Talk:23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)

Names

I notice this article uses names such as Srijem instead of Syrmia and Zombor (the Hungarian name for Sombor). Is there any particular reason for this? If not, they should be reverted (i.e. Srijem→Syrmia, Zombor→Sombor) per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. 23 editor (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi 23. A couple of good points, the article isn't consistent. The Syrmia one I've resolved by reference to the NDH Posavina County (which was the historically correct political unit at the time) rather than using a vaguely defined regional term with multiple versions. The other issue of naming is that at the time, the Hungarians had re-named quite a few geographical places to the Hungarian version. I think the approach suggested by WP:PLACE is probably appropriate here, inter alia "...former names (Constantinople, Ragusa, Stalingrad or Leningrad) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any), including such article names as Battle of Stalingrad and Sieges of Constantinople; not to mention separate articles on Constantinople and Byzantium on the historic cities on the site of modern Istanbul - or part of it. It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different languages to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945, likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig." As the area was under Hungarian political dominance at the time this article refers to, I suggest the appropriate approach is probably to use the Hungarian name, with the Serbo-Croat name in parentheses on first mention (or a permutation of that format). Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problems as long as place names in the article are consistent. The Serbian or Croatian names should probably be mentioned in brackets for clarity. 23 editor (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"never formally part of the Wehrmacht"

Isn't that a tautology? As I understand it, Waffen SS units were never part of the Wehrmacht. Am I mistaken? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

But nevertheless always under the command of the Wehrmacht, as the Waffen-SS never had a command above Army, and all Army Groups were commanded by the Wehrmacht. It is an important distinction, IMO. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Queries

• SS M43 undefined

It is just the model number, and designates it as the 1943 model. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• There may be some proper nouns that should not be italicized, per MOS:BADITALICS

That guidance is confusing at best, IMHO, and needs examples. I tend to stick to MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, and italicise terms not in Merriam-Webster. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, SG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Source of the division emblem in the infobox

I was recently looking through the Bundesarchiv and came across BArch N 756/183b, specifically page 8, which shows the insignia for SS-Pi.Btl. 23 "Kama". The logo depicted there is the same scimitar-and-arm inside a shield used by the 13th SS Handschar Division, with the only notable difference being that the bottom of the shield is slightly more rounded. This is also consistent with what appears in BArch N 756/168a on pages 391, 458, and 480 for the 13th SS.

However, the logo currently displayed in the article, featuring the Vergina Sun, appears to be completely different. The top right corner of the shield and the symbol differ from those shown in the document. I checked the Commons file and couldn't find a clear source—it appears to be user-created without any archival or published reference. I'm wondering if anyone knows the actual origin of the sunburst logo shield, other than it being displayed on the collar tab, or whether there's a reliable source linking it specifically to the 23rd SS Kama Division? Or alternatively—should the insignia shown in the Bundesarchiv be the one used in the article instead?

Here are the links to the Invenio Bundesarchiv documents in case anyone would like to check them:
13th SS Handschar (BArch N 756/168a): https://invenio.bundesarchiv.de/invenio/direktlink/ff864248-b3e7-4063-9942-e36eb6257552/
23rd SS Kama (BArch N 756/183b): https://invenio.bundesarchiv.de/invenio/direktlink/7f8b14a2-613c-47fc-8a76-a7472fb84375/

Any clarification or sourcing help would be much appreciated—thanks in advance. GereonGG (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

G'day, the insignia is mentioned in Pencz 2010, which it is cited to in the text. I will check a better source to see if it provides a conclusive position. The text also mentions that some of the troops of the division continued to use the collar patch of the 13th SS Division, which might explain the confusion. I'll get back to you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, Given Littlejohn states that the sun symbol collar tab wasn't ever issued, and he provides a different symbol as the divisional symbol (the one marked on vehicles etc for recognition), I've removed it for now and will get someone to create an image file of the correct symbol and add it when it is done. Thanks for raising this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe I may have come across one possible photo showing the collar tab in use, though it’s far from conclusive. It’s found in zu Ploën (2011), "Vor Haus und Hof und Kind und Weib: mit der 31. SS-Division an der Donau und in Schlesien", between pages 64–65. The photo shows two soldiers: the one on the right (Heinrich Schneider, Rgt. 80, 31st SS) is wearing a fez and the 13th SS Handschar collar tab. The one on the left (Franz Wimmer, Rgt. 78, 31st SS) appears to be wearing a circular collar tab. The caption reads: "Military hospital in Katowice, December 1944 / On the right: Heinrich Schneider, Regiment 80, wounded on 23 November 1944 near Dubosevica; on the left: Franz Wimmer, born in 1927 in Plawna, Regiment 78, wounded in November 1944 near Batina – photos by Heinrich Schneider". The image is slightly blurry, and the insignia could easily be mistaken for a Totenkopf or Nordland tab, but it looks completely full and doesn't seem to have any gaps or holes on it, so I'll take it with a grain of salt. If genuine, though, it might be the only photographic evidence of the insignia being worn in the field — making it extremely rare.

Also, I cross-checked your comment with Rudolf Pencz’s For the Homeland — p.4 states exactly: “The insignia was also to be reproduced on a special collar badge, but it is unlikely that it ever reached the troops in the field.” So your point is backed up 100%. I also found two online sources showing the vehicle insignia (apologies if I’m breaking any rules by sharing these links): https://www.valka.cz/23-horska-divize-SS-Kama-chorvatska-c-2-1944-1944-t102#207173 and https://www.afeditores.com/product.php?id_product=535

Unfortunately, I don’t have access to David Littlejohn's book to see the insignia, unless one of the references included in those links above. Out of curiosity, do you still plan to display the vehicle insignia inside the shield? And do we know the origin of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:23rd_SS_Division_Logo.svg? It doesn't seem to have any documented sources, and I’ve never seen them used on post-war HIAG commemorative items like the Bierkrüge that show the 38 Waffen-SS divisions. Additionally, this site shows a Handschar-style shield with a sun symbol in the center: https://handzar.jimdofree.com/drugi-svjetski-rat/slike/23-gorska-divizija/. Even if these versions of the insignia are inaccurate, I’d still be very interested to know where the design with the sun and the right-top canton came from, if a reliable origin can be traced.

Thanks you so much for taking the time to look into this — I really appreciate the effort and your responses. I apologise if I've rambled on a bit too much. I look forward to seeing the new insignia. GereonGG (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I've managed to find a copy of David Littlejohn's Foreign Legions of the Third Reich, Vol. 3 with the correct vehicle sign of the Kama Division on page 215, confirming my earlier assumption of if was the vehicle insignia with the links I provided. I just wanted to ask, will you be putting the vehicle insignia in a shield/canton? GereonGG (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Personally I think that the shield idea has resulted from people taking Keegan literally. Keegan's Waffen SS - the asphalt soldiers has a gallery of divisional insignia in shields on pages pp. 138–139, but I've never seen them stencilled on vehicles in a "shield". AFAIK they were routinely stencilled onto small squares of contrasting paint on the vehicle, for unit recognition purposes. Keegan's book doesn't even show the Kama one, but instead the Dutch 23rd SS Division Odal rune symbol. Littlejohn is a far better source than Keegan on such things, of course. As you can see from the same page as Littlejohn, a "sunflower" collar patch was (perhaps) intended but never used. I expect the reality in the short-lived division was that the ex-13th SS Division men wore their old collar patches (the handschar one with the swastika) or if new recruits, a blank one. So, I don't think there is a need for the shield/canton, and it is probably misleading. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

You’re definitely right about Keegan. He includes the post-war insignia of the French Charlemagne division (which wasn’t created until 1968 by its veterans), so yeah — makes sense to treat the visual stuff in that book with a bit of caution. It definitely puts the whole “shield standard” into perspective. Looking at Page 8 of the Bundesarchiv N 756/183b again, it actually seems like they had more or less settled on using the handschar shield, as there's a divider separating it from earlier designs, and the page is labelled “Designs for various coats of arms of the 23rd 'Kama'” which suggests that it may have been intended to replace the original Handschar emblem altogether. However, this is all just my speculation and not a clear explanation. That being said, I have a couple of suggestions for how we can solve the insignia issue in the infobox.

Option 1:

Use the proposed sword shield on Page 8, and put the sun logo inside the shield shape, with a caption along the lines of: “Proposed/draft divisional symbol of the 23rd Waffen Mountain Division ‘Kama’ (not officially adopted or used in the field).”

Option 2:

Just use the vehicle symbol by itself, which is arguably the most accurate representation. I completely agree with you that it shouldn't be forced into a shield format — I would've objected to it being put in a shield.

Option 3:

Use the Handschar shield/logo — maybe with a small explanation that it was carried over during the formation and used temporarily. Definitely not ideal, but it could be a placeholder if nothing else is deemed suitable, as afterall, it is the sister division.

Similar to what I've done for the 31st SS Division page, I would like to include all the collar tabs used by the division in the infobox. I'll add a note saying 'Manufactured, but likely never issued to troops in the field', as I have seen sources such as Pencz and 'The Waffen-SS (3): 11–23'. Divisions: v. 3 (Men-at-Arms), by Gordon Williamson, that mention this. I’m happy to follow your lead on this. You have more experience of how these things are handled on Wikipedia, as well as more knowledge of this topic overall, and I respect your judgement. I just thought I’d suggest a few ways to visually tie Kama into the broader structure, formatting and consistency of SS division pages without compromising accuracy. Personally, I prefer Option 1, but Option 2 is fine if we have to. I don't think Option 3 is very realistic, as it will confuse people with the Handschar page, but I've included it as an option anyway. Let me know your thoughts and which one you think would be best. GereonGG (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I completely forgot to mention this: I'd like to add an insignia section to the article at some point. If we went with Option 1, I'd still include the vehicle insignia in the article and go into more depth about the collar tabs, etc. How does that sound? GereonGG (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we must stick to what the reliable secondary sources say, which is that the vehicle identification symbol was the rune with the arrows up, left and right, which I’m hoping to have made. The approach I’ve tried to take with other Balkan SS divisions is to use the vehicle identification symbol in the infobox, and generally this is the approach commonly used with SS divisions in general. I don’t agree with using collar tabs in the infobox, and there probably is sufficient detail about the insignia already. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s fair to use the source. Just to clarify, in the first few paragraphs I am referring to the division's 'wappen', not the collar tab.

As I've mentioned before, Page 8 of the Bundesarchiv file N 756/183b (the document for the 23rd-SS Kama), clearly shows draft designs for divisional insignia. The caption reads “Entwürfe für Div. Wappen der 23. ‹Kama›,” and includes the Handschar divisional insignia at the top with a dividing line, a sun emblem at the bottom, and what would later become the insignia for the 34th SS Volunteer Grenadier Division (though rotated). It is likely that the same shield would have been used with the sword being replaced with one of the draft insignias. Based on information from various sources, such as Rudolf Pencz and David Littlejohn, it is most likely that the 16-raysun would have been used. Dated 1977, its a post-war visual record, compiled from archival materials and internal references, which would've been more accessible since it was only 30 years after the war ended. Furthermore, it's supported by secondary sources such as F. C. zu Ploen (who reproduces the very same sheet on pp. 64–65). Rudolf Pencz also draws from the Bundesarchiv "N756 Vopersal, Wolfgang" section, using N 756/198a, which is the first document relating to the 31st-SS. This can be seen on p.256 in the "Unpublished Sources" section. F. C. zu Ploen has also listed the same N 756/198a source in the "Archivdokumente" section on p.370.

I've also noticed a pattern in the insignia of the Waffen-SS mountain and cavalry divisions. All of them have a dip in the top middle of the shield. Some examples of mountain divisions which have this are Nord, Prinz Eugen and Handschar. Infact, every SS mountaineer division has this shield, suggesting that Kama would've continued this trend. I think it would be better to replace the infobox's divisional insignia with the draft logo in the future, along with a caption saying 'Draft design for a divisional insignia', as it would keep the infobox logo consistent with other Waffen-SS division's on Wikipedia. It was never officially adopted or used". Alternatively, if you still are not satisfied with the that approach, both draft logos could be included in a new section of the article dedicated to insignia. The aim is simply to document what was planned and designed with clarity.

Moving on to the collar tab, I think it's reasonable to include it in the infobox, especially since this tab design actually exists in historical documentation. It's included on pp.143 & 184 in the N 756/183b document of the 23rd SS Kama. Additionally, Martin Windrow's book: The Waffen-SS (Men-at-Arms Series, Osprey Military No. 34), shows the 16-ray sun insignia on page 26. David Littlejohn also does the same on page 215. The general consensus is that this insignia was produced, but likely never reached the troops in the field, which is exactly what Rudolf Pencz says on p.4. Therefore, I think it should at least be visualised in the article in some shape or form. You already put "Vergina Sun" as the identification symbol section of the infobox, so putting a visualised collar tab wouldn't be far from what is already there, except it properly clarifies what the insignia would've actually looked like, especially now that the 16-ray sun shield has been removed. A caption can be placed on the left of it that says "Divisional collar tab worn on the right side of the collar. Manufactured, but was likely never issued". If not, then a visualisation of the collar tab should at least be featured in the uniform section, similar to the Handschar article.

If you disagree, that's fine. I'm just presenting my argument as to why I think the source is acceptable and why the collar tab should be visualised and included in the infobox or uniform section. I'm not trying to be problematic, I'm just trying to act in good faith and add as much information possible for future readers on this topic. GereonGG (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this approach. Some of the above is WP:OR, and some is granular detail not needed in a WP article. What is likely or may have happened with divisional insignia is a matter of opinion and isn't appropriate for inclusion. There is an ongoing issue with the SS divisions and their insignia in infoboxes, and adding collar tabs and pocket runes and shoulder patches etc to infoboxes merely clutters them with little if any real value to the reader. If we have a definitive secondary source for the right side collar tab then it could be included as it has been in the Handschar article, however it appears that in this short-lived division they wore the Handschar collar tab if they were ex-Handschar, and a blank one otherwise. They cannot be considered something unique to this division, because in one case it is actually the collar tab of another division, and in the other is blank and there is no value to depicting a blank collar tab. A German soldier standing on the side of the road would see the vehicle insignia on the vehicles of the division as it went past, and in my mind that is what should go as the image in the infobox. Some people want to put shoulder patches (which varied across and within divisions, especially where multiple nationalities were members, such as Wiking), and some want theoretical or planned symbols. What we have for this division is a definitive vehicle recognition symbol (the modified Tiwaz rune as shown in Littlejohn, a reliable secondary source, not a primary one such as a document in the Bundesarchiv) which was unique to this division AFAIK. IMHO each article needs a unique symbol in the infobox, and for this one, the one you have added is the correct one as it is supported by a quality secondary source (Littlejohn). As to whether they are in "shields" or whatever, again, I've never seen a vehicle recognition symbol painted on a vehicle in a shield. I will seek to change the infobox image in all the division articles I have developed (13, 21, and 24) to a non-shield version of whatever Littlejohn says the vehicle recognition symbol was. I have aspirations to develop the 7th SS article, as it is the last of the Balkan SS divisions not to be an FA and the Balkans (or rather Yugoslavia in WWII) are my focus, and will do the same there. I'm not too fussed about the others, but I would observe that the only SS divisions that are FAs are the ones I've developed (with some help from a few other editors), so what has been done with the others is hardly definitive as it hasn't been reviewed by other editors, unlike the FAs. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can’t argue with that. I appreciate the help and glad that we could reach a resolution to fix the issue with the previous inaccurate insignia. Cheers. GereonGG (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)