Talk:Sturmabteilung

Aren't the titles supposed to be in English? Britannica calls this group the "SA." PeterKa 08:33, 9 March 2014 (EDT)

And we're not Britannica, nor are we Wikipedia. Let's chart our own course.  :) Karajou 09:40, 9 March 2014 (EDT)

It is better using the original German word for the organization; SA is only its initials. I had moved the "Brownshirts" article contents to the "Storm Troopers" article about a year ago. There was no need for the redundancy. I could not rename it then. It is better now, as renamed by Karajou. --JohnJustice 22:32, 9 March 2014 (EDT)

The title of an entry should tell the reader what the subject is called in English-language secondary sources, for example an overview history book. On Wikipedia, they call this the "common name." (Although I notice that in this case Wikipedia is also using the German-language name.) English-speakers would not use the current title as a name; It is too long and awkward. PeterKa 00:31, 10 March 2014 (EDT)

As long as there are re-directs to the German name herein, there should be no problem. --JohnJustice 21:41, 12 March 2014 (EDT)

The SA as an organization did follow the growth of the Nazi party, however the concept of Storm Troopers arises out if the 1918 German Spring Offensive and a change in German strategy late in the war. Stormtroopers were young recruits who hadn't experienced trench warfare, and were not trained to endure it. After a breakthrough of a line, Stormtroopers were funneled through rapidly and trained to disrupt the enemies supply lines in the rear, rather than engage in hand-to-hand combat in the trenches. They did experience some success, but were more less vastly outnumbered by arriving American troops. The success of this new strategy created a myth from which the concept of shocktroops or Stormtroopers was born (in reality, most found some alcohol by the time they reached the enemies supply lines in the rear, sat down got drunk and were captured, hence a low casualty rate which added to the myth). RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:25, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Hi. Asking this here since there's no Freikorp article on here. I know the Sturmabteilung overall, as with the Nazis, are closer to far-left than to the far-right, despite what contemporary history would claim (heck, Ernst Rohm actually advocated for permanent revolution akin to what Leon Trotsky advocated). But does anyone know where the Freikorps lie in terms of political leanings (before merging with the SA, I mean)? Were they far-left? Left-of-center? Right-of-center? Far-right? I know they were definitely against Soviet-orchestrated world communism due to their role in putting down the Soviet-orchestrated communist global revolution shortly after the USSR's formation, but I have absolutely no idea whether they were against communism itself or just the Soviets' use of it (Hitler was also against the Soviets, yet not necessarily against Communism in itself), and by extension whether that actually makes them far-right or just another flavor of the far-left. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

Friekorps essentially was not a political organization. It had always existed, similar to what we would call veterans, militia, or mercenaries. Because the Treaty of Versailles had restricted the size of the German military, the Friekorps grew at this time consisting of de-mobilized unemployed veterans. Professional soldiers. Apolitical. But the times were chaotic, Germany had ceased to be monarchy, and most of Germany's enemies now seemed to be within - either collaborators with the Big Four Powers (France, England, Italy and the U.S.) or communist revolutionaries.

Historically, Friekorps were loyal to the established monarchical system. When Germany become a Republic, most viewed the Wiemar constitution as a foreign conspiracy. If an unemployed veteran felt strongly about politics, say as a democrat or a communist, their were any number of political parties to join. Those veterans who allied with Hitler's nationalist sentiment, left the Friekorp and joined a Nazi paramilitary organization. Needless to say, the times were very confusing for the Friekorps leadership, cause there was a power vacuum at the top with the Kaiser's abdicated. But the leadership regarded themselves as soldiers, not politicians.

It's kind of a tragic tale, because these professional soldiers of all ranks were forced into retirement, could not find jobs, and hated the dirty business of politics. So while the leadership tried to remain loyal to Germany, it was forced to choose sides among competing factions, often getting entangled in political fights it had no interest in.

The Wiemar constitution, as most German's viewed it, was a foreign occupation government. The Friekorps had no love or loyalty to it. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 07:44, 2 July 2019 (EDT)