Actually urqh my grandparents were in wartime Germany and told me the civilian view of the SS, my Grandmother was in fact adamant, argumentative, about her assertion that they simply did not exist separately from the Heer. Her words despite my references to the contrary, "There was no such thing, it was just a new army uniform for regular army, it had a double lightning bolt, they did not say SS, it was just a pair of lightning bolts and it was just regular army with a new uniform. To replace the old Kaiser's uniform." And whilst just a pedestrian, she has been within eyeshot of people like Galland, it's not like she doesn't have some close association at least emotionally to certain intimate wartime details. Yeah I know, her conclusions are erroneous and misguided, I know this not to be the case but sometimes there's a point where arguing with elderly people is just beating a dead horse and being a troublemaker. She's family, all you can do is make her a nice cup of tea and get her some biscuits. My point is what if the general population centres around the Baltic and central European states, which were largely Nazi-friendly had the same kind of impressions. Is there an argument for common perceptions as opposed to detailed postwar research and far more informed impressions of what was indeed going on back then? I mean, when you really think about it, you can't really blame them until you can be sure anyone would reasonably realise what exactly is going on, and what is expected of them. At that point, it is what they then do, but most of these foreign-SS wound up guarding interns and doing probationary crap. Cossack SS-recruits were just psychopaths unleashed onto their home communities no longer governed by indigenous justice systems, it was a pretty calculated strategy. I think in some cases, you can't really blame them for joining, one should look at individual records for actions taken, and in other cases they were recruited specifically because they were dangerous criminals.