no hard evidence that Kurt Meyer ordered no prisoners to be taken (only shaky evidence at his trial). Bouncydave 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Allied War Crimes

Although this page is not the place for this, as User:Sam Spade has said, atrocities (or rather 'Questionable Actions') on both sides during the fighting around Carpiquet, Authie and Buron are well documented. Mohnke's issuance of a no prisoners order was in response to elements of the Canadian 3rd Division tying the body of a captured HJ trooper to the front of a Sherman V. I'm at work ATM, so don't have my sources and the only one i can think of offhand is the Michael Reynolds Steel Inferno: I SS Panzerkorps in Normandy, the Leibstandare IV/1 by Lehmann and Meyer's autobiography Grenadiere (although this last source is, admittedly, somewhat biased).

Also, see the webpage [[1]]. The well known images, one of which is posted on the page, clearly show SS-HJ men posed by a Canadian soldier after an Interrogation. I'm not argueing that SS-HJ was not condemned unjustly, as they themselves also inargueably committed war crimes in Normandy, but it is clearly documented that at least the Canadian 3rd Division did also perform several questionable activities with regards to HJ POWs. --Ansbachdragoner 02:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[note added by a14krr "Mohnke's issuance of a no prisoners order was in response to elements of the Canadian 3rd Division tying the body of a captured HJ trooper to the front of a Sherman V." factually quite incorrect and confuses an incident that occured where a recce armoured car crew of the Inns and Courts Regiment of the 3rd British Division (in the same area of fighting) tied captured German officers to one of thier cars and attempted to return to thier own lines. The officers refused to voluntarily sit on the car. The Germans were killed when the vehicle was fired on and destroyed. They might have been trying to get thier captives back but their motives may be more evil. There are no such documented cases of Canadian units tying anyone to a Sherman.]

---

The photo clearly shows an injured German soldier. The cause of his injuries is anybody's guess. You've interpreted it as torture, but there's no evidence of that in the photo. Also, there's nothing on the page you refer to that indicates the soldier in the photo is Canadian. In fact, the (unattributed) quote on the page only refers to "English" and "British" soldiers (specifically the The Inns of Court Regiment, a regiment from England). There's nothing to suggest that any Canadians --members of a completely independent allied army-- were associated with the events.

[Note from A14KRR: The picture is from official Canadian sources and I'll get the DND and Public Archives print numbers and full caption. It is a Canadian soldier. I know that it was taken in August not June and is therefore quite innapropriate for this discussion. As there were no incidences of 12SS killing Canadians documented after July 17th it seems unlikely that anything similar was going on on the Canadian side. I know the caption simply states its a 12th SS prisoner. There are several photos of 12th SS prisoners under guard in the Canadian collection including a couple taken early in June. Until we find documentation that all the 12 SS prisoners politely marched into captivity without a fight it seems less than useful to employ pictures that show injured prisoners. A14KRR ]

As for the case of attrocities on both sides, even had the Canadians (or British, as that seems to be the accusation on the website you cite) actually tied a German soldier to a tank, this would still be no justification for the shooting of 18 prisoners (or many more, if the other cases attributed to SS troops at this time are included) nor especially for an order to take no prisoners whatsoever. Reprisals, to have had any legal justification in the law of war, must be measured and of no greater severity than the original offence that provoked them. An order to take no prisoners, or to execute a disproportionate number of prisoners in reprisal is thus a war crime.

-Edited out the line "The issuing of orders not to take prisoners in retaliation for a certain action by the enemy was a daily occurrence in both the German, Canadian and British commands." since this appears to be an unsubstantiated claim that allied forces committed as many attrocities as the SS and Hitler Youth. Please provide references to supporting evidence (preferably something other than the autobiographies of SS war criminals).

Same comment - "The issuing of orders not to take prisoners in retaliation for a certain action by the enemy was a daily occurrence in both the German, Canadian and British commands" I have never heard of such an order in British or Candian units. Unless a credible citation can be provided this comment does not belong here. DMorpheus 00:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistent Numbers In War Crimes Descriptions

Under the 'Normandy Campaign' heading of the article, this is stated:

"It is during this period [on June 8th, see prior paragraph] that 18 Canadian prisoners of war from the Nova Scotia Highlanders were executed at the Abbey Ardennes by elements of the division."

Under the 'War Crimes' heading of the articlee, this is stated:

"When the division was first engaged in action in June 1944, there were several cases of atrocities being committed. On June 8, thirty-six Canadians were allegedly executed by Wilhelm Mohnke's SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment 26."

At the very least, these numbers are not consistent.

Further, as a general issue, I think the war crimes of the 12th Panzer Division Hitlerjugend need concise, clear and direct citations to make sure a genuine NPOV is achieved. Cheers, Madmagic 07:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

Madmagic,

The two quotes which you refer to in the article above refer to two different events, one (the Abbaye Ardennes massacre committed on June 8 by elements of Kurt Meyer's SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment 25) is confirmed while the second, perpetrated by Wilhelm Mohnke's SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment 26, is only alleged.--Ansbachdragoner 03:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake Ansbachdragoner. :) I was paying attention to the dates and missed the different unit designations. Cheers, Madmagic 04:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Why was this text removed? It is during this period that 18 Canadian prisoners of war from the Nova Scotia Highlanders were executed at the Abbey Ardennes by elements of the division. DMorpheus 00:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure why there is so much squabbling regarding the "war crimes" committed in Normandy. Even if all the allegations are true, they wouldn't amount to a pimple on the backside of the war crimes committed on the Eastern front. The Soviet forces - the supposed "good guys" - committed Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army, genocide (see Katyn massacre and Gulag) and ethnic cleaning. The war crimes committed in Normandy pale in comparison to the horrors of the Eastern Front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRobe (talk • contribs) 10:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the war crimes in Normandy "pale in comparison to the horrors of the Eastern Front" - you can't use one to excuse the other - both were war crimes and both deserve equal scrutiny. You could also say the crimes committed by the Soviets in East Prussia and Germany pale in comparison to the German crimes committed in Russia and against Russian POWs - does this excuse either one? Zargon2010 (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of figures etc

This article has many factual errors and I'm attempting to correct as many as I can. There is a lot of information in various primary (archives etc) and secondary (books about the campaign) and they are growing in accuracy and depth as time goes on. post any questions here and I'll try to clarify.

There is a growing tendancy to lionize the accomplishments of units like the 12 SS (which indeed were many) and ignore thier offences, but that is not a reason to not put thier mistakes and failings in the same places in order to let newcomers form thier own opinions. My theory on this is that the Waffen SS have historically been made scapegoats for larger issues around the Nazi regime. They were all denied pensions by the West German government just like the regular SS while Army Navy and Air Force vets were accorded pensions.

Many who don't like to see references to the murders committed by a small number of the division's members try to counter by claiming the same things were done on both sides. Thier is no evidence to support that (at least so far). So far there is no anecdotal or official documented instances of this happening on the Canadian side of this fighting. There are instances on both sides of men being killed as they attempted to surrender or as they attempted to get thier enemy to surrender but who among us can judge those actions? Once men are disarmed and leave the fighting under guard the issues are totally different.

I have found descriptions of a serious rift within the leaders of the 26th Regiment about the killing of prisoners by that unit and the 12th Reconnaisance Company. Even as his men fought on against the Canadians on the 8th of June, Bernard Siebken (commander of the 26th Regiment) had a confrontation with his commanding officer Whilhem Mohnke where he complained that prisoners he was sending to Mohnke's headquarters were being killed. He appealed to the division's Intelligence Officer Hubert Meyer (later the division's commander after Kurt Meyer's capture) who informed Siebken that there was no policy that sanctioned the killing of prisoners and in fact they were a valuable intelligence resource. Siebken attempted to contact Mohnke but in the fighting that was still ongoing was unable to reach his commander. Siebken held some remaining Canadians at his own headquarters in the understanding that Division would intervene in the matter. A few hours later Siebken was out among his fighting troops and an officer from Monke's headquarters arrived at the company headquarters and orderded the junior officer in temporary command to personally take the Canadians out and kill them. Very much against his wishes but realistically afraid to refuse the order, he complied.

A man like Siebken deserves to be known to all of us and deserves our utmost respect as a soldier. I'll leave the overall judgements about the cause for which he fought to another forum. Can the same be said for Mohnke?

I'll add this to the war crimes section if I get the proper sources documented. It shows the fact that murders were being committed and that it was being ordered against the moral objections of others within the division.

The article is getting much better and more even handed and hopefully that will continue.

Lets all try to keep it a fair as possible.

A14KRR

On the contrary, over the last few weeks it has become more and more pro-Nazi. DMorpheus 01:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's scarey ... I hope the guys who think having pseudo German usernames is appropriate feel the opposite way. If you have the time let me know what in the recent additions makes you feel that way. Maybe simply knowing about Siebken's actions is enough. Its a difficult thing to write about because the more I know about these "people" the more I am impressed by the actions of some and the more I detest the unfathomable subhuman and pathalogical behavior of others among them. I guess you always have to keep your eye on the issues of why any of them were there in the first place and for what evil they were ultimatly fighting. Those are inarguablly cut and dried are they not?

Recent Edit: I removed 'In a fighting force where brutal discipline that would be considered totally unacceptable in any modern army was used to control the troops and where battle police routinely shot their own men it is hardly surprising that crimes occurred.' It does not fit with the earlier description of the unit: 'A result of this was that the morale of the HJ was exceptionally high, and the relationship between the officers, NCOs and men was an informal one, based on mutual trust and respect.' Remember, with an issue like this one individual biases come to the surface very easily. Maybe people with strong feelings about the war should be more careful before editing...

Reply: I take your point but woud it not fit if that mutual respect between the officers and men includes some kind of mutual acceptance that killing large numbers of captured prisoners is to be tolerated? Being a fine fighting force does not make all of its actions comendable. I have strong feelings as obviously you do and I am careful, and thorough. Before wading into this I put a lot of days into researching it. The thought that the training and discipline endured by german combat troops during the Second World War weakened the humane nature of many of them is not my own. I was told that by a veteran of the Grossdeutchland division.

Thanks A14

Normandy - Norrey

This section, concerning Mohnke's 26th Pz Gren regt attack on Norrey is quite confusing and there are some errors.

Firstly, the present article seems to confuse the attacks launched on June 8th. It is said in the article that Mohnke's grenadiers pushed the "Winnpeg Rifles" out of Norrey-en-Bessin - this is inaccurate. Norrey-en-Bessin was held by the Regina Regiment and was never reoccupied by the German's inspite of several attacks launched on the village.

Referring to the present article, the attack that is stated as starting at "03:30" on June 8th, is referring to the attack by I/26th on Norrey. Norrey was well-defended by C Company of the Regina Regiment, with artillery support, and the attack failed.

Another attack launched on June 8th - by II/26th - is the one that was most successful (albeit temporarily). This attack was not on Norrey-en-Bessin, but on Putot-en-Bessin - which was defended by the Royal Winnipeg Rifles (hence why I think this is where the confusion arises). Despite the similar sounding names, there is a lot of difference. The attack was launched later than the 1st Battalion's attack (around 04:00), and succeeded in capturing Putot and overrunning three companies of the Winnipeg's. A counter-attack by the Canadian-Scottish, at 20:30hrs recaptured the village for the Canadians. A lot of these facts are mentioned in the present article - but are said to have occurred at Norrey rather than at Putot.

I can provide sources if you require them? BobFish 16:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, have gone ahead and changed the Norrey section. Hope it's okay. Have also added a reference, and a References list at the bottom of the article. BobFish 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Proven War Crimes Are Not "Allegations"

I've just edited the opening paragraph of this article. It was needed.

The war crimes committed at the Abbaye d'Ardenne by soldiers of the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend are not "allegations." They are a known and proven historical fact.

There may be other war crimes accusations against this military unit which are not proven or known historical facts. The killing of the Canadian POWs at Abbaye d'Ardenne is not open to question.

You can read the story -- including the names and ranks of the Canadian POWs -- here:

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=Memorials/ww2mem/ardenne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmagic (talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. If the citations and references were improved, this article would easily be B class if not GA --dashiellx (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. ;( The article is full of grammatical errors and dubious uncited or poorly-referenced content now. DMorpheus (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources re tactical abilities

Would it be possible to find some sources for this article that talk about the division's actual military abilities, and in terms that aren't simple platitudes? The Canadian official historian, Stacey, notes that the attacks of the first few days in Normandy were pushed ahead "with little tactical skill" for example, which seems a fair assessment given the unco-ordinated nature of these affairs and the high casualties they suffered. Most histories of the J.J. Fedoriwicz-All Brothers Are Silent school of Nazi Fandom seem quite content to simply write about how valiantly the flower of German youth sacrificed themselves on the altar of Aryan freedom, but certainly we can do better. Just how good - or not - were they, from a procedural/tactical point of view? It seems almost impossible to find anything in print that actually bothers to assess them, though Stacey's point seems apt and hopefully the tip of the iceberg. Did they improve any? Can we prove it?139.48.25.60 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Professor Sir Michael Howard (a military historian and WWII veteran) said: Until a very late stage of the war the commanders of British and American ground forces knew all too well that, in a confrontation with the German troops on anything approaching equal terms , their own men were likely to be soundly defeated. They were better than we were: that cannot be stressed too often. Every Allied soldier involved in fighting the Germans knew that this was so, and did not regard it as in any way humiliating. We were amateurs ... drawn from peaceful industrial societies with a deep cultural bias against all things military ... We blasted our way into Europe with a minimum of finesse and a maximum of high explosive. Time and again, Howard's point is re-made. It's quoted in Max Hasting's Armageddon, chapter 5. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect, that does not in any way address the question posed. We're concerned with one unit in one engagement, not with the entire nazi military. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also this from the lead Described as a "crack" division ref Stacey, C.P., Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War, Volume III, p.137 /ref Seems the official Canadian Army historian believes they were better then average Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

They Canadian history very clearly describes their tactical ineptitude in the Normandy fighting. The "crack" label is a reference to their cadre of LAH veterans, who applied their Eastern Front experience very incorrectly to the tactical situation in Normandy, which was completely different. The cited articles explain fully why this is so. A good reading of the article as it stands now gives the reader a good appreciation of why this is.Michael Dorosh^Talk 13:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced this cited content which was removed by user Jim Sweeney. Kindly do not remove cited content. There is no undue weight issue here; it's one small portion of a paragraph. DMorpheus (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The undue weight was having this in the lead section this is in reference to one battalion executing one attack badly - I think you will agree this does not give a true reflection of the divisions performance over the last 11 months of the war and if you had bothered to read the article you will see it was added further down in the Normandy section of the article --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First, please refrain from personal attacks. You have no idea what I have read or not read. Confine your comments to edits, not editors. Second, I agree with you that it doesn't belong in the intro. Nor does the hanging sentence, "On June 7th the Division attacked allied troops." or whatever it now says, rather randomly. Third, because I agree with you, I replaced the content in the Normandy section (where you now say it belongs) rather than the intro. Fourth, you did not restore all of it, only part of it.

This needs cleanup. The random sentence in the intro should be gone, but the full statement from the Canadian history should be restored in the Normandy section. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That sentence is now restored - it was hidden in a cite, but not visible on the page unless one went into edit mode.139.48.25.60 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-published web sources

I am skeptical of the quality of such self-published web sites as axishistory.com and history.com. Seems to me we can come up with better sources than these for some of the tagged items in the article. Please see WP:RS Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Youngest divisional commander?

After 14 June 1944, it was also commanded by the youngest divisional commander fielded by any army of the war, when Kurt Meyer was appointed commander. <ref name=History.com/>

Do we really know that Meyer was the youngest divisional commander on either side in WW2? I haven't seen a reliable cite on that. Remember there were a lot of divisions in the Red Army ;) and on average, their officers were far younger than their German counterparts at most levels. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove he was not there is more then one publication that states he is. They have an agenda as they are German in origin, but remember the Red Army used the title Division for what was little more then a large brigade. If your unhappy I will remove the statement. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Red Army rifle divisions were about 9,000 personnel at full strength - quite a bit bigger than western brigades; they had 527 of them in May 1945. There were also 20-odd cavalry divisions and all the Tank and Mechanized Corps that were the true equivalent of western armored divisions. We know from Glantz (Stumbling Collossus) that the average Red Army Corps commander was 15 years younger than the average German divisional commander in 1941, and they probably got younger as the war went on, so it seems self-evidently dubious that Meyer was indeed the youngest divisional commander in *any* army. The source given is not particularly high quality. The issue isn't whether I am happy, because no one cares whether I am happy ;0 the question is whether this statement is reliably sourced, and I don't think it is.

An actual book giving this claim would meet wikipedia standards; I admit I'd still be skeptical but then it would be solely my problem, not the article's.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fritz Witt was 34, Meyer was 33 when he took over. Looking for a reliable source it appears a German General was killed every 3 weeks of the war, that would lower the average age. you would think a General would be safe behind the lines Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A good general is not safe behind the lines. As Eisenhower said, a General is expendable just like any other piece of gear. ;) DMorpheus (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

False claim the division held the Canadians and British from capturing Caen

The claim has been made that the Division "stopped the Canadians" from taking Caen. This comes from Canadian Military HQ report 131 on Normandy:

Having attained and consolidated its line, 3 Cdn Inf Div, with 2 Cdn Armd Bde, assumed a defensive role to protect the bridgehead which had been established. This new role lasted from 12 Jun to 3 Jul 44. The following commentary is of interest:

The battle has, in the main, developed into a counter-battery one. our reinforcements in personnel and equipment have brought us up to strength except for about 35 tanks. We are ready to reassume the offensive. At present, however, our role is a holding one. Our divisional front which extends over 8 miles of open country necessitates a 3 Bde up disposition and prevents us from collecting a force to launch an attack without prejudicing our task of defending the beachhead. (War Diary, General Staff, H.Q. 3 Cdn Div: 14 Jun 44)

In other words, the official role of the 3rd Canadian Division was to hold in place, according to their own divisional war diary. They were not trying to take Caen until the opening weeks of July, when they did so, punishing the 12th SS Division heavily in the process. They cite their role as "defending the beachhead". One can just as easily say that the 12th SS Panzer Division failed in their attempt to drive the Canadians into the sea - if that was actually their intent. Apparently, it was not - both divisions were in static positions for the better part of June after the battle at Le Mesnil Patry on 11 June 1944, and the resumption of hostilities with Operation WINDSOR and Operation CHARNWOOD in the first week of July 1944.139.48.25.60 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Caen was a D Day objective for the British / Canadians. One under strength Division that did not receive any reinforcement in men or material and according to stacy The division was has been criticized for performing inadequately in the opening days of the Normandy campaign kept both armies out of Caen for a month how does this reflect on the British and Canadian divisions if the 12 SS was so poor. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's step back a moment.

Caen was a D-Day objective for the *British* 3rd Infantry Division. They didn't even attack the city on June 6 - they halted before they got there. HJ wasn't even committed to combat on June 6. So in the initial attempt, the records of neither the Canadians nor the HJ are relevant.

The second serious attempt to take Caen was by the *British* 7th AD in the Caumont gap / Villers-Bocage debacle. Again the HJ had no role in that fighting.

It is plain silly to argue that somehow the supermen of the HJ kept anyone out of Caen. Caen and Cherbourg were the focus of pretty much the whole allied effort in Normandy in the early stages (Cherbourg till June 27 and Caen till July 18-20). To claim that one division kept an Army Group main effort from succeeding is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence. We don't have that here and we won't get it, because most of the historians won't back the claim. The HJ played their role as part of a much larger force, as did the Canadian 3rd ID. Let's not over-state what the sources say. The claim is indeed false.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney's analysis is highly flawed - newer research is coming to light - see Milner's STOPPING THE PANZERS. The role of 3rd Canadian Division was not to take Caen, but to do exactly what they did do - stop the armoured counterattacks from reaching the beaches. 12th SS was a miserable failure in Normandy.198.161.2.211 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The 12th SS Panzer Division Hitler Jugend was almost annihilated during Operation Goodwood when Hitler, after initially issuing a 'No withdrawal' order to his panzer forces, was later forced to rescind it, and the division, along with the Panzer Lehr, which had suffered similar losses to the 12th SS, were reluctantly allowed to withdraw.

English unit designations

Why does Jim Sweeney keep littering this article with German-English unit designations? "I Battalion" is idiotic. "1st Battalion" (two t's, one l) is the English translation of "I Bataillon" (one t, two l's). Either we're doing this in English, or in German - why does Sweeney keep insisting that doing it in half English, also half German, is correct? I thought this was an English Wikipedia. My proposal is to put all unit designations in English - i.e. 1st Battalion, 2nd Battalion, 7th Company. 139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - I obviously support my own nomination.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the correct unit names ? German battalions are I , II , III etc not 1st, 2nd, 3rd and Regiments are Panzergrenadier Regiment 25 not 25th Panzergrenadier Regiment and even the article name is 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend not Hitler Youth and yes this is the English Wiki but we have Le Régiment de la Chaudière should we also translate that to English ? I am not sure but I believe you have to log on and create an account fot you vote to count , also this should posted on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/German military history task force for the project to decide. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question and not as simple as it seems. For example, the phrase "12th SS Panzergrenadier Division Hitlerjugend" is itself a mix of English and German. So some common sense, rather than rigid adherence to some rule, should be applied.

At the same time I do not know whether German battalions are numbered with the roman I, II and III. If they are we should use that. I've also seen "1st Company" etc in many books rather than "I Company" so is this solely at the Battalion level?

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The way they used to id formations was 1/25 = 1st Company 25th Regiment or I/25 = 1st battalion 25th Regiment. So the correct Battalion designation is in Roman numerals. The other way to id the Battalion is by the company number 1-4 in I Btn, 5-8 in II Btn and 8-12 in III Btn. 13,14,15,16 companies are Regimental formations Flak company Engineer company etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Source please. Please note in your two comments you've contradicted yourself on regimental designations. DMorpheus (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a web based source for a quick check = http://www.pegasusarchive.org/normandy/order_ISSpanzer.htm

and another example is here List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question 'why not' is simple - it is confusing to the uninitiated reader. This is not a German military journal, it is an English language encyclopedia. Besides which, the references aren't written correctly. I Battalion simply looks like the letter "l"; and it isn't even written with any consistency. At least an arab ordinal is consistent with other military articles. Are we writing an article about the division, or about arcane German military terminology? In short - what is important here? Besides which, the correct way to write it would be a period after the Roman numeral, which the barely literate Mr. Sweeney has neglected to include. Perhaps it is only laziness. Incidentally, what is an "id formation"? Is this some type of Freudian military thing? Do you have a reference? It sounds fascinating. 68.145.185.64 (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A good point I will add the . after the I , II , II etc Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

B class

In order to keep the recent B class rating, I think a few "citation needed" tags need to be addressed. (Hohum ^@) 19:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Performance

The sentence in the lead regarding the performance in the opening days is cited with.

"Oliver Haller, a graduate of Wilfrid Laurier University, is currently pursuing advanced studies at Phillips Marburg University in Germany. This essay is based on his Laurier B.A. thesis."

discussion ended.... Blablaaa (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Text suggestion something like: In the opening days of the normandy campaign the division didnt fulfill the expections. During the campaign the division matured and become one of the ((strongest ??? other word )) armored division being active in the normandy..

MY english isnt good so maybe somebody writes something decent. I guess this describes the reality pretty good, doesnt it? regarding the "strongest", u can find many citiations in british and canadian works and reynolds i guess. Blablaaa (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

War crimes

The division undoubtedly committed war crimes but the section concentrates on one man Meyer. More about the division less about the man. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Section "War crimes" - Ardenne Abbey massacre

Much better content exists in the Ardenne Abbey massacre article vs this poorly sourced content. The perpetrator is not a reliable source in discussing the crimes they are accused of. I would like to rewrite based on the linked article. Or, if editors are monitoring this article, please rewrite. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This article does not appear to be monitored, so I went ahead and made the changes, drawing from respective articles - Ardenne Abbey massacre & Ascq massacre. I put the sections in the chronological order to conform to the article's structure.

Here's the text that was removed

Between 7 and 8 June 1944, Canadian prisoners were executed by elements of Kurt Meyer's 25th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment at the Ardenne Abbey just to the west of Caen. As this was Meyer's command post, he, along with several subordinates, were charged with this crime after the war. Testimony at Meyer's war crimes trial, later deprecated, suggested that Meyer later made it clear he expected no prisoners to be taken during subsequent fighting. The evidence for this (called Exhibit T3, a handwritten testimony) was a set of secret orders given during training that was remembered by SS-Schütze F. Tobanisch who said that receipts of these orders had to be signed by all soldiers. No supporting testimony was provided and the witness was not available to the court. Also on 7 June the bodies of men, from the 21st Panzer Division and staff from 12th SS, were found shot in the head near Rots, which may have been a factor in the execution of the prisoners, according to Meyer.

All the charges against the 12th SS are dated between 6–17 June. No official encouragement of those events has been documented, unlike the situation of the Canadian forces where Meyer claims that a "no prisoners" edict was in place as evidenced by documents captured from Canadian officers at the time. According to Meyer, the 12th SS Panzer Division returned three times the level of prisoners as other divisions.

After the war, Meyer was tried and condemned to death by a Canadian military court for collusion in the shooting of Canadian and British prisoners. The main weight of the Prosecution's case rested on Jan Jesionek. Jesionek was a Pole who is alleged to have been forcibly conscripted into the Waffen-SS from which he deserted. Jesionek's testimony was refuted by Meyer and as a result Meyer's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by Canadian Major General Christopher Vokes, who considered all evidence against him circumstantial. Vokes recognized that in the heat of battle it was often difficult to decide who had killed an enemy and who had murdered a prisoner. There was no direct proof Meyer ordered the murder of Canadian prisoners but it was clear from physical evidence collected after the fighting that dozens of unarmed Canadians had been murdered after being interrogated by Meyer, who at the time, was the commander of 25th Panzer Grenadier Regiment. This can also be considered retaliation for what Canadian soldiers did to three captured German officers by tying them to their vehicles. Two were subsequently shot and killed while passing through the lines; the third one managed to crawl back to his lines where he subsequently died 3 days later. As the unit's commander, Meyer – while not guilty of the murders – was held fully responsible for the crimes committed by soldiers under his direct command.

References

Sources

Would these sources be considered reliable in this context? These are participants of the events/unit commanders, so should these, as memoirs, be moved to section Further reading?

Currently: References

• Meyer Kurt, Grenadiers, JJ Fedorowicz Publishing ltd, 2001, ISBN 0-921991-59-2
• Meyer Hubert, The 12th SS: The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division, Stackpole Books, 2005, ISBN 0-8117-3198-7
• Meyer Hubert, The 12th SS Volume Two: The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division, Stackpole Books, 2005, ISBN 0-8117-3199-5

Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Part II: Additionally, large sections of the article rely on the article by Latimer -- the are about 20 references to this article. This article is based on Meyer's account and cannot be considered reliable in this context. Any objections to significantly rewording this section to remove both sources as they are used uncritically (i.e. from Latimer: "‘Little fish,’ Meyer called the enemy. ‘We’ll throw them back into the sea in the morning.’" etc.)?

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Objection to 'Leaps of Faith' being stated as Fact

Redirected as suggested

Redirected, where? Suggested, by whom? And, who are you? Carlotm (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Casualty rate in the summer of 1944

The 80% casualty rate mentioned in this article is incorrect. Whoever cited George Stein's "The Waffen-SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War 1939–1945" for this specific percentage failed to understand that it referred to the division's Kampfstärke, or maybe Infanteriestärke. In truth, in the 6 June - 22 August timeframe, the division lost aprox. 8,000 out of 20,540 men. Stein mistakenly quotes a few passages from Kurt Meyer's Grenadiere, that obviously present the unit's Kampfstärke of 500-600 men (frontline soldiers only), as if they referred to the entire division.

MihaiStr96 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

So what a surprise that is a war crime SS fan boy page

Knightofen.

White knight of the Waffen SS.

Fantastic people.

War crimes.

Shit combat record.

Especially these kiddies.

Ran in terror from Poles with proper equipment and armor when they fought 5:1 advantage against those Poles.

This page is an absolute Wehrboi disgrace.

If you have any constructive edits, feel free to make them. Unfortunately none of your previous edits, about 3-4 months ago, had any citations. Additionally, you write non-encyclopedic content, such as addressing individual users, into the article itself. All war crimes I can think of are written into the article.Knightoften (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)