Talk:Schutzstaffel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): German military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Archives

Talk:Schutzstaffel/Archive 1 Talk:Schutzstaffel/Archive 2

Contents 1 Veterans 2 Photo of dead women 2.1 Photos of Dead People in General 3 Redirect 4 The SS neither "absorbed" nor controlled the non-Gestapo German police 5 Waffen-SS - keep it short 6 Persecution of Afro-Germans 7 Trivia 8 Serbs and Albanians 9 Rank deletions on Rudolf Höß 10 Postwar persecution 11 Postwar activity 12 Hauptamt Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle 13 References 14 Foreign language website links 15 Branch 16 Peasant-warriors 17 Photo of "punished" SS soldiers 18 References 19 Were SS automatically members of the Nazi Party? 20 "Founded" by Himmler? 21 1923<->1925<->1926 22 Wewelsburg Castle 23 Further reading

[edit] Veterans

Do any veterans organizations exist in Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.102.239 (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of dead women

Hey, the photo appears to have the typical photoshop art's filter applied to it. Can someone upload the original, even if it might be more grainy. Thank you. --87.194.3.52 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with both the photo of the dead women and that of the dead officers. I find the photos extremely disturbing, sensationalist, and disrespectful. The general tone of both photos seems to be one of retribution. The photo of the starved women whose bodies have been exhumed just further infringes on their right to dignity and shows German civilians, including children, being taught a "lesson" by American soldiers. Justice for war crimes should certainly not be meted out by soldiers or through shocking photographs but through due legal process and the Geneva convention. I find that these photo's are inappropriate for a public website (even if they put a face to war) as the site is often used by school-children for the purpose of doing school projects. Finally I don't believe that either photo has direct relevance to the SS. 9/11/2007 KRR

The SS Totenkopfverbände were in charge of most of the concentration camps. Himmler and the SS masterminded what is now called the holocaust. There was retribution after the war. These photos are appropriate for a public website. Censorship will get you nowhere but new camps. Besides, the words of this public website about the SS should be just as shocking to a civilized reader, if not more so, giving as they do a sense of the scale of the SS and its acts. Let's not hide history. --John Lunney (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, a photograph of what is either two war casualties or two soldiers summarily (and thus illegally) executed does not seem to do anything to educate anyone on the SS or its deeds, any more so than a photograph of random combat fatalities would better educate one about any other military organization. The photograph of the women, however, I can understand being here, as it illustrates a war crime committed by the SS, in a way much more immediate and striking than mere words would be. - 25 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.101.232 (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of Dead People in General

The photographs of dead people displayed on this page create two problems: 1) they are upsetting to people of a sensitive disposition, including minors, which is why television news routinely censors depictions of the dead; and 2) they serve no educational use here. On a page about a politico-military organization I would expect to see photographs of uniforms, equipment, personnel and leaders that would inform me about what they looked like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.7.162.206 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

there are many images that might upset me that are hosted on wikipedia, for example look at the pages such as ejaculation or penis, wikipedia is clearly NOT suitable for unrestricted access by children, contrary to the popular belief of many. WWII was the world's deadliest conflict, if wikipedia isn't censored we can't delete images of dead people to appease your sensitive nature while ignoring images of sexual activity, nudity or other explicit images hosted on wikipedia. Thisglad (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

SS now redirects to Schutzstaffel based on the support votes above - this discussion is now closed. violet/riga (t) 20:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The SS neither "absorbed" nor controlled the non-Gestapo German police

See subpage: Talk:Schutzstaffel/The SS neither "absorbed" nor controlled the German police

Yes they did they controlled the Gestapo! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.164.169 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrected the section's heading accordingly Soz101 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the header refer to the *non*-Gestapo parts of the German police? (FWIW I don't think the SS controlled the police, just the Gestapo, SD and RSHA). Critic9328 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waffen-SS - keep it short

The creation of the foreign legions outside Germany was for the most part the SS' desperate attempt to compensate for the human losses the Waffen-SS suffered in the course of the war. Since the concept of conscripting non-Germans violates the basic principle of racial purity Himmler has set for the SS forces, this should be viewed simply as an ironic episode in the SS history, which might not have happened if the SS had enough supply of the "pure" German blood. As such the phenomenon of foreign armed forces within the SS structure should be explained in the context of the war, and there isn't enough room in the SS article to do this. I suggest the whole thing is moved to the foreign legions section of the Waffen-SS or a new article is created where all of the foreign units could be listed and detailed. Cheers! Asknine 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

but since Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Holland are nordic Germanic lands they don't violate the racial purity principle of SS-Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.58.160.147 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In general I agree with the original comment, but as the above poster points out this no way accounts for such ethnically "Nordic" units as SS Wiking, Nordland, Michael de Ruyter, and so on--which were raised in the *early* years of the war, so unrelated to battlefield losses. Critic9328 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution of Afro-Germans

The reference in the Future visions section to Nazi plans for the extermination of "blacks" has been objected to on the ground that this is "ridiculous" since there were none in Germany in the Nazi period (see Page History].) The presence of Germans of wholly or partly African descent in the 1930s and 1940s and the measures of persecution the Nazi regime employed against them can be documented. For example,

Delroy Constantine-Simms Review of ‘Hitler's Forgotten Victims’ (TV documentary, 1997) by David Okuefuna and Moise Shewa

Whether they were "as much victims of Hitler's terror as [the Jews] were" is another matter.[1]

Also objecting to Stefan 2's reference to Nazi plans to exterminate blacks and "Orientals" on the ground that there were none in Germany doesn't make much sense anyway since most of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were outside Nazi controlled territory on the 1 September 1939 and only subsequently came within their power. Todowd 15:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, but until that time when war broke out in 39, it was the conviction of a lot of people (not only in Germany, also in many other countries), that the Jews were some kind of a burden or even danger for the people and countries, they live in, just as gipsies like the Sinti and Roma for example. This superstition was not invented by the nazis, it allready existed since medieval times and was only perfected by the german propaganda machine to have an opponent, the people got to be saved before. With that belief in the peoples mind combined with hate and fear, they were able to make more "hawk" politic decitions which seemed logical and were accepted by the people like for example it happend in the "war against terror" campaign. When they reached the ultimate power of dictatorship, there was no need for any further opponents but the propaganda worked so well that it couldn´t get stopped even if the wanted to. The plan of the "extermination of all jews" was total ridicolous in itself because it could have never been realised cause you can only exterminate those people who are in your "area of control". Germany had no real interest in colonies and therefore no possibility to exterminate the black people, so i heavily doubt that there ever existed such a plan to exterminate the black people. It was all about the "Living space in the east". There were big differences in the racial thinking of that age for example between those, who were a parasite and threat (and had to be exterminated in the radical nationalists mind) or just sub-human but maybe useful. The British nationalists thought kind similar about their colonies and that people, if you think about india for example. If Nazi-Germany had planned to exterminate all sub-human life, they would have killed a lot more people in east Europe because slavic people were also seen as sub-human. To make it short: This plan seems ridicolous and i doubt heavily, that it ever existed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.56.22.105 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually they wanted there prewar african territories but I doubt they would have exterminated the black populations probably send them somewhere else though Rhodesia, Algeria someplace like that.

[edit] Trivia

The Trivia entry about the crossing of the runes forming a swastika should probably be removed. There is no evidence that the insignia was chosen for this reason. There isn't even much relevance. It wouldn't form a perfect swastika...and is more of afterthought observation than trivia. --Coplan 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC) ¨

From some of the reading many years ago, it has even been suggested that the Nazi party had an intense interest in some Indigenous cultures, esp Native American and Tibetan/Bhuddist, and that the swastika has been derived from these cultures.. just a thought for further investigation. The swastika was also prevelant among the Aryan culture, which was a fair skinned subroot of the hindi peoples which was one of the lineages of the Bhudda. That has been my understanding, correct me if I am wrong.. or at least partly wrong. please refer to this link within Wiki itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika Koldaussie 05:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the SS never used "Herr" before a rank as was/is normally done in the German military when not using a surname, eg. "Zu Befehl Herr Hauptmann" would simply be "Zu Befehl Hauptsturmfuehrer" (the rank differing for the SS of course). Can anyone confirm this? D Boland 00:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Maik Kopleck's guide to Berlin under Nazi rule, "Berlin 1933-1945", the swastika was also a Germanic folk art symbol representing Thor's hammer. At the beginning of the 19th century, it was used by the Gymnastics Movement to expressits ties with the ordinary citizens of a Germany divided into countless states and ruled by the aristocracy. By the 1920s, members of the extreme right-wing Freikorps carried the symbol on their helmets, giving it a nationalistic and anti-Semetic meaning.~~117th~~

[edit] Serbs and Albanians

Claim that "the Kosovo Albanians were likely motivated by the chance to fight against the Serbians, who oppressed them for centuries" is not true. Kosovo came under Serbian rule in 1912, and Serbia gained its independece from Turkey in 1878. In Otoman empire Serbs, who are Christians, certainly had no chance to oppress Albanians, predominantly Muslim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.244.195.222 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rank deletions on Rudolf Höß

Everyone please visit the article on Rudolf Höß, there is a user who is blanking the section on his dates of rank and awards and decorations, saying that to hve them in ana rticle "validates a criminal organization". Clearly not a good reason to blank an entire section as that sounds like some personal feelings at work. -Husnock 13:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User is also removing large section from Reinhard Heydrich. As I dont want to get into an edit war, other editors are needed to review the situation. -Husnock 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postwar persecution

I cannot find any article dealing with postwar persecution of SS-men, with the exception of a single sentence in the intro of this article. `'mikka 18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postwar activity

Who is Klaus Klement? Spike2021 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hauptamt Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle

I invite anybody who's interested to review the Hauptamt Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle article and provide feedback for improving it. I created this article a few weeks ago and have just recently expanded it with information that I took from the German and Italian Wikipedias using the rough translation provided by Google. Unfortunately, the information about the departments of this Hauptamt was in the Italian Wikipedia with the German names of the Amts. This meant that Google ignored the German names since it was trying to translate "Italian => English". I can translate some of the names of the Amts but not all and I could use some help doing that. If you do translate the names into English, please leave the German name in the article so that readers can see what the actual name was.

--Richard 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Is there any good reason why this article is entirely unsourced? •Jim62sch• 20:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe because if we source it, we would have to discuss in detail the horrifying crimes committed by these people against the Jews. This is just original research. Orangemarlin 04:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign language website links

According to WP:MOSLINKS#non-English-language sites, links to foreign language websites maybe useful only if they provide:

• when the website is the subject of the article
• when linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables; explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can still interpret them
• when the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative)

The website Die Schutzstaffel (SS) meets none of those standards. For those readers who speak no German, that website, for all we know, talks about the quality of BMW automobiles. Orangemarlin 04:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Branch

Branch Wehrmacht Is incorrect. The SS has never been part of the Wehrmacht, but was an entity in its own right.

[edit] Peasant-warriors

This part of the article is incorrect. Although only a slight mistake it is a clear one. Himmler didn't want 'peasant-warriors' but 'warrior-farmers'; whilst this may be nit-picking, the difference between peasants and farmers is clear as Richard Rhodes points out in his book on the Einsatzgruppen and SS. I've changed it accordingly. Any objections?

[edit] Photo of "punished" SS soldiers

This caption needs work[2]. If soldiers are "shot to death" (sic) after the liberation of a camp (implying they've surrendered), but without being tried, then they have been murdered in a probable war crime, not "punished". No matter how horrific the sights they have just seen, it is not within the prerogative of a private soldier (or even an officer) to summarily mete out "punishment" to soldiers who have surrendered to them. Alternatively, if these men were killed in fighting while the camp was being liberated, and had not yet surrendered, then they are casualties of war, not victims of punishment (except, perhaps, for a somewhat metaphysical sense). The caption should reflect this.

The caption as it stands is highly dubious, and needs proper sourcing to support what it says. I've removed the bit about "punishment", because that's ridiculous. There needs to be a source supporting the assertion that they were shot after the liberation of the camp, and similarly if the "punishment" claim is reinserted, this should surely also be supported by a citation, explaining why this can be considered punishment and not murder. It is not clear that these bodies are even of SS members - they have no insignia and do not appear to be in SS uniform. Finally, the original source of the photo (the US Holocaust Memorial Museum) simply states that they were killed after the liberation, and seemingly gives no justification for the "punishment" conjecture.

Finally, it is unclear exactly what the purpose of including this photo is. It has very little to do with the section of the article in which it appears. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the SS. It is thoroughly problematic, and I would suggest removing it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.198.248 (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi 41.243.198.248, and thanks for your thoughts, upon reflection I agree with you that the 'punishment' part of the caption is indeed unnecessary, however the United states holocaust memorial website indeed states they were killed after liberation, which means after the entry of US soldiers into the ohrdruf subcamp of Buchenwald concentration camp, which means they were either killed by armed prisoners or US soldiers, such acts weren't that uncommon, and saying it was punishment for the treatment of prisoners is not ridiculous, although I don't know if these two guards did anything wrong. This photo must stay because the SS had a high casuality rate in WW2, it is enyclopedic to show a few dead SS members Urgedhands 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with both the photo of the dead women and that of the dead officers. I find the photos extremely disturbing, sensationalist, and disrespectful. The general tone of both photos seems to be one of retribution. The photo of the starved women whose bodies have been exhumed just further infringes on their right to dignity and shows German civilians, including children, being taught a "lesson" by American soldiers. Justice for war crimes should certainly not be meted out by soldiers or through shocking photographs but through due legal process and the Geneva convention. I find that these photo's are inappropriate for a public website (even if they put a face to war) as the site is often used by school-children for the purpose of doing school projects. Finally, I don't believe that either photo has direct relevance to the SS. 9/11/2007 KRR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurreira (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the photos are extremely graphic for such a well known and widely used site such as Wikipedia. The picture of the two SS officers, sickens me, the fact that the picture is in colour is even worse and gives no respect to the dead what so ever. Yes the SS did some bad things in their time, but would you like to see a picture of your dad or other close relative dead like that in a public domain where it has been given absoloutly no respect at all. I think these pictures should be deleted from the site or at least the colour picture turned to black and white as it is just so graphic and realistic in colour. As Hurreria said above, children use this site a lot to research the war and the Nazi's, its unlikely they would look at the SS, but would you like to have seen that picture as a child. I'm 16 and i can hardly look at it without feeling sick, upset and angry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.144.22 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

We need the bottom two sections referenced; at the moment they are entirely too long for what looks, to a degree, like original research. Also, can we show that the emblem displayed in the infobox was actually used as a flag? --John (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the offending parts for now. Please ensure they are referenced if you wish to replace them. --John (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Were SS automatically members of the Nazi Party?

I've asked this question elsewhere and always gotten the response "Of course" (or something like it...), but how could this have been possible, considering that many non-German units existed within the W-SS? (I don't think Bosnian Serbs were granted membership in the NSDAP for example).

Were there exceptions made for non-German SS units, or were the SS simply affiliated with the Party, but not automatically a subset of it? (I tend to think the latter, although the Western CW on the subject will probably reflexively decry that possibility.) Critic9328 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The original ss organization usually referred to as the Allgemeine SS (german: common ss) emanated from the nazi party itself and therefore was made up by party members. In the pre war era units of the Waffen SS were formed by subsets of the Allgemeine SS and consisted of staunch nazis. During the war the Waffen SS served as a possibility to enlist combatants who could not serve in the Wehrmacht, like german minorities in foreign countries, foreigners themselves and underaged germans in the Reich – all of whom could not even think of being party members. However the commanding officers of these troops were germans and had to be party members, as the idea for the Waffen SS was to have rather a politically convinced leadership than a military experienced one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.125.189 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Founded" by Himmler?

How could it have been founded by Himmler if there is a list of commanders previous to him listed under the graphic to the right? Critic9328 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1923<->1925<->1926

First: Excuse my bad english. I am a member of the german wikipedia project and i found some confusing sentences in this article.. i think someone mixed or confounded informations about SS, Stabswache, Stosstrupp and SA. So:

1. The Schutzstaffel was founded in 1925, not 1923. [1923 the Stosstrupp was built, but that was a very, very, very small group of just 12 people, to protect A. Hitler.. there is not real a connection to the SS]
2. This group wasn't a part of the SA, in the begin it was an independent part ("Sonderorganisation") of the party NSDAP
3. Only 1926 at a party-meeting (we say "Parteitag") the SS was incorporated into the SA

Hope i could help. --91.40.26.254 (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I read a bit more intensively and this whole Section..

Origins

The group was first formed in 1923 as a company of the Sturmabteilung (SA), stormtroopers, tasked with protecting senior leaders of the Nazi Party at rallies, speeches, and other public events. Commanded by Emil Maurice, and known as the Stabswache (Staff Guard), they were nicknamed the "Brown Shirts" according to their dress. The original group consisted of eight men and was modeled after the Erhardt Naval Brigade, a violent Freikorps of the time.

After the failed 1923 Putsch by the Nazi Party, the SA and the Stabswache were abolished, yet they returned in 1925. At that time, the Stabswache was reestablished as the Stosstrupp Adolf Hitler, tasked with the personal protection of Hitler at Nazi Party functions and events. That same year, the Stosstrupp was expanded to a national level, and renamed as the Schutzstaffel (SS). The new SS was delegated to be a protection company of various Nazi Party leaders throughout Germany.

.. is totally bullshit and seems to be terrible bad translated from the german article. *grin* Maybe someone who is in a position to speak both languages at a good level should improve that. :-) --91.40.26.254 (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that calling any portion of an article "bullshit" violates WP:CIV. And I actually dont see anything too incorrect about the paragraph although the 1923-1925 period of the SS is very grey and hazy and some fo the facts mentioned above could be wrong. As far as the claim that this was stolen/taken from the German wikipedia, there is no evidence of that. I wrote the paragraph years ago and never have even looked at the german version of the article.-OberRanks (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that "bullshit" is such a terrible verbal derailment in your language, excuse me - what i want to say is: It is useless. [Useless == Free of sense] :-) It's real not my intention to defame your work, but in my land we have tons of detailed literature about this topic and because of our sad history, we learn a lot about the time between 1933 and 45. Theres nothing "grey and hazy".. and i thought its translated (at the german WP we don't say stolen, because informations has to exist in every language for everyone with a broadband connection), because its nearly word by word the same, with just one problem: Its mixed, so that there are mistakes. If you would tell someone in Germany or Austra that the SS is emerged from Stosstrupp, everyone would laugh. The one was an organisation with thousands of members, the other was a small bodyguard-unit (12 "specialists" at a brawl-level, which were simultaneously members of the SA) at the time, when A. Hitler was still a small "Local-Politician" in bavaria. And.. when i read this sentence:

That same year, the Stosstrupp was expanded to a national level, and renamed as the Schutzstaffel (SS).

Like i said, excuse me.. but that is.. not true, not even a part of that sentence is true. :-) Just want to help, i will not work/edit outside my own language, its your task to handle with the spended informations. Think about: Do something, or let the lies inside - it is your project. If my expression seems to be offensive or unfriendly, i would like to ask for forgiveness, my english is at a basic level. In german/french/russian i had chosen my words in a better way.. but.. hey: I like to invite you, to have a look at the specific british/american/australian-articles in the german wikipedia, its also possible that we made such detail-mistakes. *smile* Thank you and greetings to the united states. --91.40.35.98 (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: The term "Schutzstaffeln" is also incorrect, we just say "Schutzstaffel der NSDAP", because "Staffeln" is not an existing noun in the german language. :-) When we use "staffeln" it is a verb and it is a synonym of the word "sort". I allready heard that designation from a british friend, seems if some primitive german websites have disseminated that expression, but historical and linguistically it has never existed. [Try to have a look at some old papers, documents, etc.] So.. now i'm really quiet. *g* --91.40.35.98 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can work something out to merge your many facts from the German point of view into this. And it was clear you didnt know the word was bad, just used it by mistake. Alle ist gut. American textbooks do contradict eachother about the 1923 to 1925 period. For instance, Emil Maurice is listed in a lot of places as the founder of the SS but inothers as simply an SA commander put in charge of it. Bitte Sie, schreiben eine Liste von alles Idea das Sie mochten in dieses Artikle sehen. Dann wir kann lesen und werden wir im diesem Artikle also schreiben. -OberRanks (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wewelsburg Castle

Ideological and representative central and main cult site of the SS-Order was to become Wewelsburg Castle:

Wewelsburg from 1933 to 1945 - Place of cult and terror —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.162.82 (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

What on earth is this doing in the Further Reading section?

1. Sven Hassel, 1969, "SS General", Corgi Books. (Based on the authors World War II experiences. The story takes place in the Russian front esp. during the siege of Stalingrad)

Speculative airport kiosk literature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.178.252 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)