Why Is Stalingrad So Important?

Trust whatever you want every one is free to trust and not to trust every one is free to read whatever he wants.I hope you all know that the history is write by the winers never by the losers.And remamber that the german army is not like in the movies.

Gestapo is my nick nothink more then that.

You read books and you trust and you watch movies and you say "Loool look how two american soldier kill one german devision" or "look how bad the germans are they are killing jut for fun"

 

(Gestapo @ Jan 25 2006, 04:12 PM) [post=44842]Trust whatever you want every one is free to trust and not to trust every one is free to read whatever he wants.I hope you all know that the history is write by the winers never by the losers.And remamber that the german army is not like in the movies.

Gestapo is my nick nothink more then that.

You read books and you trust and you watch movies and you say "Loool look how two american soldier kill one german devision" or "look how bad the germans are they are killing jut for fun"
[/b]

Hence why so many people still stick with the common myth that winter alone was the only thing that saved the Soviet Union in 1941. And guess where this myth comes from ? German generals' memoirs. Seems in that case history wasnt exactly written only by winners.

And so which unit did you belong to when you were heading for Stalingrad exacty ?

 

I guess you never heart about 171 SS inf. devision ?

 

(Gestapo @ Jan 25 2006, 05:56 PM) [post=44848]I guess you never heart about 171 SS inf. devision ?
[/b]

I think nobody has heard of it, because it never existed. This site list all the SS fighting divisions. Check for yourself:

http://feldgrau.com/wssdiv.html

 

(angie999 @ Jan 25 2006, 06:08 PM) [post=44849](Gestapo @ Jan 25 2006, 05:56 PM) [post=44848]I guess you never heart about 171 SS inf. devision ?
[/b]

I think nobody has heard of it, because it never existed. This site list all the SS fighting divisions. Check for yourself:

http://feldgrau.com/wssdiv.html
[/b]Ok

 

Also the 6th Army did not have any SS Formations within its Order of Battle


Order of battle 6th Army (19 Nov 1942)

HQ

IV Corps

29th (Mot.) Infantry Division

297th Infantry Division

371st Infantry Division

VII Corps

76th Infantry Division

113th Infantry Division

XI Corps

44th Infantry Division

376th Infantry Division

384th Infantry Division

XIV Panzer Corps

3rd (Mot.) Infantry Division

60th (Mot.) Infantry Division

16th Panzer Division

LI Corps

71st Infantry Division

79th Infantry Division

94th Infantry Division

100th Jäger Division

295th Infantry Division

305th Infantry Division

389th Infantry Division

14th Panzer Division

24th Panzer Division

9th Flak Division

51st, 53rd Mortar Regiment

2nd, 30th Nebelwerfer Regiment

4th, 46th, 64th, 70th Artillery Regiment

54th, 616th, 627th, 849th Artillery Battalion

49th, 101st, 733rd Heavy-artillery Battalion

6th, 41st Pioneer Battalion

 

you stay at home you open books and you start reading or you just go and seek for something in internet and more places for ww2 information.But your not right your just not right.Havent you heard for veteran meetings ? Why dont you go and listend what the soldier will tell you listen there storys they are true not the books or internet information.I also want to tell you that you think that you know everythink about the war but your not right.You even come here in the forum and start talking about diferent thinks in the war and more and more... I will start one simple quastion:
Have you read "Robinson Cruzo" writed by Daniel Defo ? However in the book Defo write a book but the book is like diary and the people think that this is a real man on a real islend but when Defo end the book he write "made by Defo" think about it..
After that i want to tell you that you musn't trust on any information that you see in internet i dont want you to trust me i dont care about what you trust i want just to tell you to find one veteran and ask him about the war.
Do you know that the germans have a airship called Foo Fighter they say that it can fly with 2900 km in hour. Do you trust that ? Im sure you dont and this is normal but some people say that there is such a ship.And such a ship is in area 51.Germans had really good weapons but you never heart about them and do you know why ? Because no one speak about them...
The diary that you read from veterans how are you so sure that they are real.How is possible soldier to step on a mine and to blow and then they find a diary in him. I hope you all kow what happend if man blow on a mine...
So much ww2 veterans meeting in USA and some people still dont go there... Why ? You think that you all know everythink just because you read some books

 

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question...there was no 171st SS Division, no SS outfit at Stalingrad, so what unit were you with?

We're not disputing the point, we just want to know.

 

I've been a voyeur in this forum for quite some time now and I must say that this is the most stimulating thread I have yet to read. Would have to agree with Gestapo that you can't trust everything you read, however is it just coincidence that all the authors out there are on the same page? I don't think so.

Very colorful posts Gestapo and love the clip of Sgt. Horvath

 

I don't know the facts here on Gestapo of what is true and what is not but his sentiment is spot on. There is a blind faith here that historians as a group have some infallibility and gospel truth to their statements. Publish and get a wink from the establishment and you have instant credibility regardless of how many of your “peers” disagree with you. The more you publish the more accurate your view.

Then we as neophytes, simply pick our favorite and he has the gospel truth that will stand the test of time or assume that, though they all disagree on some issues, they can’t all be wrong on a given issue. If Gestapo is telling the truth and historians got their take on things primarily from the winners or selected of the losers then the whole system of belief is suspect. Since all the SS were in POW camps, gulags, or on trial during the period where factual data would have been most fertile, then where did the substitute data come from? Who filled in the blanks? Even if these SS soldiers had been available to add their two cents worth in, who would believe them since as we see people claim here there is no such thing as a decent SS soldier and they are incapable of telling the truth about what went on. The SS soldiers are claimed to all have known everything that was going on, they all were wicked, and they would all lie about anything you would ask them, none were misguided but rather all malicious. How can we take that view and not expect dubiousness in the assumed facts of issues that only they would know?

If I ever saw a breeding ground begging for error, it would be this area. The substute facts would/are likely to be simply a composite of emotion, hearsay, other compounded error as well and a little leaven leavens the whole lump. All history is to a certain degree. Look how often it is revised, sometimes radically when facts surface. It is like science in that it is often wrought with error and somewhere between the claims and the analysis is the truth, and is a perpetual search for the real truth. Throw in the arrogance and high-mindedness of being one of the “in” historians, notorious, famous, and you can image the potential for error that portrays itself as fact.

But to think that truth has been established and published and is by default highly reliable, then a forum like this would be redundant. We would simply compile all the “unquestionable” facts into a WWII database and debate would be pointless. You want to know something goto the “Wikipedia-like” WWII truth database and simply trust what it says blindly (as some do the literature of historians). But everyone knows that is not the case, so why the pretense? Why do I get pot shots when I refuse to pull off my hat and but it over my heart when someone quotes a “reliable” historian, that states something that contradicts common sense?

No, I have don't have the slightest idea if gestapo is telling the truth here or not but to the "historian-mongers" in the spirit of what he said, "tou-friggen-ché".

 

Jimbo,

First of all whilst I am sure that Gestapo is someone above reproach and respectful the fact is that no formation existed called the 171st SS Division. So for him to come on and state that gives us no reason to accept his story and whatever you may think about his sentiment, respect is earned never given.

Now as to your assertion that "Historians" are wrong, I have no doubt that blindly accepting everything that is written down is wrong, indeed I agree with you on it. You constantly make reference to memoirs, in fact you dont quote anything else except that and your common sense. You use these two sources to refute, deny and pour scorn on people who may have different opinions simply because they utilise a source that you dont think is reliable. You never tell us though who are the targets of your ire, in fact you are dismissive of ANYONE who seems to be called a Historian. Historians are not just money grabbing sensationalists as you seem to think, at least not all of them are. I dont disagree with your assertion that certain sources may be unreliable yet you stick blindly to one set of sources, memoirs and you feel that to read these is to gain an insight into what the person was feeling or their attitude towards a situation or campaign. Does it ever occur to you that memoirs can be blinkered, or self-serving? Indeed can they be trusted? If so what proof do you have?

Blindly following one set of sources is as bad as blindly following historiarns. And by the way I'd really like to know the names of the "Historians" you have a problem with and why.

 

First of all Gotthard, I never said historians are wrong. I don't make blanket statements like that. I say they are given too much credence, which is my opinion. I don’t care if they don’t agree with me, I could certainly be wrong on any given issue just as well since I wasn’t there either. Then again, my hearsay is as good as theirs because hearsay must be taken with a grain of salt. I have never blasted an individual historian, never named names. I don’t feel like an authority to do that nor do I have a desire to. I have not deposed these historians and don’t know the reliability of the information they claim is factual therefore I have two unknowns to deal with in accepting their statements, where did the basis come from and why did they arrive at conclusions they did. When people make logical arguments that are plausible, they interest me, even if I feel I can shoot holes in it with other ideas that contradict them. When they speak as authorities as though they are above reproach, I question the reason they lack such humility and that makes me distrust what they say. Someone who has confidence in what they believe will lay out the evidence for the audience and describe why they have an opinion without fear of it being challenged. Find something a famous historian has said in print and you threaten his credibility and he will probably defend it to the death. That's the downside of publishing history is that you no longer live in the arena of full objectivity.

Take for example what Angie quoted that Martin Blumenson said about Patton falling off his horse. I don’t doubt Angie read that from the standpoint I know she is well read and have never known her to be deceitful. But I have never spoken to Blumenson. I don’t know if his remark was because he had seen dents in Patton’s head, had heard from a physiology that Patton’s idiosyncrasies were physiological or what. It has no meat to it. So, I tend to suspect rhetoric or insincerity of Blumenson, seemingly something atypical of him. Angie used it in manner of rhetoric and somewhat ad hominem attack of Patton which I believe is atypical of her, at least infrequent, so I do suspect it has to do with contempt they both had for Patton no matter how slight or severe. It’s not a statement that would lead me to believe that Patton was crazy, in and of itself anymore than I think a man like Churchill with his idiosyncrasies (or as Gnomey says “eccentricities”) was insane because people lambaste him. I file it as his opinion and she in agreement with it, no more, no less. Angie knows a lot of stuff, more than I do, but she is also human. I never forget the latter part of that, not even for a picosecond.

The problem is that statements are often thrown up as fact because such and such historian said it was so and they have published or have a reputation and I haven’t and don’t. I don’t desire to publish. I don’t refine my beliefs enough and dig deep enough to have the confidence to print something. There are a lot of published historians that should have taken the same approach as me and never published in the first place. But that’s neither here nor there.

I have never said I blindly follow the statements of someone especially when they praise themselves. A man’s testimony of himself is nothing. But a man’s diary, written to himself, about his inner thoughts and beliefs, those, I give deference over what someone else said the man believed or thought. Why shouldn’t I? How can someone know a man if they never met him and know him enough to refute he really believed what he wrote as his own introspect. It makes no sense to accept the latter out of hand and you have to give someone writing first person the benefit of the doubt wherever possible.

If you read my posts, I often post ideas, not proofs. The ideas are rarely predicated on a single fact and rarely on something believed from a single source. There are a lot of people in this world who are smart, not just a few or a minority. Many of them frequent this board. I have just as much esteem for many of their opinions as I do the opinion of the certified, sanctified, glorified and authenticated historians. The way I look at it, I have smart humans on both sides and many well read humans but like I said, I never forget for an instant that they are just that, humans. I can’t create a foundation on something just because someone says it. I have to understand why they said it. Maybe that's just me but I think it ought to be that way with everyone. People are proud of the history they report and "rarely" make the case of why they came to those conclusions. To me that is of only marginal use. It’s great if I need to know how many battleships the Japanese Navy had, I would simply ask Geoff or one of the other Pacific-theatre-o-files who usually has that kind of information reviewed and at the ready, terrific for reference. But, if he stated his opinion on the matter and that emphatically, without explaining why, and it was an issue that was material to something I believe either for it or against it, I would only be swayed by his explanation of why he believes it, not just because he knows a lot of stuff.

I often post ideas I have to this forum for a sounding board because I usually draw the right kind of disagreement that tells me when my own arguments supporting the idea is weak. To me that is the main purpose for a forum like this. But in posting my ideas, I am often challenged to cite references for things that are deduced from other tidbits of information, compound thoughts. This is one reason my posts are so long (sorry folks). Of course I cannot, at least easily, cite sufficent references and assemble the case as a proof. So, when I respond that way, I often get a “you don’t know what you are talking about because you didn’t quote someone else” response to it when it is sometimes a derivation from a plethora of ideas. It is ok to demand proof on something structured or simplistic, especially if I imply that is indisputable fact, challenge that all you want, that's fair game. Without intellectual discourse, the discussion of ideas, the revealing of others opinions and ideas, history would be like watching paint dry, and once stated, it would be sustained ad infinitum no matter how in error it was. Is that why people come here? To watch WWII history paint dry? I don’t.

 

BNL are not group in the Wehrmacht.This is Bulgarian nationalistic Organization until 1944(Now they are in Bulgaria again but are not very popular).They said that the Germans helped the Bulgarians to unite them in one Great state, so the Bulgarians should help them in Russia.In 1942( the date is not known) in the city of Rousse a big group of 3000 BNL most fanatic members had meeting.On this meeting one of the speakers asked if someone of the members would fight for Hitler in Russia.Almost all of them wanted to fight.But the official Bulgarian propaganda didn't mention any Bulgarian troops in Russia.The leaders of BNL decided to send those of the volunteers who speak perfect German.No more than 100 spoke it perfect( most of them graduated in Germany).After all about 500 men went to Germany with the help of Gestapo and became a part of the regular SS armies.Some of them became later part of the Bulgarian SS.
About the second question:The Bulgarian anti-tank brigade in W-SS was formed in the autumn of 1944.O 4th of April 1945 they were given their first task- to defend Vienna in the sector of 2nd tank corp of SS.But there was a plot made from some scared soldiers.Colonel Razvigoroff( he is colonel not captain.I have made a mistake) killed these soldiers but the German officers wanted from Bulgarians to give back their weapons.Razvigoroff did it.But then the Bulgarian brigade had another task to defend the small village of Stokerau, near Vienna.The Brigare had own airplane for reconnoitre.The pilot spoke about big USSR troops near the village.Something more-these were the same soldiers who went through Bulgaria half an year before.This fact made great enthusiasm in the Bulgarian rows.On 6th of May the battle started.Razvigoroff decided to fight in the very village because the brigade din not have any artillery.The Brigade made great battle.They halted the village and thousands of Russians until they received command for retreat and go to Berlin.The new about capitulation of the Reich found them in the heart of Germany.Some of them changed their uniforms with the Russian captured in Stokerau.They tried to reach the American zone and to capitulate to them.But on their way large Russians Group recognized them.Then a second battle started.The Bulgarians were victorious.But Razvigoroff was killed.Most of the soldiers were killed tonly small group of them(about 100 men) reached the American positions.In 1956 the communists in Bulgaria announced forgiveness for these men and they returned to the Vaterland.In 1989 they made their veteran organization.I think that all of them are dead now.In the communism age they could work only very hard jobs and the people were scared from them because of the communists.

Wir haben ein Vaterland!Es heisst Bulgarien.Wir sind ihre Soldaten und wir sind fertig fur alles.Sieg Bulgarien

Found this Could it be Abt 171 . Not to put an 80 something on the spot but Gestapo has got my curiosity. An acquaintances father was at Stalingrad he spent time in the Gulags until the mid 50s. He went home to Deutschland to become a Baker. I think about these guys when I'm firing my k98 at the range. Can only imagine what it would be like firing it in -30F temps never mind cleaning it. A little late night stirring. Then again could be a 14 year old with an active imagination...Yeah, I saw the Saving Private Ryan gif.

http://www.archives.gov/iwg/declassified-r...es-440-442.html

http://www.genstab.ru/bulgar_ss.htm

 

(Kiwiwriter @ Jan 26 2006, 08:14 PM) [post=44898]Yes, but that doesn't answer the question...there was no 171st SS Division, no SS outfit at Stalingrad, so what unit were you with?

We're not disputing the point, we just want to know.
[/b]

The answer is pretty simple : the guy is just another loony seeking attention like Harry pointed out.

 

(jimbotosome @ Jan 26 2006, 11:15 PM) [post=44903]I don't know the facts here on Gestapo of what is true and what is not but his sentiment is spot on. There is a blind faith here that historians as a group have some infallibility and gospel truth to their statements. Publish and get a wink from the establishment and you have instant credibility regardless of how many of your “peers” disagree with you. The more you publish the more accurate your view.

Then we as neophytes, simply pick our favorite and he has the gospel truth that will stand the test of time or assume that, though they all disagree on some issues, they can’t all be wrong on a given issue. If Gestapo is telling the truth and historians got their take on things primarily from the winners or selected of the losers then the whole system of belief is suspect. Since all the SS were in POW camps, gulags, or on trial during the period where factual data would have been most fertile, then where did the substitute data come from? Who filled in the blanks? Even if these SS soldiers had been available to add their two cents worth in, who would believe them since as we see people claim here there is no such thing as a decent SS soldier and they are incapable of telling the truth about what went on. The SS soldiers are claimed to all have known everything that was going on, they all were wicked, and they would all lie about anything you would ask them, none were misguided but rather all malicious. How can we take that view and not expect dubiousness in the assumed facts of issues that only they would know?

If I ever saw a breeding ground begging for error, it would be this area. The substute facts would/are likely to be simply a composite of emotion, hearsay, other compounded error as well and a little leaven leavens the whole lump. All history is to a certain degree. Look how often it is revised, sometimes radically when facts surface. It is like science in that it is often wrought with error and somewhere between the claims and the analysis is the truth, and is a perpetual search for the real truth. Throw in the arrogance and high-mindedness of being one of the “in” historians, notorious, famous, and you can image the potential for error that portrays itself as fact.

But to think that truth has been established and published and is by default highly reliable, then a forum like this would be redundant. We would simply compile all the “unquestionable” facts into a WWII database and debate would be pointless. You want to know something goto the “Wikipedia-like” WWII truth database and simply trust what it says blindly (as some do the literature of historians). But everyone knows that is not the case, so why the pretense? Why do I get pot shots when I refuse to pull off my hat and but it over my heart when someone quotes a “reliable” historian, that states something that contradicts common sense?

No, I have don't have the slightest idea if gestapo is telling the truth here or not but to the "historian-mongers" in the spirit of what he said, "tou-friggen-ché".
[/b]

1. The German order of Battle for the Stalingrad campaign doesnt mention any Waffen-SS units being part of the 6th Army, and there was no 171 SS division, or 171 SS abt or 171 whatsoever. A fact that can be easily checked from the Wehrmacht and/or the SS archives.

2. His claim was that History was written by the winners. The kind of usual mantra kept being repeated by people who has an axe to grind. Now, if this was true, maybe he could explain to us why the main point of view we got for decades about the German-Soviet war was the German ones ? He might name some of the Soviet generals memoirs he had read for instance. And hint: the Germans were not the winners there.
Or he might also tell us more about the Vietnamese generals memoirs he had read that might challenge the common Western/US point of view about the War in Vietnam ?
Or he might tell us why so many Confederates accounts of the US civil war are still largely being used ? Same goes for the French accounts of the Napoleonic wars, the Soviet accounts of the Afghanistan campaigns, the German accounts for WWI, ... etc.

3. Rest of the post is the same usual mantra by someone who doesnt really have a clue about the way historians work.

 

I dont want to convins you balive me as i say befor you can balive whatever you want we live in free world some one may balive on newspapers and some dont balive...simple.. I dont want to convins you all that im an SS soldier and maybe it is beter for you just to think that there was no SS in such a vital battle like battle for Stalingrad.Think about it all of you think that Hitler will not send his best soldiers in such a battle it is like to think that US will never send marines in Japanise war.I will repet what the point is It is to tell you not to trust to memoars.. Im glad that some one of you understand me it is better one to understand me then no one.

About the Bulgarians in the war..Bulgaria enter the war on the side of Germany but bulgarian king (tzar) Boris have sign a pact with Hitler that is write that Bulgaria will not fight in the war.Hitler want Buglaria because this is really strategy point to attack Russia.Bulgaria didnt send soldiers in Russia because Bulgarians and Russians are like brothers Russia help to Bulgaria in Ottoman war.When Russians enter in Bulgaria no one stop them and Buglaria become agast Hitler.The mission of Bulgarian soldiers was to go in Ygoslavia and to stop the retreating German soldiers.When Buglaria done the mission Bulgaria attack the Germans who was in Hungaria.There are many battle storys about Bulgarian soldiers who fight against the Germans.

I remamber how America made the whole world to think that Armstrong step on the moon.Do you still balive on it becuase i dont.I dont balive that there is air on the moon because on the photos we can see how american flag is shaking.Maybe it is better to think that there was no SS soldiers in Stalingrad.After the war no one was interestet in learning what happend in the war the people attantion was pointet on the constratation camp.
Sorry about my english. And remamber that the wast thing that i need is to seek your attantion..

 

(Gestapo @ Jan 27 2006, 06:14 PM) [post=44927]I dont want to convins you balive me as i say befor you can balive whatever you want we live in free world some one may balive on newspapers and some dont balive...simple.. I dont want to convins you all that im an SS soldier and maybe it is beter for you just to think that there was no SS in such a vital battle like battle for Stalingrad.Think about it all of you think that Hitler will not send his best soldiers in such a battle it is like to think that US will never send marines in Japanise war.I will repet what the point is It is to tell you not to trust to memoars.. Im glad that some one of you understand me it is better one to understand me then no one.

About the Bulgarians in the war..Bulgaria enter the war on the side of Germany but bulgarian king (tzar) Boris have sign a pact with Hitler that is write that Bulgaria will not fight in the war.Hitler want Buglaria because this is really strategy point to attack Russia.Bulgaria didnt send soldiers in Russia because Bulgarians and Russians are like brothers Russia help to Bulgaria in Ottoman war.When Russians enter in Bulgaria no one stop them and Buglaria become agast Hitler.The mission of Bulgarian soldiers was to go in Ygoslavia and to stop the retreating German soldiers.When Buglaria done the mission Bulgaria attack the Germans who was in Hungaria.There are many battle storys about Bulgarian soldiers who fight against the Germans.

I remamber how America made the whole world to think that Armstrong step on the moon.Do you still balive on it becuase i dont.I dont balive that there is air on the moon because on the photos we can see how american flag is shaking.Maybe it is better to think that there was no SS soldiers in Stalingrad.After the war no one was interestet in learning what happend in the war the people attantion was pointet on the constratation camp.
Sorry about my english. And remamber that the wast thing that i need is to seek your attantion..
[/b]

In fact, this guy is not only a loony, he also needs medical help.

 

Found some evidence of SS activity in Stalingrad. Sonderkommando 4a of Einsatzgruppen C, followed the Sixth Army into Stalingrad Aug 25th/'42 and stayed until Sept. '42.
Pulled that tidbit ot of a "Will Fowler" book called "Stalingrad: The Vital Seven Days". No Mention of the 171st inf. division though, and I don't think that the Sonderkommando's were in the business of storming MG nests.
Is it possible the Einsatzgruppen didn't make the Order of Battle?

 

Someone's having a 'larf' aren't they? Without getting wound-up, if a bit more grey matter is engaged to validate what's being thrown in.

1. The Feldgrau site has a small mention of 171 SS tucked away, (not easy to find granted), but it's a Regiment, a Standarte, not a Division. Come on, even allowing for gaps in the numbering sequence since when were there 150+ 'Divisions' in the SS?
171.SS-Fuss-Standarte http://www.feldgrau.com/fussstandarte.html

2. Wouldn't Gestapo know if he served in a Division or a Regiment, and if it was a Division, what's his actual Unit which he drew his pay from, or was he HQ staff, in which case what was he doing up the front "in the first 20 days in Stalingrad" to get shot by a sniper? Vassily Saitsev no doubt. images/smilies/default/ph34r.gif

3. His writing style has settled down a bit but his first posts are a comical mix of 'Ingrish' in a style to imitate (badly) the way it might be spoken by a German, or a Russian, so why a mixture of both? German uses the definite article and Russian doesn't. Bulgarian (closer to Russian) uses it to a fashion where word endings are altered, something like in French. "Ah" you say, "but he's Bulgarian yet served with the Germans so he probably speaks both these languages, and English too". Fair comment, so he drifts in and out of each languages' vernacular, but regarding his 'Ingrish', he appears to correctly spell words hard for a foreigner like 'damn' and 'lose' which typically come out as 'damm' and 'loose', yet he totally screws up words like "devision" and "raich". Is that plausible considering the German for 'Division' is 'Division' and the word 'Reich' we use straight from the German with no changes? And, as for older people not capitalising 'i'...............

4. Pushing 90 in Bulgaria yet he uses a personally uploaded image blogg from http://www.imageshack.us/ . Wow, this senior knows his IT.

5. Born D-Day but in 1917, this makes him just a couple of months younger than my cousin. No, I'm not going to ask if they met as that would be pointless. Clearly they didn't as he's still alive. But, other than the general woffle trotted out so far which is broad and readily available from the web, or this site, I'd like to read something we don't know - like what Grade he's in, who's his favourite All-Star and does he still have milk and cookies before going to bed?
No.9

 

Thnx No 9 for the clues

About the SS-Fuss-Standarten (Foot Regiments): those units were the training units for the Allgemeine SS, not the Waffen-SS.