Talk:Franz Stangl

Reference Contains Inaccurate Information
Reference #2 (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/this_month/resources/treblinka.asp) contains inaccurate information, it states:

Women and children were gassed first, while the men were kept in the deportation square, standing naked and waiting until their turn came to enter the "pipe."

Based on many other available sources of information on Treblinka, the opposite is in fact true. Should this reference be considered for removal due to its inaccuracy?

Yarbywoo (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

John Kekes reference
I referenced John Kekes incorrectly. Any advice on how to do it correctly? Flute2!% (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Party membership
Didn't know that his membership in the Nazi Party pre-Anschluss was taken for a fact. But perhaps I'm only remembering his denials in Sereny's book and forgetting some more definitive statement... 70.179.101.33 03:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Wilhelm
 * I can't find any confirmation of Stangl joining the Austrian Nazi Party before the Anschluss. In the Sereny interviews (from 'The German Trauma') he claims that a friend added his name to the lists of Austrian Nazis from 1936 and 1937, in order to help his career (and possibly save his life) after he found a Nazi weapons cache before the Anschluss. I'll try to find a definite confirmation one way or the other. --Squiddy 12:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a somewhat complicated and disputed matter. Franz Stangl claimed that he got antedated membership card of the Nazi party after the Anschlusss that made him look as an early member. He claimed to Sereny that he was not a member before the Anschluss. He said that he became a member of the Nazi party out of fear, because he was well aware as a member of the police department that anti-Nazis were dealt with in a brutal manner. However, people tended not to believe Stangl's story and believed instead that he was an early secret member of the then illegal Nazi party. Personally I think Stangl's version could very well be true, because it correspondends with his character i.e. that of a human, but in this case tragically fatal combination of exaggerated fear of superiors, obedience to superiors, industriousness, and ambition. Andries 11:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Stangl on Stangl
The whole article seems to hinge upon the probably self-serving thoughts of Stangl on Stangl about his life and crimes. Maybe a perspective from his colleagues and victims would be valuable....as in most other biographies...Colin4C 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He confessed to standing next to the pits used to bury thousands ( huge pits ) but a wiki article on Krege says that ground penetrating radar was not able to find even small pits - what's up. Do holocaust historians doubt GPR or Stangl's confession ( one or the other is bogus but luckily the GPR could be tried again so historians could get the facts correct.) Would there be far reaching consequences if Stangl was found to be a false confessor. Why only life in prison for killing 900,000? Given the tenor of the time and the other sentences given out, he seems to have been treated differently - was his confession the reason? Bouncing from one wiki article to another creates more questions than answers - but real historians could clear this up quickly - probably in calmer times ( years in the future ) this will be done quitely. Lots of rewrite jobs to be open in wiki - what's the hourly pay?

Why only life in prison for killing 900,000?

He was sentenced to life imprisonement in 1970. The death penalty was abolished in Germany in 1949.--84.175.92.222 (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

On why ground penetrating radar was not able to find pits with bodies:

Because in Spring 1943 work was started at Treblinka to obliterate traces of mass graves (continuing the work done in other places where mass murders had taken place). So he could very well have stood next to a mass grave with rotting bodies, which were subsequently obliterated. Testimony on the obliteration (by Heinrich Matthes): an installation was built for burning the corpses. The incineration was carried out by placing railroad rails on blocks of concrete. The corpses were then piled up on these rails. Brush wood was placed under the rails. The wood was drenched with gasoline. Not only the newly obtained corpses were burnt in this way, but also those exhumed from the ditches. The burning of corpses proceeded day and night. When the fire had died down, whole skeletons or single bones remained behind on the grating. Mounds of ash had accumulated underneath it. A different prisoner commando, the "Ashes Gang," had to sweep up the ashes, place the remaining bones on thin metal sheets, pound them with round wooden dowels, and then shake them through a narrow-mesh metal sieve; whatever remained in the sieve was crushed once more. Bones not burnt and which could not easily be split were again thrown into the fire.

Also, as the article in Krege indicates, there is serious doubt about his claims of having done research at Treblinka.165.189.169.190 (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

^ Are you serious? I dont think ALL the germans in the world together could put even 900,000 bodies through that process in seven years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zensky (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious, as was the individual whose testimony I referenced, SS Oberscharführer Heinrich Matthes, who served at Treblinka. However, they weren't entirely successful: In 1959, Third Reich historian Martin Gilbert visited the camp: "From Treblinka village we proceeded for another mile or two, along the line of an abandoned railway through a forest of tall trees. Finally we reached an enormous clearing, bounded on all sides by dense woodland. Darkness was falling, and with it, the chill of night and a cold dew. I stepped down from the cart on to the sandy soil: a soil that was gray rather than brown. Driven by I know not what impulse, I ran my hand through that soil, again and again. The earth beneath my feet was coarse and sharp: filled with the fragments of human bone." All present in the vicinity, even fifteen years after the fact, discovered literal heaps of evidence pointing to what had occurred there.

Yes, it is indeed mindboggling what the Nazis did. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add, that in addition to the lack of sufficient physical evidence at the time (at least from the evidence-collecting methods of 1970) to prove a figure of 900,000, my personal impression - and Stangl stated this in pretty clear terms on several occasions - is that Stangl extremely feared his superiors in the Nazi hierarchy, the ones giving him the orders. He feared a lot of his fellow Nazis, such as Christian Wirth. I doubt that Stangl ever seriously considered disobeying an order from higher-ranking Nazis. I have never read his testimony, I have no idea what his testimony revealed, but perhaps that came across from his testimony. I am in no way trying to explain Stangl's actions, they are inexplicable imo, just offering an idea of what might have weighed in the minds of the people who sentenced Stangl.

And you can say that the death penalty had been abolished in West Germany at the time of the trial. But it really doesn't matter; crimes such as this are unprecedented and can cause a change in law to administer the death penalty to Stangl.Hoops gza (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Quoting
This page happens to quote exactly. Is anybody willing to fix it? Assez 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Update Infobox & Photo
I am adding an infobox and a photo Meishern (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
Hoops, please stop. The version you are reverting to:
 * Has unnecessary detail (SS rank) cluttering up the second sentence of the lead, complete with grammatical error (it's "at the rank..." not "in the rank..."). The information is presented later.
 * contains redundant information - saying that he was an extermination camp commandant means he was a perpetrator of the Holocaust. Which was mass murder. We don't need the sentence insisting on these as well as what we already have - it looks overly-defensive, and the sentence sounds as if it was written by an 8-year old.
 * doesn't even link to the Holocaust.

That's a lot of fucking-up in a 60 character difference. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  09:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the big deal is - the perpetrator stuff is surplus to requirements - Hoops you seem to think it isn't clear that he was a murderer or summat in the lead, but blimey, to say he was lead Nazi at Sobibor and Treblinka -  that is enough said, kind of thing. Sayerslle (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Franz Stangl was one of the many persons who perpetrated mass murder and genocide during the Holocaust"
This sentence has again been added to the lead. Looking at the history of the article, WP:3RR has previously been broken despite a clear consensus expressed on this talk page. One editor's opinion on what's necessary in terms of emphasis may be correct and fully justified, but if it conflicts with consensus it can't stand. There's no ideological battle here. Please, Hoops Gza, give up this campaign, which only harms the sense and readability of the article and so stops Franz Stangl's crimes being recorded in the clearest way possible. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that you fail to see the principle and point of my edit. Franz Stangl's crimes are not recorded in the clearest way possible as they are currently stated.  Here's why:


 * Merely stating that this person was a commandant of an extermination camp (the first sentence) does not provide sufficient clarification of the actual actions he committed. Stating that he was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, again, is not enough clarification of the actual actions committed.  What war crimes?  What crimes against humanity?  What did he do in the service of commandant?  This sentence that I added helps to answer those questions.


 * For instance, when a person commits one murder (and is convicted), it is clear what they did from the lead of their article by stating "this person was found guilty of murder" because the charge sufficiently describes the act. But with less well-defined charges like war crimes and crimes against humanity, there is not a sufficient description of the act committed.


 * And an additional point:
 * In the case of Stangl (as well as the other articles that I've edited in a similar fashion), the acts that were committed were presented and ruled on in a court of law, and thereby they become fact and verifiable, public domain, etc. I can cite it in the same way that we cite the charges because it is a published source.  You need to think about this in the legal sense.  You are not fully describing the crime by not including the act.


 * I hope you see the fundamental point here.Hoops gza (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In this sense, most published Wikipedia articles do not have this problem. The reason for that is because for the vast majority of crimes that are committed, the charge sufficiently describes the act.  It is only with these rare acts that are unprecedented in the history of law and which require new terminology of legal charges to be invented (i.e. crimes against humanity), and have only entered into the realm of law very recently in its history (in other words, these "new" types of charges), where the charge does not describe the act.  But as I pointed out in my previous post, the acts are entered as evidence in the court while these charges are being tried, and then they become public record.  Perhaps I'm mistaken?Hoops gza (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * After seeing this type of statement added to a few other articles i am also concern about this edits. Could you pls read over WP:Opinions as Facts. and WP:SYNTHESIS. You will find that with military bios there is generally much more scrutiny in the language used if not directly supported by Reliable sources. Moxy (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hoops Gza, for such a patient explanation of your edit and for waiting before you make any further change. Is it fair to summarise your view by saying you feel terms like "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" may not be understood as involving murder and that you want this spelled out? Other editors seem to feel either that these terms require no further explanation, or that the rest of the article should carry the burden of further explanation. If other editors feel that a lead which says Strangl was commandant of two extermination camps during the Holocaust and that he was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity is an ambiguous account of his actions, they'll express that view here and your edit will then have the support of consensus. Again I thank you for having the patience to wait and see if such feelings are expressed. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Alistair, for listening to a rationale that may not have been considered, instead of blindly reverting as many people do. I have to admit that I do not particularly enjoy the task of being pedantic and lawyering.  I know in my heart that I would not revert edits made by another editor to an article such as this if I objectively found those edits to be slightly point-of-view and negatively portraying of Franz Stangl, simply because as a human being I cannot forgive a human being who committed the acts that Stangl did.  But I believe that it is our task to do our best to record history in the same manner as that used in law, that is, facts and facts only.  And that includes facts in whole, not in part.


 * I do feel that the terms of the charges are too ambiguous and do not describe, and more importantly specify the actions. For instance, hypothetically the charge "crime against humanity" could have been human experimentation and not mass murder and genocide, and we would not know the difference from the way that the lede is currently.  I do feel that the charge "crime against humanity" indicates to us that the action is among those that are the most grievous, destructive and lacking in morals.  But that is not enough description and clarification.  I do feel that the actions should be described in more detail in the body.  But one sentence should suffice in the lead.  And let's face it, if the actions were not so grievous, destructive and lacking in morals, then the charge would properly describe the action that took place, as it does with most crimes.Hoops gza (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, this is not opinions as facts, nor is it synthesis. This is FACTS as FACTS.  It is a FACT that he committed these acts.  Reliable sources?  How about an International Military Tribunal where he is convicted of two charges with the acts entered as evidence in the trial?  Where the court finds it to be FACT that these acts were committed?  There's no such thing as a source more reliable than that.  That is the very essence and definition of fact in this world in which we live.Hoops gza (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your adding the same statements to many articles based on what you believe is a correct classification based on what is in the articles text (i can only guess as there is NO sources stating this facts that covers all the articles involed) saying this in this way is  a conclusion of facts in  Wikipedia's voice. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in  Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. like -  Bob billy the historian referred to so and so as the tallest person ever. As i said before you will find that military (and scientific ) bios are not like bios of music or sports  as in there is much more scrutiny involed when adding a blanket term  that is not attributed "directly" to a source - but rather a conclusion of the facts.Moxy (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Moxy, you appear to not be aware that the court record and the burden of evidence that it provides is, by law itself, the public record, in other words a published source, and it is considered the authoritative source on deciding whether something is fact. In a sense, nothing in this life is more public than law.  We can always source the court record for a criminal charge, especially a conviction.  My proposed edit to the lead is not a blanket term.Hoops gza (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not that anyone is disputing the facts. The addition to article(s)  of "was one of the many persons who perpetrated mass murder and genocide during the Holocaust"   is to  broad and  unspecific  - who are this many  you referring to?  all Germans? all Nazis? all soldiers of the third reich (conscript and enlistees)? those  working just in camps? Who is this group of many?  -  As you can see a blanket statement does not aid in understanding the situation, but in fact leads to confusion.  - As you say stick to the facts at hand, as  they speak for them selves, while not summarizing the actions of many in a blanket statement. To be honest the statement for me lessens his behaviour  in that it implies  it was the norm at the time,  thus his actions were just as  reprehensible as all others. Best we let our readers come to there own conclusion that his actions are irrefutably reprehensible with no comparisons to the "many".    Moxy (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean, the problem with a phrase rather than whether he committed these acts. I did not realize that you were referring to the "one of the many" phrase when you meant a blanket statement. It made me a bit curious when I saw you claim it as a blanket statement because I could not figure out how you came to the conclusion. My brain is really quite tired and I did not process the "one of the many" phrase right in front of me. Well, what if that is deleted out of the sentence?Hoops gza (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if i was not clear off the bat - my fault - and yes if the statement only applies to one article and is backed by reliable sources in the main body of the article the addition is fine (may be a little redundant -but all the better our readers get the point).Moxy (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A good discussion guys. At this point, a comment as to: "...perpetrated mass murder and genocide..." of the proposed sentence. There is a redundancy; one could argue that "genocide" is a specific type of mass murder ("deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"). As the man in the article oversaw the killing of Jews and others, then "...mass murder during the Holocaust" might be more correct. Thoughts? Kierzek (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What about saying - Was a predominate figure during the Holocaust (if we can find a source for this) - i think the word "Holocaust" summaries  up all the possibilities of murder - thus no need to go into specific actions in the lead.Moxy (talk)

(ec)
 * What I was originally objecting to was the use of the first few sentences of the article to call Stangl a mass murderer, a Holocaust perpetrator, and a perpetrator of war crimes and a perpetrator of crimes against humanity. It's a lot of different ways of saying (basically) the same thing, and it gives the article a trying-too-hard feel, as if the authors really want people to think as badly of Stangl as possible. In my experience, this is counterproductive - the Nazis look really bad because they were. You don't need to do any more than describe in flat, neutral, encyclopedic prose what they did. Overemphasis weakens the effect.
 * It also seems that the current lead is wrong. According to the source cited (Simon Wiesenthal Centre), "On December 22, 1970, Stangl was sentenced to life imprisonment for joint responsibility in the murder of at least 900,000 men, women and children during his tenure as commandant of Treblinka." That is the only trial he faced, since he escaped before a trial concerning T4 tried him. He doesn't seem to have been "tried in West Germany for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and in 1970 was found guilty on both charges" as the current lead has it - not according to the cited source, anyway.
 * What about Franz Stangl (March 26, 1908 – June 28, 1971) was an Austrian SS commandant of the Sobibor and Treblinka extermination camps during the Holocaust. He was arrested in Brazil in 1967, extradited and tried in West Germany for the mass murder of 900,000 people, and in 1970 was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.[1] He died of heart failure half a year later.
 * - still using the SWC source (the Yad Vashem one goes to a 'not found' page).
 * Yes? No? Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  16:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! Alistair Stevenson (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not redundant to include both mass murder and genocide. These are two different types of acts, and Stangl (and almost every high-ranking Nazi) incontrovertibly committed both. Yes, in order to perpetrate genocide one has to perpetrate mass murder, but not vice versa. The same thing does not apply conversely. In systematically killing Jews, Stangl committed genocide. It was a deliberate attempt to kill all of them. But in killing other groups of people (with the exceptions of a few groups of people, such as Romani), Stangl's acts were never intended to kill the entire population in the world.

Nazis mass murdered Soviet prisoners of war. They mass murdered Poles. But they did not deliberately attempt to eradicate the entire populations of these peoples, and I don't think we have enough evidence that would strongly support that it was their intent. They did want to Germanize the world, so it is a pretty good logical inference that they would have eventually attempted to remove some of these populations (such as Slavic language-speaking people) from the earth either by killing them or by breeding them out. But Wikipedia is not a forum. We can't draw inferences, only report facts. Their main goal was to remove Jews from the face of the earth.Hoops gza (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence to also say that the Nazis wanted to commit genocide on Communism. This has nothing to do with Stangl.Hoops gza (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't just say predominate figure during the Holocaust. The majority of scholars and historians consider the Holocaust to only include the genocide of the Jews. Stangl also committed genocide on Romani and mass murdered others (most likely). To Stangl, all of these people might have just been numbers, but we can only go by his actions and the end result.Hoops gza (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok then i guess 3 people object to the new additions - what else can we say in a better manner - as i agree just sounds off not for the encyclopedia. Your going to have to come up with a better way of bashing  them in the lead. Moxy (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the description of the trial to reflect what the SWC source says - the wording used is the same as in the book 'The German Trauma' by Gitta Sereny so that is likely to be the official charge that he was found guilty of. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point i think its best we dont see this types of statements added anymore - perhaps a wider talk but i dont see this poor additions sticking.Moxy (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the re-write of the description of the trial section that has been made. It is better. Kierzek (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hoops gza's issue raised a point that's led to a definite improvement. Thanks Squiddy.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Furnaces and corpses
"Around 100,000 Jews are believed to have been killed there while Stangl was the administrator until the furnaces broke down in October, by which time Stangl had left." Other sources suggest that there were never any furnaces at Sobibor - corpses were initially buried and subsequently exhumed and burnt in the open air. In any even there is no citation Hardicanute (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

No sadist?
Under the Treblinka heading, Stangl was said to be "No sadist". This is an astonishing and disconcerting claim about a mass murderer who carried a whip and revelled in his "Work". I removed the phrase. Historygypsy (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem, User:Historygypsy is that this was a direct quote from a book and shouldn't be altered just because you don't like what it says. And as much as I might agree with your sentiment this is definitely a violation of WP:NPOV. SQGibbon (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of me "Not liking what it says", it is a matter of fact. If this is a quote, then it should be should be made quite clear who said it and why, and to what purpose. Wikipedia must avoid giving a misleading impression, even if it is unintendedHistorygypsy (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is most certainly a quote (thus the quotation marks and citation) so I don't see a problem there nor is there any misleading impression present. However, I also think some context would be helpful for any reader (as you suggested: who said this and why). And if there is no compelling context then it also seems to me that we can remove the entire quote especially as it does seem rather shoehorned in at this point. What we cannot do is just remove part of the quote. SQGibbon (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you SQGibbon, I will trust you to remove the entire quote, since it was your idea Historygypsy (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Franz Stangl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805203830/http://www.auschwitz.dk/sobibor/franzstangl.htm to http://www.auschwitz.dk/sobibor/franzstangl.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Franz Stangl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124224830/http://www.sobibor.info/murderers.html to http://www.sobibor.info/murderers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Franz Stangl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322024523/http://www.ounsdale.staffs.sch.uk/auschwitz/Links/Treblinka.pdf to http://www.ounsdale.staffs.sch.uk/auschwitz/Links/Treblinka.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

material to answer the "further explanation needed" tag
Here is a passage from David Cesarani's Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949, I hope it can be used to improve the tagged section.


 * The torrent of doomed humanity overwhelmed Eberl and his small complement of Germans and Ukrainians, although there is evidence that the commandant was not up to the job. He failed to warn the Gestapo in Warsaw to slow down the deportations, call for reinforcements, or devise ways to handle the mass of arrivals more efficiently. Eberl's mismanagement came to light when Christian Wirth visited Treblinka in his capacity as the new inspector of the Operation Reinhard camps. He was accompanied by his boss, Odilo Globocnik. Even this pair, hardened to the business of mass atrocity as they were, could see there was a problem. Josef Oberhauser, Wirth's deputy, later recounted that 'In Treblinka everything was in a state of collapse. The camp was overstocked. Outside the camp, a train with deportees was unable to be unloaded as there was simply no more room. Many corpses of Jews were lying inside the camp. These corpses were already bloated.' Wirth relieved Eberl of his authority and arranged for Franz Stangl, commandant of Sobibor, to take over.

From page 507. There's also a passage detailing the state of the camp under Eberl's regime on page 505. The footnote at the end of the long paragraph reads: Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, 89-92, 119-120; Wiernik, A Year in Treblinka, 18.

If you need anything else from this book, please just ask 51.6.65.195 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

SHTAHN-gul
So that’s how it’s pronounced? Someone should tell the Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.146.191 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)