Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was withdrawn by Crisco 1492 09:14, 17 March 2015 [1].

List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants[edit]

List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During the GA-review it was decided that this was more a list than an actual article. Because the article was written like an article at first, It's very detailed and comprehensive for a list. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been nominated for AL? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jonas, I'm asking whether you considered nominating it as a Milhist A-Class list? I see it went to GA and was rejected (for being a list), the usual next step for a Milhist list would be to nominate it for AL. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker67. What exactly does "AL" stand for? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, stupid me! After reading your comment properly I understand what you said. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you answer your question, no it has not; the editors of this article have primarily been me and Kierzek, and he usually copyedits new inputs of mine. And also, it's a list so I, personally, don't see the great need to ask for an A-Class review. With that being said, I'm sure problems voters of this candidacy find will be voiced on the page. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although going through the A-class review is not a requirement for FLC, it often offers subject-matter expert feedback. Rather than withdraw the FLC, perhaps some editors interested in WWII can be invited to comment? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comment only: there are a number of short citations in the references section to "Shirer 2000"; however, the only corresponding work in the sources section is "Shirer 1960" is this the same work (possibly the 2000 relates to a reprint?). Can this pls be fixed? Anotherclown (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, I will look into this. Cheers. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comment: Coming to this topic from outside a military history background, I read the section heading mentioning the "Air Force", a generic term which didn't register with me, then realised that this was the Luftwaffe. (Ja, ich weiss dass mein Deutsch furchtbar ist!) I looked up the article and, sure enough, its title is Luftwaffe. Could it be argued that this is the WP:COMMONNAME and should be used in the section heading? Ham II (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sie hast recht. Fixed :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MisterBee1966[edit]

Generally very good list, I would recommend expanding on the role of an adjutant a bit more in the lead. I would also suggest classifying them into political adjutants, military adjutants (Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS), etc. What about his secretaries, should they be part of the list? I would also recommend that in the individual biography sections more focus is placed on the role the individual played as adjutant. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestions. I will add a part about the role of being an adjutant to Hitler and also categorize them into Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS sections. Regarding his secretaries, I think Kierzek would agree with me that they should not be included; we previously discussed adding valets to the list, but decided to add them in the "See Also" section instead, click here to see the discussion. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The secretaries should not be included in this article; there is a better argument for the three valets, but then the title would have to be changed to "List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants and valets"; and some re-write and additions made, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More specific comments:

  • I have concerns regarding the use of "Scherzer, Veit (2007). The Holders of the Knight's Cross 1939-45. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2." The article currently claimes that information in the "Gerhard Engel" section was taken from pages 290–295. I own this book with the same ISBN but different title, I can say that in my version of the book, Engel is mentioned on page 294 only. The book does not go into the level of detail claimed to be taken from pages 290–295. Maybe the wrong Scherzer book is listed in the "sources" section? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all information, including the sources used to cite the info, is borrowed from their main articles. As none of them are that developed, I'd say it's possible it's either the wrong Scherzer book or simple a cite error; I will look into this. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I checked into the article history. It looks like DocYako introduced these citations. I can only say that Scherzer cannot be the source of this information. Therefore the entire Engel section is without valid citations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a serious problem; I will do my best to fix it ASAP! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MisterBee1966, it's done - everything is replaced by new sources. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The correct reference to ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2 is Scherzer, Veit (2007). Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945 Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives [The Knight's Cross Bearers 1939–1945 The Holders of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 by Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Allied Forces with Germany According to the Documents of the Federal Archives] (in German). Jena, Germany: Scherzers Miltaer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2.. I would refrain from giving the readers the impression that the book used as a reference is in English, use the correct title. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a list. I will ask someone to crop the images so they can be used. Well spotted. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will do my best. Thanks for all your comments. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ÄDA - DÄP[edit]

I am afraid there is some kind of mix-up here. Hoßbach, Schmundt, Below, Engel, Puttkamer and Johannmeyer were ADCs not mere adjutants (the German term has a slightly wider range). Incidentally, Belows predecessor - Mantius - is missing from the list, as are Schmundt's successors Amberg and Burgdorf and Engel's replacement Borgmann. Bormann, however, never served in the Wehrmacht, as far as I can tell. These appointments would be more suitably described in an article on the "Adjutantur der Wehrmacht beim Führer und Reichskanzler" which was actually part of the OKW command structure.

The other individuals were more in the party line, so there is the question whether they represented their organisations or were merely picked by Hitler as he saw fit.

Max Wünsche was seconded to Hitler's personal staff in 1938/9 in a role that fits more the Wehrmacht ADCs than Schraub or Bormann. It seems that he is considered a predecessor of Darges and Günsche. Apart from that, there are numerous factual errors and inconsistencies (e.g. Schmundt was Wehrmacht, not Army ADC). I am not sure, though, if it is worth the effort to go through the list and fix it, until the scope has not been defined more narrowly. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good point about Curt Mantius MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to be on Wikipedia for a few hours, but will make series changes tonight. And thanks for you comments of course. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "problem" is that the list includes both military and Party "adjutants". Certainly, Hitler both allowed certain adjutants and picked others as he saw fit; that was his prerogative. As to the list information, MisterBee already said the distinction of each should be noted in greater detail. Remember that most all of the information is from the articles of each person, so if there are "numerous factual errors" as to certain men listed then their own articles should be corrected, as well. Kierzek (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Comments: thank you for your hard work with this list. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, I think it would look a little less clutter if you changed the "(from DATE to DATE)" next to each name to an endash. For instance, "(1940–45)";
Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first two paragraphs of the Puttkamer section appear to be uncited, could you please add an inline citation to both (at least at the end of the paragraph)?
Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the images, where possible should probably face into the article. For instance, Johannmeyer's photo, if possible should be moved to appear on the right, or rotated. Same same probably for Puttkamer;
Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, should be moved to the right. Rotating is inaccurate, as people's faces are not completely symmetrical. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bormann believed he was serving the greater German cause by being Hitler's adjutant and did not use his position for personal gain" - I think it would be wise to attribute this, as it seems like an opinion. For instance, "According to WHOEVER, Bormann believed he was serving the greater German cause by being Hitler's adjutant and did not use his position for personal gain". Please look for similar statements;
Tweaked. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since there apparently was still some lingering query, I tweaked the sentence; the statement is based on what Bormann said and actions he made; I cited to two different historians. Kierzek (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the list would benefit from a bit more copy editing, as there are still some instances of typos and awkwardness. For instance, this is grammatically awkward: "Bormann was significantly different than his brother; tall, cultured, and was careful not to steal any "limelight" from Hitler, but was shown on most of the private home films of Hitler at the Berghöf which were made by Eva Braun". (specifically "tall, cultured, and was careful...")
Will look into this. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edit done and cited. Kierzek (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bruckner section "World War I" is used in the first paragaph, but in the second "First World War" is used. I think this should be consistent (either term would be fine, IMO, so long as you are consistent)
Never known this was problem, but will tweak it. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Sources section, is there a publisher for the Bradley 1984 work?
Added. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • as this is a featured list candidate, is this source the best that could be used: [2]? Is it a WP:RS? Would it be better to replace it with something else? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The website strikes me as A-Okay when it comes to reliability, but this is just an assumption. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for Bormann, I have re-worked the sentences. As for Puttkamer, I very recently added what citing I could find in both his main article and herein; I agree inline citing was and is in fact still needed for both; I hope someone else can add cites to each, accordingly. Jonas Vinther, make note of the above and see what you can do. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose this is not a list and the "List of" should be dropped from the title. 23:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Nergaal, it was decided during the GA-review that this article is a list, and not an article; the article was written as an article and nominated for GA-status, but failed it's nomination as it was declared a stand-alone list by the reviewer. This was later acknowledged by many other editors who worked on the article, including myself and Kierzek (the two main contributors to the article). Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Nergaal, but this has been determined to be a list by consensus at both the GAC and Milhist page. This is, admittedly, a very prosy list, but it is a list. With my delegate's hat on, I'm noting that I consider this oppose non-actionable except if there is a wider consensus that this is an article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sources by P. S. Burton[edit]

  • I think the article should focus more on what it meant to be an adjutant to Hitler and what the work entailed. Right now it is not sufficiently explained what the adjutants did and parts of the article feels more like mixed general biographical details on the adjutants jumbled together, rather than information about their time as adjutants. At least one paragraph on this is needed in the lead. If you need more information on this matter a suggest that you consult "Managing Hitlers Court" in High Society in the Third Reich by Fabrice d' Almeida. There should also be plenty of information on this in several of the books listed in the source section of the article. I hope that you do not find this review to harsh, overall the article is otherwise very good.
MisterBee1966 make a similar comment earlier which compelled me to add "As adjutants to Hitler they had the unique opportunity to interfere in military matters and effect Hitler's way of thinking". If you think a whole paragraph is required, I will expand it as best I can. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the sources

  • The link to Library of Congress does not support the information given about Brückner "As a result, he was sentenced to a year and a half in prison, but was released after five months for good behavior".
The link support the information he was imprisoned as a result of the coup attempt. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not doubt that the information in the article is correct. But the Library of Congress link only says that he was one of the participants in the trial, it does not support the claim that "As a result, he was sentenced to a year and a half in prison, but was released after five months for good behavior". Please find an other source.P. S. Burton (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with previous reviewers that there most be a better source than paulfrasercollectibles.com for the information on the wound badge.
I agree there are better sources, but don't see any problems with paulfrasercollectibles.com; actually promised to find a better, but must have slipped my mind. Will fix that right away. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good if information was taken from the works of historians rather than directly from the memoirs of Hitler's men. I therefore recommend that At the Heart of the Reich: The Secret Diary of Hitler's Army Adjutant, Tigers in the Mud: A Tiger Tank Commander Reports , Until the Final Hour: Hitler's Last Secretary, Inside Hitler's Headquarters, 1939–45, and With Hitler to the End: The Memoirs of Adolf Hitler's Valet are replaced by other sources. Per WP:PRIMARY I would also recommend against using "Minutes of a Conference on 23 May 1939" as they are written by Rudolf Schmundt and Hitler. The same goes for using the actual Hossbach Memorandum as a source.
It's worth noting that Tigers in the Mud: A Tiger Tank Commander Reports is used to support the claim the Willy got shot both his longs, but somehow survived ... sorry, but I don't see what's wrong in using the memoirs of a panzer ace? More importantly, statements from survives and veterans of World War II were heavily used anyways as sources by historians who published books in the 1940-80s. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:PRIMARY. Historians can definitely use primary sources, but we should as much as possible rely on secondary sources to avoid original research. This is a meticulous studied time period that historians have written extensively on, so it should not be hard to find good secondary sources. This is especially important as the cited memoirs were written after the war, by people who had been close to Hitler and in many cases were desperate to clear their names.P. S. Burton (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adolf Hitler und die Geschichte der NSDAP: 1889 bis 1937 seems to be self published. How is this a reliable source?
The book is not self-published. As stated in the source template, it is published by Books on Demand, a book publishing company, which has offices in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, France, Austria, Britain and Switzerland. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book is self published. The author who is an amateur and not a historian has paid Books on Demand to print his book, please see http://paulbruppacher.ch/5/home-startseite and http://www.bod.de/autoren/buch-veroeffentlichen.html. P. S. Burton (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article says that he was rejected by at least six publishers before deciding to print the book on his own through Books On Demand, and this article clearly describes him as a "hobby historian". I do not doubt that the information in his books are mostly correct, he seems to have been very thorough, but a self published book by a hobby historian is nevertheless not a reliable source. P. S. Burton (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, replaced by a more suitable source. Should have checked more carefully. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joos 2013 Alt-Berlin in Farbe is a picture book of Berlin. I would like to see a better source for the claim that Martin Bormann was behind the firing of Brückner.
Many picture books has images with related captions, but if you insist, I will look for a better source. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at page 70 of the book. It is a picture of an office, with the caption "Working room of Hitler’s assistant Wilhelm Brückner who had already been fired by 1940. Apart from this, the Neue Reichskanzlei was often deserted during the war, since Hitler and his entire entourage stayed in the relevant headquarters on the fronts." I do not think that supports "Brückner was fired from his position on 18 October 1940, officially because of personal disputes with Hitler's then-housekeeper, Arthur Kannenberg. However, it has been circulated that the main reason for his sanction was the work of Martin Bormann, Hitler's private secretary."P. S. Burton (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Life Magazine cite is a dead url with no information on date of publication. More information is need for this cite to be verifiable for other users.
Sorry, but I can access the Life Magazine link just fine? And not all newspapers or magazines list publication dates on their websites. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by the link being dead is that it takes me directly to the frontpage of Life. Can you see the actual article? P. S. Burton (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that using The Hitler Book, written by the Soviet NKVD as a primary source is a good idea. See for example this review

The Hitler Book, compiled after the suicide of its subject, has its own strange history. Its origins lay in “Operation Myth,” conducted by the NKVD (after 1946 the MVD) for Joseph Stalin in order to confirm Hitler’s death. Soviet secret police repeatedly and sometimes brutally interrogated Hitler’s head-of-household Heinz Linge and Hitler’s personal adjutant Otto Günsche, neither of whom was released from captivity until 1955, and the latter of whom then vanished into an East German prison. The Soviets confirmed Hitler’s death in 1946, after which they further interrogated their unfortunate subjects to extract a more general analysis of the Führer. Stalin received the final report of 413 typed pages in December 1949. One copy of the original was made—at the behest of Nikita Khrushchev—and discovered in the Communist Party archives in Moscow by German historians Henrik Eberle and Matthias Uhl in 2003.

The Hitler Book represents the only known such detailed Soviet intelligence study of Hitler’s personality. [...] The Hitler Book is a valuable document indeed. Linge and Günsche, the editors show, had detailed memories. Their stories, moreover, were checked and crosschecked by Soviet intelligence officers. Their discussions of meetings and briefings for which they were the only sources are especially interesting.

Still, The Hitler Book must be read cautiously. As the editors note, the portrait that emerged from Operation Myth was in many ways the picture that Stalin’s subordinates thought their boss expected: The Hitler Book is as much a record of the Soviet understanding of Hitler, Nazism, and the war, as a record of the actual Hitler. Soviet collaboration with Hitler from 1939 to 1941 is not mentioned. Nor is the Final Solution

I will work to find a better source. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cite to the Daily report. East Europe by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service should specify date of publication and page number. It is not enough to just give the name of the publication.
Not all online sources has date of publication information, but will try to find a new source. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an online source. The link only gives the name of the publication. The actual report is not online. At least not at the link given. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service published hundreds of news reports every year from 1974 to 1996. You do not even give the title of the specific report you are citing. That is like saying that the information can be found somewhere in the New York Times the last 20 years. P. S. Burton (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, will fix that ASAP. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While reliable, Rees 2012 is not a very good source, as it is very hard for other users to verify a documentary series that is three hours long. It would be preferable if at least the episode could be given, and even better if a time could be specified using template:Cite AV media. On the other hand, it should not be hard to find a more accessible written source for the cited information that "Even though Hitler did not hold soldiers with aristocratic backgrounds in high regard, Below was one of the few members of Hitler's entourage that was with Hitler throughout the whole war and up to the dictator's suicide in April 1945."
The way I see, if it's acceptable as a reliable source, but better sources exist, I would categorize find those better sources as being of secondary importance. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Normaly this would not be a problem and I would have trusted that the information is given somewhere in those documentaries, but since I have found several instances where information in the article is not backed up by the sources, I will not trust this cite to be correct without a time or at least an episode number. Not in a featured list. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information given on Willy Johannmeyer is not supported by the cited article in the Spectator. The only description the article gives of Johannmeyer is "a tough veteran of the Eastern Front" which does not support "He embarked on a military career and spent most of the mid and late 1930s commanding infantry regiments. He took part in the invasion of France, leading regiments and companies. Shortly before the Invasion of the Soviet Union, he was transferred to Army Group North and fought mainly on the Leningrad front".
Will work to find better sources. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tyson, Joseph (2010). The Surreal Reich is self-published. What makes this a reliable source?
I don't regard self-published work as reliable; will find a better source. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand your comment to MisterBee1966 above correctly, the information have been added by copying from the various articles on the adjutants on Wikipedia, rather than you personally consulting the sources. I think that is the origin of the many problems listed above. Therefore I will oppose until the sources have been improved. P. S. Burton (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments P. S. Burton. I have responded to most of them and will make changes to the article accordingly tomorrow (as it's very late in my end of the world right now). I hope that the future corrections and changes will persuade you to change your oppose vote to a support vote. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information regarding Claus von Stauffenberg's attempted to assassinate Hitler does not appear to be given at pp. 27–30 in Shirer 1960, perhaps the wrong page numbers are cited. From what I can tell from the preview at Google Books there is, however, a subchapter on the plot to kill Hitler towards the end of the book.P. S. Burton (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vinther, if you want to withdraw the nomination, please state so. Only an FLC delegate can close the discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I would like to withdraw the nomination out of the recent article/list changes. Thanks, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 09:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Adolf_Hitler%27s_adjutants/archive1&oldid=854374316"