Osprey books are a mixed bunch. Some are of high quality, written by experts in their field (like Steven Zaloga, Paddy Griffith or-- most notably-- David Nicolle), others are middling (like Stephen Turnbull) and least of them all... books like these. This book-- like David Westwood's similar books in this series dealing with the Wehrmacht-- completely missed the political indoctrination, the atrocities and the general ideology that motivated the SS or the Wehrmacht. Like most books geared to military history amateurs, it focused on weapons and tactics and training, and only made throw away mentions of political indoctrination. Indeed, when it came to questions of motivations both for enlisting or in combat, the author makes much of the draw of the "elite" status of the SS, but not to the attraction of the racism or the ideology of the group.
It's pretty much par for the course for Osprey. Osprey is geared towards amateurs who either don't want to bother or willfully don't want to view the cultural aspects of war in general, let alone the less savory cultural aspects that motivated soldiers like those in the SS. This book is part of the general trend in amateur military history of exalting the SS as just "elite" forces like Rangers or Commandos (a comparison Quarrie makes). Not only is this sanitizing history, it's also simply bad history, period. Modern military history has been integrating social and cultural factors into any analysis of a unit's operational or tactical behavior since the '70s and books like these are simplistic and giant steps back. Factors like the SS unit's political indoctrination in the field or their racist attitudes DID influence unit cohesion, morale or behavior. Atrocities aren't just some unfortunate bit of business on the side "real" military historians prefer to ignore in favor of tactics, they have actual and real consequences on the conduct and outcomes of battle.
But I suppose that's not what an Osprey reader wants. He (always a he) wants to read about "elite" soldiers, acting as automatons so they can enjoy pretty uniforms or shiny weapons without any depth. War is a matter that has to be easily condensed for the sake of wargamers. In other words, shallow, amateur history. I don't imagine any wargamer has created dice-roll mechanics or simulates their little tin or plastic soldiers stopping to massacre civilians or captured enemy troops in the middle of battle.