Talk:Emil Maurice

Need more info

What happened to him during the war? What did he do from 1945 to 1972? Lestrade (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Wikipedia editors often have trouble with the truth. If he was declared honorary aryan, then he was Jewish. Just as Field Marshall Erhard Milch was jewish. Its not that difficult to find out if someone like Maurice was jewish, but it poses uncomfortable questions, so wikipedia prefers just to speculate, indicating they don't know. They don't want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.222.110 (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact maurice grandfather was jewish and maurice himself declared ehrenarier honorary aryan.--85.180.42.103 07:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

SS General

Every source on Emil Maurice states clearly he was a General in the SS. His rank of Oberfuhrer was in the Allgemeine-SS where, even during World War II, Oberfuhrers were permitted to wear the heavy silver cords and great coats of general officers. This was different from the Waffen-SS where, yes, it was considered a senior colonel position. The key point here is that the Allgemeine and the Waffen-SS were almost too completely separate and distinct service branches with different promotion criteria and different senority systems. -OberRanks (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that it was considered a general rank during the early years of the SS. And that he wore shoulder boards and lapels of a general officer. However, as sources state of the rank itself throughout the SS in later years (around 1939, forward): Oberführer had no military equivalent and quickly became regarded as a senior colonel rank even in the Allgemeine-SS. Yerger (1997) p. 235. This distinction continues today in historical circles with most texts referring to Oberführer as a senior colonel rank. Yerger (1997) p. 235; Miller (2006) p. 521; Flaherty (2004) p. 148. It is also stated as such in the Wikipedia article on SS ranks: [1]. Now, it is true that in relation to some other western armies the rank is said to have had a military equivalent to a British Army brigadier-general. McNab (2009) p. 186.

Bibliography:

• Yerger, Mark C. (1997). Allgemeine-SS: The Commands, Units and Leaders of the General SS. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-7643-0145-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Miller, Michael (2006). Leaders of the SS and German Police, Vol. 1. R. James Bender Publishing. ISBN 9-32970-037-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Flaherty, T. H. (2004) [1988]. The Third Reich: The SS. Time-Life Books, Inc. ISBN 1-84447-073-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• McNab, Chris (2009). The SS: 1923–1945. Amber Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1906626495. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

What is the correct German pronunciation of Emil Maurice?82.36.88.163 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

First name is pronounced German ("Ay-meel"), last name is pronounced French (Maw-reese). It's not that atypical a combination in Germany (see for instance Oskar Lafontaine), mainly due to Huguenot immigration to Prussia during the 1700s (see Huguenot#Germany_and_Scandinavia and Edict of Potsdam). --87.180.222.141 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mischling

Maurice was by no means considered to be a Mischling according to the Nuremberg Laws. It was his great-grandfather who was Jewish so according to the Nuremberg Laws he would have been considered an "Aryan" and was eligible to be a Reich citizen. His Jewish ancestry was not far back enough though for him to be considered to be an "Aryan" according to the standards of the SS. According to Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews he was a Mischling of 'second degree'.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Banned editor English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the main issue was that he was considered ineligible for SS membership based on Himmler's own racial code, who ran the SS pretty much as his private organization where his word was law. Himmler wanted Maurice out for even the slight bit of Jewish ancestry, but Hitler instead protected his old comrade. -O.R.^Comms 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. But, the article current just states him as a Mischling when in fact he wasn't considered that by the Nuremberg Laws. The source states he was a Mischling of 'second degree', shouldn't that be added into the article?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Banned editor English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have not had a chance to check RS sources, but I recall some don't go into that much detail and the fact is the term was loosely used. And as OR states, the main point is there was "Jewish blood" found, which prohibited him from SS membership. And since he was an old party member with close ties to Hitler from the early days, that in-and-of itself was enough for Himmler to want him gone (like Himmler tried with Bruno Gesche). But, I don't have a strong objection to that little part. Kierzek (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Marriage proposal

What is the source that Emil Maurice asked Hitler's niece to marry him? Most every text on the subject states they were at the level of casual flirting and simply dating. Hitler's outrage stemmed from an incident at the Berghof where he saw Maurice kiss his niece. The marriage proposal info appears also to be unsourced in the article. Thoughts? -O.R.^Comms 17:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The RS sources used do not mention marriage; that was just added into the cited sentence. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Mischling" (again)

A very reliable source (Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi by history professor Thomas Weber) states that Maurice was only 1/8 Jewish (via his great-grandfather). So the statement about him being a "Mischling" should be removed since the term "Mischling" only referred to people with at least one Jewish grandparent. It is also undue to have that in the lede; his small amount of Jewish ancestry is covered sufficiently in the body of the article. Jrheller1 (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Weber is actually a problematic source. His interpretation of events sometimes differs considerably from that of other historians. Do you have another source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I took a quick look at what Weber wrote this morning before I left for work. I'll take a closer look -- and examine his sources -- tonight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Weber is a "source", which requires close cross-checking, to say the least. I await BMK's findings as to this matter. Kierzek (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, here's what I meant by Weber being problematic: his entire section on Maurice (pp.178-180) is cited to a single source, multiple pages of the book Des Führers bester Freund by Anna Marie Sigmund, published in 2003. I know nothing about this book, but for an historian to base all this information – Maurice's Jewish heritage, Himmler trying to drum him out of the SS, Hitler standing up for Maurice, and then, once the war started, freezing him out – on a single source, with no other supporting citations seems highly unusual to me. I've checked Kershaw, Bullock, Fest and Shirer, all of them have multiple mentions of Maurice – his job as Hitler's chauffeur and secretary (relieved of the latter by Hess), his early command of the SS, his possible love affair with Geri Rabaul, his role in the Night of the Long Knives – but none of them mention his Jewish background, Himmler trying to drive him out, or anything else Weber reports via Sigmund. Padfield's biography of Himmler (612 pages of text) doesn't even mention Maurice, nor does Reitlinger's The SS: Alibi of a Nation or Evans' The Third Reich in Power.

I think that makes all this material suspect, so I'm going to go through the article and see what needs to be done in terms of cleaning it up until we have sources that confirm what Sigmund/Weber are claiming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Since other sources were provided in our article for some of the material (Hoffman, Hitler's Personal Security and Hamilton Leaders and Personalities of the Third Reich) and I do not have access to them, so all I have done is to remove (actually, hidden) the statement in the lede that was originally objected to. Jrheller1 is correct that if Maurice's :Jewish heritage" was one great-grandfather, that would not have been considered a Mischling under the Nuremberg Laws, however SS men were supposed to show pure German ancestry going back many more generations than that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Added content

I added a lot of date specific content to the article and it was deleted with the backhanded explanation "article already states he was a member; don't need everything and the kitchen sink". Is there a rule as to exactly how much information is allowed in an encyclopaedia? If someone is happy to spend their own time adding content, what's the point if it's going to be deleted because someone thinks it's not worthy/helpful/acceptable? Do I have to run it past someone before it's added? If so, how would I go about that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy von Tempest (talk • contribs) 04:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You do not have to "run [edits] past someone before it's added", but once you do add it, other editors can disagree with its appropriateness and revert it, thus creating a content dispute. It's surprising that you haven't learned this in 7 years of editing here, but content disputes are resolved by discussion here on the article talk page, where a WP:CONSENSUS of editors will decide what should be done.

In this case, two editors acting independently decided that some parts of the information you added were either unnecessary or inappropriate, and the burden is on you -- since you are seeking to change the article's long-standing status quo -- to make a convincing argument that the information that was reverted improves the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact is this is not a bio of exhausted detail. Trivial awards, for example, need not be added. They are not a benefit for general readers for whom we write and we don't need the trivial detraction of the subject. Remember, just adding walls of text or an excessive amount of intricate detail does not lead to a better article; see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Kierzek (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image size

The current size

The default size

I believe that the aspect ratio of the infobox image in this article is such that presented at the infobox's default value it is too large, the visual equivalent of SHOUTING. I suggest that the current size is more appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If the problem is the aspect ration, then I suggest 200px to better fit the examples presented at ANI. Skjoldbro (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump image at default size

Obama image at default size

New proposal at 200px

Really? The fact that Maurice's image is a head shot and therefore dominates the page more makes no difference to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The size of Maurice's head and Trump's are exactly the same. Skjoldbro (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The name 'Emil' (many speakers of German are familiar with Kästner's children's book "Emil und die Detektive") is stressed on the first syllable in German. Both vowels are long. Wathiik (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)