Please - everyone interested in this (SDK) topic - read veteran memoirs.
They'll always have more value than historians' research.
That statement, more than anything else you have ever posted here, is the most absurd and insulting. It is the statement made by someone with a very narrow mind and frame of reference.
Your main issue concerns the following:
.......Meanwhile, major changes were occurring in Berlin that had an impact on many of the non-German volunteers who were fighting with the German forces. There was a branch-of-service redistribution by ethnic group, and the Serbian volunteers now found themselves under the authority of the Waffen-SS. The order effecting the transfer was dated 9 November, but not formally recognized until 27 November. At this time the S.F.K. consisted of a corps staff, five regiments each with three battalions, a signal company, a mountain supply detachment and a German liaison staff -at least this was its composition on paper.
It is important to point out at this time that the S.F.K. 's relationship with the Waffen-SS was consumated officially, but never organically. The troops never wore the uniform of the Waffen-SS, and it is doubtful whether the relationship ever went beyond the simple exchange of a limited amount of paperwork. The S.F.K. 's situation was quite similar to that of the XV. Kosaken-Kavallerie-Korps, which was also taken into the Waffen-SS at about the same time.......
The footnote for the first paragraph is:
OKH, GenStdH/Org.Abt. Nr. II/47133/44 g.Kdos., 27.11.1944, in: NARS T-78, roll 432, frame 6404254; Klietmann, K-G. - Die Waffen-SS: Eine Dokumentation, Osnabrück: Verlag .'Der Freiwillige.', 1965, pp.383-84.
The footnote for the second paragraph is:
Verheye, Pierre C.T. - letter to the author dated 18 September 1980.
The above comes from the original manuscript as published in Richard Landwehr's SIGRUNEN periodical some 20 years ago. The two paragraphs made it quite clear that the relationship of the S.D.K. to the Waffen-SS was "official" as opposed to both "official and in practice." If you disagree with the footnoted sources, then PROVE they are wrong. The cited sources are incontestable as any historian would immediately recognize.