Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Speer on doorstep

While the Commons description page states that this photo was taken in 1942, the [view=detail&search[focus]=1 Bundesarchiv page] merely dates it between 1942 and 1944. Even if it was taken in 1942, there is no reason it cannot be where it is. We are not trying to have the photographs in exact chronology.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a clear and obvious reason - Wikipedia is not about playing politics in any way, shape or form; or creating any possibility of a "false reading" or deliberate impression which is not in line with the actual image. I saw that image and immediately presumed that to be a tired, war-worn Albert Speer, deliberately taking a rest (complications from an inflamed knee, etc., in previous paragraph) which was relevant to the section in which it had been placed - i.e. "Fall of the Reich".

If, as seems likely, that image is not at all related to the timeframe in which it has been placed, that is /deliberately/ misleading use of a visual, historical image. We are not in that game here.

If there is doubt, and you do not wish the image (why not?) to be presented in the previous section where it fits chronologically according to the supplied date, it would be a /very/ good idea to select another image from Commons Category:Albert_Speer for that section, if deemed necessary. As stated on the previous edit, the "date of 22/12/42 appears to have been supplied by the German Federal Archives as correct - please note warning "For documentary purposes the German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous..."". Kind regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask where that date appears other than on the Wikipedia image page? It isn't in the Bundesarchiv page. I guess I am going to have to go to my references on Speer and see if there is any indication where he was on 22 December 1942.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing definite in the references for that date. Speer mentions a visit to Rastenberg about that time and there is some discussion in Van der Vat that Speer was refused permission to go to Scandinavia by Hitler so he instead went to the Atlantic Wall. No specific dates, just Christmas 1942.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for checking, Wehwalt. The date is as given presumably by the German Federal Archives - along with that warning about captions being potentially erroneous - on their bulk upload rather than provided by any WP editor. I'm wary both that this article is meant to be the "best of the best" of WP (Featured Article) /and/ is on a contentious biographical subject; therefore, if there's any doubt then it's probably better not to use a given image, rather than give a green light to adding photographs "anywhere" in an article regardless of the chronology and/or any potentially misleading "story" that the reader might obtain as a result. (I re-sorted three photos into the appropriate points of the timeline by the provided date not just this one, of course: which should have been a perfectly "acceptable" edit, I would have thought). Best wishes (& Happy New Year), David. Harami2000 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess the thing is is that the image is so perfectly appropriate for the section that I really hate to move it out absent some sort of a showing that this is actually an image from 1942. What about if I email the Bundesarchiv? I see nothing wrong with relying on their response. Obviously if it is from 1942, I will sigh with regret and move the image. I do see your point of course and it is well taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that particular photo /does/ "fit the story" at that particular point all too well...

Sincere thanks for the good faith response to good faith feedback. I was going to offer to email them (1st January isn't exactly the ideal time of year!), but many thanks for offering and please do so, since this is well outside any particular "expertise" here. Hoping that they have a definitive answer one way or another since the 22/12/42 date was certainly there when the images were bulk-uploaded from their archive, even though it's not on their website. Respectfully, David. Harami2000 (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've sent the email this afternoon (US time), will keep you posted on a response. Obviously I want this to be accurate. It wasn't easy to write a neutral and accurate article, given how much had to based on Speer's books of self-hagiography. Have you seen the Rudolf Wolters article yet btw?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine the effort involved having checked the audit trail previously. :) Although I personally aim for B grade as a working basis for encyclopedic coverage (as there's so much still missing/lacking on WP), there's a lot to be said for one or a small number of individuals going "all out" on a small number of articles to work those to FA standard. That does indeed also need to cut through the "PR speak" which WP is very prone to transmit - especially on biographical articles - as biased quotes are so easy to cite with little or no further information required. (No surprise then, that many "high profile" articles devolve into a mish-mash of directionless citations, if not outright contradictory information/POVs). That's been well /managed/ here, thank you, and I see a fair number of other editors assisting constructively. :)

Yes, I'd briefly read Wolters' article, but embarrassingly only when I'd been hunting down /that/ photo of Speer for any further references! I'll have another proper read, now, over a cup of tea. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've received the following response from the Bundesarchiv. I've deleted my Lastname, Firstname and put in my username in its place to avoid self outing:

Bundesarchiv Gz: B6-10/A-# Dear Mr #, thank you for your mail and your interest in pictures of the Federal Archives. The date 22 december 1942 of the picture Bild 183-1984-1206-511 in wikipedia is false. We don´t know the correct date, but we know, that the picture was taken in winter 1942/1944. Thank you for the tip. Best regards i.A. Aileen Tomzek

---

Bundesarchiv - Federal Archives Division B 6 (images, maps, sounds) Potsdamer Str. 1 D-56075 Koblenz

Zitat von Wehwalt:

> Do you have a definite date that this image was taken? On the > Wikipedia description page, it states 22 December 1942 (see here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1984-1206-511,_Albert_Speer.jpg). I hope you can assist me with > this. > > Wehwalt

---

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

---

I guess to leave the picture alone would be OK then.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Das Bundesarchiv kann nicht erkennen, warum zwar die Antwort inklusive des Namens von Bundesarchiv-Mitarbeiterinnen vollstaendig wieder gegeben wird, nicht jedoch der Name desjenigen der fragt. --Bundesarchiv-B6 (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Because there was a need to, for others to verify my work. My identity is not relevant to the point at issue, however, so that other editors could doublecheck my work and possibly get in touch with the same employee to verify, I felt the name and business email of the individual who responded to me should be available. If you feel the information should be removed, you may wish to contact WP:OVERSIGHT. Thank you for your help and your concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

University of Karlsrue

"Speer began his architectural studies at the University of Karlsruhe instead of a more highly acclaimed institution because the hyperinflation crisis of 1923 limited his parents' income." Well, if you look at University of Karlsrue page, you will see that is acclaimed at the second highest ranking university in Germany. Maybe we need to modify this.BorisG (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Was this true in 1923? And in architecture?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

This is a featured article. It took a lot of work to make it that way and I'm pretty zealous about keeping standards up. Can I ask the following:

First, do not label additions as minor edits. They aren't.

Second, you can't source to a photograph. Maybe a picture is worth a thousand words, but I don't think that holds on Wikipedia.

Third, there is no need to say that Hitler considered Speer irreplaceable and mention the intrigues about Speer when that's already in the article. You are saying it a second time, and badly.

I do not object to the information about the medal being put in the article. However, it must be integrated into the article, sourced to a reliable source, and be a credit, not a detriment to the article, and the sourcing must be in the same manner we do it in this article (i.e., no bare refs).

I appreciate your efforts, but this is not productive.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Then how do you suggest that I proceed? BTW, the photograph is authentic, and Speer did get that medal. The impression I get is that you're trying to hush that bit up for your own reasons. Expatkiwi 15:05, 28 February 2010 (CST)

My only motivation is that it is one of my FA, and I'm proud of it. Can you give me a link to the photograph? I guess it must be one of the Bundesarchiv photos donated to the Foundation. Maybe we could put it in the caption. And why is every edit that you do marked "minor edit"?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm a modest person. And yes, that pic does come from the Bundesarchiv. BTW, I'm no longer going to bother trying to make edits in this page because you'll just remove them... (User talk:Expatkiwi|talk]]) 18:19, 28 February 2010 (CDT)

Requests of those seeking to add material to this article

Wikipedia is a cooperative endeavor, and I welcome those seeking to improve this article. Please keep in mind two things:

1. This article is written in "summary style". It is a condensation of probably 5,000 pages of material about Speer by various biographers, including of course himself. Therefore, please consider whether material you might seek to add really helps in telling Speer's story, or if it is just detail at a level below summary style.
2. If you believe it is worthwhile to add, kindly make sure you cite. And not only cite, but imitate the citation practices of this article. If you are thinking about adding material from primary sources or government records, well, if it is important, it was probably mentioned in one of the books on or by Speer. A google books search may be helpful here, though it will only give you a snippet, it will tell you where to look. Most readers do not have easy access to government records.

This article was brought through FAC more or less by acclamation in fall 2008, and was chosen as a TFA without any request needing to be made. It is a very good article, if I may say so myself, and is viewed by in the area of 2,000 people a day. Please be cautious in improving the article, and remember that this talk page is always open.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

MOSDATE

User Wehwalt and I have been reverting each other's edits related to the date format used in this article. He or she pointed to MOSDATE where it states: "(1) If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic; and (2) In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to 'the first major contributor'". First, let me point out that these are just guidelines (suggestions really), not rules. Secondly, the "strong national ties to the topic" clause seems to indicate that, since this article is not about an American subject (where American date formats would not be used), international date formats (i.e., just about any country, but the USA) should be used in this article about a historical German man. Unless Wehwalt can give me a good reason to use American date formats for a non-American article, I will continue to reverts his or her edits. --Thorwald (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it really that important? Why not see if we can figure it out here, rather than edit-war? --John (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is. This article has always had month day year. It was questioned at FAC, and was allowed. The Manual of Style says keep it this way. Thorwald seems to think that since it is a non-American subject, it should be day month year. This is not the case. It is not to be changed except for the reasons in the MoS. As for Thorwald's ... novel ... interpretation of the MoS provisions, if editors wanted to say "If it is not American, go to day month year", they know how to do so. I stress that this is a Featured Article, it has gone through many layers of review and has appeared on the main page. Thorwald's threat to edit war to get his way is childish indeed. His arguments amount to "I don't like it this way".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I should add that if we remain deadlocked, I will ask for a RfC on this. The guidelines are clear, Thorwald needs to change them before changing this article. What he is exhibiting is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I came across "childish"; I assure you, that was not my intention. I have been actively editing Wikipedia for over 5 years and have run into many of these supposed "deadlocks", but we have always found a way. Anyway, not trying to turn this into a forum; I just passionately believe in standards and, when in doubt, I always refer to international standards. I believe that the imposition of American-style dates is inappropriate for an international Wikipedia. It may not seem important to you, but imagine a scientific article only using Imperial units (as opposed to Internationally recognized and used SI units). I realize that this is not exactly the same thing, but to us non-Americans, it seems strange to use month, day, year. Again, the very guidelines you pointed to are, indeed, clear on the subject: There is a "strong national tie" in Germany (and just about every other country in the world) to always use either 'day, month, year' or 'year, month, day' (the logical sequence: small-to-large or large-to-small). I retain my claim that this article should use international date formats. --Thorwald (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, if that was the intent of MOSDATE, it would have been stated more clearly. You need to change MOSDATE, not change this article. If the intent of MOSDATE was to say "if the country uses day month year, we will use day month year", it would have said so. Your imposition of a scientific article is a straw man argument. This article was developed, and built to FA and TFA, with this here. Your imposition of your own standard (under the cover of a minor edit, yet! And edit summary that really didn't say what you were doing! I will also note that "I'm going to keep reverting, so there" is not an appropriate argument for one who has been here five years. You need to be taking up this argument somewhere else. MOS is not on your side. I'll allow time for additional discussion, and for other views to weigh in. At that point, I will revert to the consensus version of the article. If there is a further revert (assuming no overwhelming arguments are brought in from elsewhere), I guess I'll start the RfC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears the "intent" of MOSDATE is open to interpretation, as I really do see it as saying what I have argued. Anyway, I guess we shall have to agree to disagree here. Note that I never said I would "revert, so there", I specifically stated "Unless [you] can give me a good reason to use American date formats for a non-American article, I will continue to reverts his or her edits". I don't believe you have given me a good reason, other than "that's the way the date format always was". I agree about my straw man argument and that is why I added the caveat (however, it probably would have been better not to bring it up at all; sorry about that). Finally, I agree with you that we should let others weigh in on this. If a simple majority think we should use the American format, I will concede. In the mean time, I will take your suggestion and challenge the MOSDATE guideline. --Thorwald (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

How could it make sense except in the interpretation I give it? Keep in mind that the US, as you've pointed out, is almost unique in using month day year. I don't agree on the majority. It is your task to build a consensus for any contentious change in the article. I have not reverted your edit because I follow a personal limit of 2RR and don't want to be accused of edit warring. However, if you go over to MOSDATE, I'll be happy to engage you there. I'm in no hurry to revert. It's what it looks like next Tuesday (or whenever), that is important.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, when you start the discussion, please post a link here so the interested reader (including me!) can follow you there.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do. --Thorwald (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to start a discussion on this, but then I found that it had been debated ad infinitum and ad nauseum in places like this and this, etc. and decided I would be wasting my time starting yet another debate. The main objective I see from non-Americans is, Why should any editor need to go through the histories of edits to find the "first significant editor" to determine which format/style to use? And, haven't we already decided on a consensus here? That is, if the article is not about a USA-related topic, use non-American-style date formats. PS: Wehwalt's threat to start an RfC clearly defies the policy of only starting such if two or more editors disagree with one. I haven't read any argument in your favour from another editor on this page. --Thorwald (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, exactly who has determined a consensus to use non-US dates? You and what army? I'm shocked that you are unwilling to engage in an open discussion, as you agreed. Here is the original Albert Speer article, it uses US style dates? You are acting inappropriately by insisting on your way, which is not supported by MOS.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am arguing just that: MOS supports my stance that non-US topics should use the format of that country (i.e., the format almost every country on the planet uses). Why am I the "inappropriate" one here? Are you not also "insisting you way"? --Thorwald (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. I waited almost two weeks for you to start a discussion someplace and let me know, as you had pledged. You did nothing, so I then changed it back. You then see it and revert. The MOS supports my position. This has always been a US date article. The MOS says you don't switch it except for "strong national ties to the topic". If you look under the "strong national ties" section, it only has application to English speaking countries. Therefore, the "keep it the way it was" is what is appropriate. I propose against that you start a discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did you even read my previous post? I explicitly stated why I did not start a discussion. And, no, I do not agree that MOS supports your position (again, did you even read my previous post?). I am claiming that it supports my position. Since we can not agree on what MOS defines as "strong national ties to the topic", we should get others in on the discussion. I am befuddled as to why you don't see Albert Speer, a man born-and-raised and living his entire life in Germany (a country that uses the date format I am using), as well as having all of the "strong national ties" necessary, doesn't merit the format I am supporting (and, again, the format used by the vast majority of English speakers in the world). --Thorwald (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we both agree that we disagree on this, why don't we start a request for comment (which is hardly a threat, just a way to get user eyes on it)? And why? Because we don't put in local country things as a way of showing local color? This is the only FA about a member of the Nazi party, so excuse my referencing an Israeli: If this were Moshe Dayan, would we put the dates in the Hebrew calendar throughout the article? It clearly matters for an English speaking country to have local spelling and usages. It does not matter for a non-English speaking country. Of course I read your post! It said nothing that you hadn't said and I hadn't replied to before! Come on, I think we are having a legitimate difference here and the way to go is to get fresh eyes on the dispute. As long as we both agree to respect the outcome if fairly done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) The issue of date format was discussed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Speer and as per Retaining the existing format, it was decided to retain the existing date format. This is a fully realized Featured article, and in my opinion there must be a very compelling reason to risk its compliance with FA criteria by changing the date format in the article, reference citations etc. when it violates no standard with its current date format. It would be a big job with plenty of opportunity for error. Since it has already been scrutinized for such errors by the FA people, what is the compelling need for the change now? There is no mention in the MoS of a specific date format in English language articles specified for articles on Germany or Germans. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

MOSDATE differed in the past. The imposition of "English-speaking" as a criteria for national ties is relatively recent and inconsistent with other national differences such as units of measurement and currency units. We don't use miles or US dollars in articles about Germany or France, for example, neither of which have English as a primary language. I'm concerned about imposing US formats on a non-US article when international formats are more appropriate. Is this some sort of crusade by a particular editor to Americanise non-American articles? --Pete (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hardly, and you can check my other articles (see my user page for my 20 FA's) for strict compliance with MOSDATE. This article had month first when I began improvement work in late 2008, I respected the format. In fact, when I worked on John Diefenbaker, I standardized (both uses were present in the article) as day first, and was told by a Canadian that month first was more common. No conspiracy here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good-oh. The article was consistent international format when the wording of MOS was different. Making a change to US format for a non-US article seems to be rather odd unless there is some sort of personal preference in play. --Pete (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When I started work on it in 2008, I looked into date formatting and MOS as it existed then and I followed the rule. I've written articles in both formats, I do not have a strong preference. I am, however, protective of MOS compliance in articles that I've worked on. If MOS gets changed, I will have no problem with changing this article to day month year.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Last visit to Berlin

There is a theory, by its nature unprovable, but nonetheless plausible, put forward in a German television series called "Hitlers Helfer" (the book of the series was translated into English as "Hitler's Henchmen"). It states that Speer undertook the very dangerous last flight to Berlin with the specific aim of persuading Hitler to exclude any mention of him in the Führer's political testament. His motives for this would be clear enough: he hoped (naively) that he would be included in, maybe even head of, a post-Nazi German government to be set up by the Allies. As he had been very close to Hitler, who appears to have treated him in a somewhat fatherly way, the omission from Hitler's testament needs to be explained, as does the otherwise entirely unnecessary flight to Berlin. 84.44.253.249 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Died while visiting mistress

Not to be too sleazy, but this was one thing that surprised me when reading the Van der Vat bio. Seem fitting to add this? --John (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've thought that including that, right there, would be seen as an unnecessary snap at Speer, kind of POV. It's undoubtedly true, read Sereny rather than Van der Vat if you can, much more personal, Sereny knew Speer well.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A tasteful and proportionate mention might be in order I am thinking. The circumstances of his death are important. Van der Vat uses Sereny as a source but also criticizes her for being too close to the subject. Although I do admire certain aspects of Speer's achievements, I think I am more in sympathy with the debunking tone of the VdV work. --John (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "Speer had formed a relationship with an English woman, and was with her at the time of his death."?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

She was a German woman living in England, "half his age", and with two young children, per VdV. But yes, something like what you propose would be fine. --John (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a page number from VDV? I'll add it. Incidentally, I don't think there's any question Speer manipulated opinion about him, knowingly and brilliantly. But I feel that by the time Van der Vat came along, it was pretty all there. People know Speer had lied, and that had taken whatever toll it was going to take.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's on p362-363 of my 1997 edition. She was married to an Englishman, and Speer's wife knew about it. Have at it. (And nice to see you again!) --John (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Inserting. Good seeing you too.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Son

I think somewhere we need to mention his son, especially since he became a prominent architect himself, following in the footsepts of his father and grandfather. - BorisG (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No objection, what do you think to adding a line to the post-Spandau section about the difficulties he had readjusting himself to his children, whom he mostly hadn't seen for 20 years, as they were allowed almost no visits to Spandau? We could toss in a parenthetical. I will have to look at Sereny.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any sources handy. I would probably put a subsection in Legacy: Speer had six children: Albert, Hilde, Fritz, Margret, Arnold, and Ernst. The eldest son, Albert Speer Jr. (1934), followed in the footsteps of his grandfather and father, and also became an architect. Something like this. - BorisG (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps going a little too far. We have an infobox to recite the names of the children in, and then we would get people wanting to say that Hilde is a politician and Arnold a community organizer or whatever. None of which is Speer's legacy; he did not cause that to happen, as he was trimming flowers during 20 of their formative years ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok., maybe like this: Speer had six children; the eldest of them, Albert Speer, Jr. (1934), followed in the footsteps of his grandfather and father, and also became an architect. Of course this son did spent first 10 years with his father - and Hitler. - BorisG (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go find my copy of Sereny and see what she says about the kids. I remember Hilde talks about how she hated being with Hitler, but Sereny makes it clear that she feels that was all post hoc.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. An alternative is to put it at the end of Early Years, which could be renamed Family and Early Years: Albert and Margret Speers had six children etc. etc. - BorisG (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it sort of tells the story out of order ... we deal little with Speer's personal life, because (in my view) people are much more interested in his connection (in every sense of the word!) with Hitler and that so overshadows everything ... I will get to it by tonight or tomorrow at the latest and will get something in. I want to see what she says about Hilde and Albert Jr. I've just been on a redeye and feel worse after three hours' sleep than I did before.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Very few people are notable for their family life. But it is part of the context, I guess. Have a good rest! Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wenwalt, thank you for following up. I disagree though that kids are not part of his legacy. There is no doubt that they have been profoundly affected by the association. But also it is standard on Wikipedia to mention family, including children. Anyway thank you for the promotion. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Member of the Party

I recall reading somewhere he wasn't actually accepted to the Nazi Party due to a clerical error. Jokem (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that was a question of his being admitted to the SS, though it was something that Himmler tried to impose on him, he had no interest in it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

the plan of new berlin

why you delet the photo ? פארוק (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We already have photo of volkshalle, no need for another picture. Too many pictures.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Career Summary

Not sure why this was removed. A direct primary source was provided. Beside the point, that materiel could probably be made into its own article. I was thinking "Political career of Albert Speer", so I guess no great harm done. -OberRanks (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't removed, it was just commented out until you put in more sources. You said there was more. We have to keep up appearances you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Any objection to a split off into its own article? I have three major sources for the info now. And yes, the details of his various political ranks and uniform styles would kind of clutter up this excellent article. -OberRanks (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, actually. Split is fine with me. Thank you for the phrase. Really, it is not my writing, Speer is such a fascinating story ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the material and created the article. Unsure about this edit [1]. Perhaps the user wasn't aware of this discussion. -OberRanks (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

See below. The new article can be found at Political career of Albert Speer. We can at least link it in the "See also" section. -OberRanks (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• OberRanks you made wholesale changes to this featured article, claiming consensus. You raised the issue at 02:40, one user agreed, and you made the changes at 04:32. That is a total of 112 minutes of discussion. That does not qualify as consensus. Please leave the discussion open for a reasonable amount of time, i.e. at least 48 hours. In the meantime, why not just cut-and-paste what you need and leave the featured article untouched? — Fly by Night (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The entire "Career Summary" section was added by me as new material without modifying the remainder of the article [2]. After the discussion above, it was moved into Political career of Albert Speer. This was after another user hide the material from view in favor of better sources [3]. We then agreed, after I had found such sources, to transwiki the material to the new article. I guess we can leave it here, but don't see why we would need too since its now essentially duplicated on two different articles and on this one its not visible. -OberRanks (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case then feel free to move it. You didn't mention that. You just said you had consensus to remove a big chunk of a featured article. I know it wasn't included in the article text but it could have been there for future expansion. But if you added recently then I can't see a problem with you removing it. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's OK. He had added it about two weeks ago, it's all good.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved from User Talk Page (OberRanks)

Please do not delete or move large section of featured articles. Featured articles are the best articles we have on Wikipedia and they will in no way benefit from such wholesale changes. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There was consensus to do exactly that on the talk page. -OberRanks (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as you didn't mention that in your edit summary, could you please link to that consensus here? — Fly by Night (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, there was no such consensus. You posted a message at 02:40, one editor agreed, and you moved it at 04:45. One agreement after two hours is not consensus. You will need to leave the discussion open for a reasonable amount of time to allow a consensus to be reached. Feel free to copy-and-paste int the meantime. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Overweight Nazis

Can someone check the ref for this, please. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

Certainly. "'It had the advantage of dramatizing the spectacle,' Speer said, 'while effectively drawing a veil over the not-so-attractive marching figures of paunchy party bureaucrats.'"--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede image

I notice a back and forth about the lede image in edit summaries. I have never been 100 percent thrilled with it as it is a crop and also I don't believe that photographs of people when they did not want to be photographed turn out to be the best possible image and here Speer plainly wasn't acting voluntarily. I will have a look through the Bundesarchiv stuff. However, an image of Speer in Nazi uniform is ... problematical as lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Roper 1992

Hi, Wehwalt. Cite #80 calls for Roper 1992, but there is no such book in the bibliography. I show him as being treated by Dr Koch on the recommendation of Dr Brandt; it appears on page 425-427 of the 1971 paperback edition of Inside the Third Reich. If you could find it in your copy that would be better, as we would not have to add another book to the bibliography. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am away today, I'll doublecheck my copy tomorrow. Someone probably added it for no good reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It is pages 330 and 331. I'll make that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have taken the liberty of making two other small corrections. See you around! Regards, --Dianna (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No trouble. Thx--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction to Albert Speer Article

I object to several sentences in the introduction of this article. I strongly disagree with "... he accepted responsibility at the Nuremberg trials and in his memoirs for crimes of the Nazi regime." Speer can't be accepting responsibility for the Nazi crimes while simultaneously denying any knowledge about the 10 million people who died in the camps. As noted by Gitta Sereny, if he had said something similar at Nuremberg, he would have been hanged.

Then there is, "His level of involvement in the persecution of the Jews and his level of knowledge of the Holocaust remain matters of dispute." This is written as if it were still "up in the air" whether Speer had as little knowledge as he claimed about the Holocaust. The view today that Speer didn't know Jews were being killed on a massive scale is about as popular with historians as holocaust denial.

Finally, the sentence, "As Hitler's Minister of Armaments and War Production, Speer was so successful that Germany's war production continued to increase despite massive and devastating Allied bombing," is very misleading. His appointment in early 1942 roughly coincides with Germany beginning mobilization toward total war and while the Allied bombing may have been "massive," it is simply incorrect to write it was "devastating" to the German economy. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's exhaustive work after the war concluded that all of the bombing caused a production loss of around 12% to the Germans and most of this occurred in the war's last year.

Some insight into Speer's mindset can be shown by his support for the V2 rocket which voraciously took vital electronics and strategic metals away from the German Aircraft industry (Speer wouldn't be responsible for aircraft production until later. He not only supported this rocket project but was a champion of it even when Hitler was for its cancellation). He also supported the V3 gun which also plundered major resources -- thousands of tons of concrete -- from the Atlantic Wall but never fired a shot. This article has no mention of any of this.TL36 (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing in the lede is very careful. "for crimes of the Nazi regime". Not all crimes, just crimes. Which he did. He made a general claim of responsibility as an adviser to the head of state. He did not admit to responsibility for the specifics, like the six million. If you can supply a few sources for the rest of it, I'll see what can be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing that made my mind up about his knowledge of the Holocaust is the question of the Hungarian Jews. As you know, the decision was taken by Eichmann in April 1944 to deport all of the Hungarian Jews. By the end of June 380,000 people had been sent. Speer meanwhile knew that Himmler had promised Hitler 100,000 workers for the underground factories for the armaments industry. Correspondence between Milch, Kammler, Speer, and Himmler shows that Speer was aware of this promise. Only about 20-25% of the people sent from Hungary were deemed fit enough for work. The rest were killed, at the rate of 6000 people a day throughout the summer of 1944. Speer knew that the vast majority of the people arriving were not suitable for work. (Sereny, pages 420, 421, 464, 465 of the paperback edition). He definitely knew about the plan to provide the 100,000 workers, so to me it's inconceivable that he did not know about the fate of the others. But the problem is, he never admitted to knowing, so whatever conclusions that I may draw is WP:OR. If we can find a selection of historians who conclude one way or another, we could present these opinions as historians' conclusions. But we will never know for sure unless we can prove he was at Posen or Wannsee, or new material comes to light. If Sereny doesn't know for sure, after her many years of interviews and research, we likely will never know for sure either. -- Dianna (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Harvard's Erich Goldhagen, Dan van der Vat, and Matthias Schmidt all believe Speer was at Posen during Himmler's speech. Gitta Sereny wrote, "There is simply no way Speer can have failed to know about Himmler's speech, whether or not he actually sat through it." Dianna, why are you writing Gitta Sereny doesn't know for sure?TL36 (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That is why I've been so cautious about adding stuff. The principals are dead, the records long since thumbed through by every grad student who cares to, and all recent scholarship has been is rearranging the deck chairs. We know roughly the same about Speer today as, say, in 1985. This is a biography. I don't like adding theories. This article is designed to give people the basic info about Speer in an organized, neutral, and engaging manner, or at least I hope so. It sailed through FAC four years ago and I've maintained it since. I checked JSTOR this afternoon. There isn't much new stuff out there. Speer is always going to be interesting to people because of who he was and what he did and who stared over his shoulder, fascinated, as he worked on his architectural plans. Incidentally, I am also convinced he knew quite a lot through friends like Hanke and other Gauleiters, but he didn't care. His life was his work. He had no empathy with people dying out of his sight.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

When people read "crimes of the Nazi regime," they think of the camps. I believe the majority of people who read the sentence, "As 'the Nazi who said sorry',[a] he accepted responsibility at the Nuremberg trials and in his memoirs for crimes of the Nazi regime," are going to come away with the idea that Speer apologized at Nuremberg for the death camps which is untrue. I hope you can give that sentence greater clarity.

I surprisingly had trouble finding a source online for the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) percentage they estimated that Allied bombing reduced German production. I don't presently have access to my original source which was the 1970 edition of Encyclopaedia Americana. There are lots of sources that give figures for individual items such as aircraft production.

On pages 115 and 116 of "The Strategic Bombing of Germany, 1940-1945" by Alan J. Levine, it states "the Allies may have reduced the growing German output of armaments by about 5.5 percent. Speer later put the figure, dubiously, at 9 or 10 percent." These figures are for the period of the war up to the end of 1943. (The excessive internet address messed up the page so I'm not including it. You can find these pages on google books.)

Concerning aircraft production, there is this from the USSBS report

pg.7: Prior to the end of 1944 there is little evidence that lack of engines or of necessary equipment or of basic materials led to any critical shortages of finished aircraft. Even the widely publicized attacks against the ball bearing industry, which were supposed to pinch off a vital accessory to the building of aircraft and aircraft engines, failed to produce even as a temporary setback.

pg. 97: Dr. Werner reported in September 1944 that up to that time only about 5% of machine tools equipment had been destroyed by bombing.

http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/airrep.html

This isn't the material I wanted but I hope you can see from it that the Allied bombing wasn't "devastating" during the period that Speer grew production.TL36 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's how you define the term devastating. I don't have my Speer books in front of me right now but as I recall the choice of targets was somewhat questionable, giving Speer a chance to rebuild and work around things. However, by late 1944, the Allies had gotten smarter about bombing and were bombing critical resources. Do you know when that report came out?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I note you didn't reply to my comment that "crimes of the Nazi regime" has people thinking of the death camps and makes the sentence misleading. I believe the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey(USSBS) report has more than one version. I've seen dates of September 30, 1945 and July 1, 1946 (This latter printing probably includes the bombing of Japan). "The Strategic Bombing of Germany, 1940-1945" by Alan Levine was published in 1992 and I believe it to be a scholarly work. The air raids finally had a devastating effect on the oil supply and brought German armaments production to a halt but not until well into 1945. My main points are the attacks didn't have much effect during the period when production increased threefold and the Germans had not mobilized until after Speer had gained the appointment.TL36 (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

He denied specific knowledge of the Holocaust, indeed. But he said he and other high officials were generally responsible. Is there language you'd like to propose? As for the report (which was based in part on what Speer had to say at Flensburg, I believe), the factors that led to the increase are set forth in the article. There was certainly plenty of bombing, and it was devastating, but the Allies were inefficient in their bombings until, as you point out, the second half of 1944.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm becoming a nuisance, but are we going to change the "Speer was so successful ... despite massive and devastating Allied bombing" sentence? I'm not aware of pointing out that Allied bombing started being efficient in the second half of 1944.TL36 (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It was devastating to the population, but not as much to industry as the Allies had hoped. However, I'll scrub the adjectives.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the resulting sentence with "so successful" is not satisfactory since it continues to perpetuate the myth that Speer's performance as Armaments Minister was remarkable. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that "because the German economy through most of the war was substantially undermobilized, it was resilient under air attack." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TL36 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

His biographers would have had access to that report, no?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

They certainly could have accessed that part of the survey but that doesn't mean any of them read it and even if they did, it may have been of little consequence. The great focus on Speer by the biographers has been his level of involvement with mass murder on a grand scale and not whether he did a great job as the German Armaments Minister or was just competent. Speer researchers had a massive amount of material to look at it. I believe the Nuremberg trial transcript alone is around a quarter of a million pages. Adding the USSBS to their research material would not be a priority. We are presently having computer networking problems and my health problems have flared up again, so I may be out of touch for a period.TL36 (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that and wish you a speedy recovery. I will use the interval to get my Speer books out of storage. I have the ones he wrote on the shelves in my rec room but will have to dig for the other books. Let me see what attention they give to the points you mention, and if they cite the report. On the first sentence, would "general responsibility" work better for you? All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking at "Inside The Third Reich," be sure to read the first few pages of Speer's recollections on his dealings with Hitler concerning the V-2 & Waterfall rocket. The story begins in earnest at the bottom of pg. 364. Speer doesn't tell the story in chronological order and leaves out the fact that he almost certainly could have gotten the V-2 canceled in 1942 when Hitler was quite negative on the program. However, Speer would have enraged his colleagues in the Army if he had.TL36 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will look at them next couple of days now. Hope you are doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the compassionate words. I'm not going to be active on Wikipedia for at least the next six weeks because they're starting me tomorrow on an intravenous antibiotic treatment because of a bone infection (What looked like a simple toe nail infection has spread to the bone. This is due to being immunocompromised from my cancer treatment). Considering the way my efforts have gone to improve the Albert Speer article, maybe I should restrict myself to blood cancer articles.TL36 (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that. We are discussing it, there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and these things can take time.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Admission of responsibility

I think the current article conflates three things:

• Admission of criminal responsibility (guilt)
• Admission of moral responsibility
• Repentance (remorse)

These three things are related (one cannot express remorse without admitting at least some responsibility) but they are not one and the same. One can admit moral but not criminal responsibility. One can admit responsibility but not express remorse. Currently, the lead says: As "the Nazi who said sorry",[a] he accepted responsibility at the Nuremberg trials and in his memoirs for complicity in crimes of the Nazi regime. This conflates all these things. If we say that he accepted responsibility for (complicity in) crimes... it follows that he admitted guilt. We know he pleaded not guilty. He admitted moral but not criminal responsibility. Thus the current sentence it misleading. Furthermore, the way it is worded, it confuses remorse and admission of responsibility. Without lengthy discussion of this latter confusion, I will propose an alternative wording. At the Nuremberg trials he pleaded not guilty but admitted moral responsibility for Nazi atrocities as one of Hitler's "closest associates", and expressed repentance.

What do other editors think? I think corresponding changes are also required in the main body, but the above sums in a nutshell my approach, for which I seek input. I have not read a lot on Speer, and thus may have missed some things. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

However sincere or otherwise Speer's admission of responsibility, he was unique among high-level Nazi leaders in making one. That needs to remain stressed. Obviously he pleaded not guilty at Nuremberg; had he not, and had he not very ably defended himself with Flaschsner's help, I dare say he would have died there.. I hesitate to use the word "repentance", though, Speer may not deserve it. I personally do not think he was sincere, but that's only my opinion. I would suggest reading more about Speer, his books and the major biographies should be readily available.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not mentioned sincerety; not sure this is relevant to the issue I've raised. Repeantance is the word used by the Nuremberg Trials article. It may not be precise but it is sourced. Anyway, I withdraw my suggestion as too radical. Instead I am proposing to insert a single word 'moral' to avoid being misleading. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

/* Nuremberg Trial */ intention to kill Hitler - add tabun gas and several other important details and cite in 1970 edition of Inside the Third Reich

Just a heads up that I slightly edited the /* Nuremberg Trial */ section to clarify the specific poison gas Speer claimed to intend to use originally was tabun. I also noted that in addition to justifying not going ahead w/ the plan based on construction of the high wall (actually a chimney - guess that needs to be edited, too), Speer cited tabun's alleged-impracticability for the application (claiming it required an explosion to make "effective") and contended they had no ready access to a replacement gas. I cited this information to the appropriate pages of the 1970 edition of Inside the Third Reich, which is what I'm reading from. One thing that does concern me, however, is Speer's claim that the tabun would've had to have been exploded and was inert otherwise. This is not factually correct and may raise additional doubt about the sincerity of Speer's claim to have planned to kill Hitler, though I was not sure it merited inclusion in the article given the relative space accorded to this episode. Azx2 18:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we need to go into that much detail. No problem with your additions although I will probably tweak it. But I agree, the details of the supposed plot need not be endlessly dragged out. Speer made the claim, no one could disprove it, we place it in appropriate context, and move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I see that as of now the specific mention of tabun stands in the article and I appreciate your leaving it in, as I think it provides an interested reader with an opportunity to obtain additional knowledge and detail w/o requiring them to read more than a few additional words (replacing "poison gas" w/ a wiki-linked "tabun" - they can click thru to tabun and read more about it if so inclined). Anyway, that's all. Just wanted to express some positive sentiment...Cheers. Azx2 05:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Skirtsy

I have copied this material from my user talk page:

Currently, the Speer entry is based on "a handful of English-language biographies and histories . . . the kind of reading one would do if you were writing a historical novel". (The quote is from Richard Evans's scathing review of what he called "[p]ossibly the worst" biography of Hitler ever written). When you revert my edit, you restore a propagandistic portrait of Speer that contains untenable assertions based on information that is years, in some cases nearly a decade, out of date. Germans were susceptible to Nazi propaganda because the government was in total control; there is no excuse for you to be keeping the article like something out of Nazi propaganda organs.

Take one egregious example: Before my edit, the lede—the lede—contained this: "Speer was so successful that Germany's war production continued to increase despite massive and devastating Allied bombing." Turning to pp. 556–7 of Tooze's book, which was published six years ago, one discovers: "The German war economy after 1942 was limited by the same fundamental trade-offs that had restricted it since the first years of the war. And by the summer of 1943, these constraints, combined with the first systematic attack against German industry by Allied bombers, brought Speer's 'miracle' to a complete halt." And note Tooze refers to it as a 'miracle' rather than a miracle; you'd know why if you'd have read Tooze's book. It is your error-strewn, moth-eaten article that commits POV—a pro-Speer POV. The same point can be made about Speer's anti-destruction efforts and his purported concern for German civilians.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the fundamental problem is your arrogance not enjoying my correcting your outdated knowledge. You might like to think you know what you're talking about, but I would encourage you to extend your reading beyond standard popular works before involving yourself further. Worse, even if Schwendemann's article is locked away in JSTOR, Tooze's book is available in any major bookshop. Skirtsy My talk Edits 20:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

-- Dianna (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I am happy to engage in a discussion as to updating the article, should it need it, and keeping in mind that newer is not always better.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Anything ever come of this? Just curious... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azx2 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No, nothing did.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Too bad, I would've liked to have seen them defend their claims. I wasn't familiar w/ "Tooney's book," so I looked it up, found the Google book link to "The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy" and saw that it is billed even by the publisher as "controversial" ("Adam Tooze's controversial new book challenges the conventional economic interpretations of that period..."). Then I found an interesting review of it via Amazon (3-star review #1) that makes some strong claims against the author's intellectual honesty...

"The author of the book has a rather deterministic view of the possible outcome of the second world war. While I may disagree with him, I think that he presents his view with sound arguments, but he is not very intellectually honest (or maybe he doesn't know many statistical material concerning the second world war). My criticisms here concern mostly his coverage of the military aspects of the war, with of course, tend to be inferior to his coverage of economic aspects of the war, with are his specialty. He wants to defend his view that the outcome of the second world war was given as victory to the allies and that Germany didn't stand a chance of surviving a war against them, however he defends that view using distorted statistics...In several parts of the book he apparently selected his statistics to reflect his views..."

My point? I agree, like you said, newer is not always better, and beware books that the publisher pushes as being controversial or debate-stirring, and actually judge 'em on the quality of the scholarship and proficiency of the writing... Azx2 21:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Tooze, Tooze, Tooze…

I see your dedication to Speer remains undiminished, Wehwalt—most interesting. And I see I'm not the only one to have noticed it (how can you miss it?)—this is from way back in 2008, and this from 2012. You remind me of the first paragraph of an article of yesteryear I read one time. I also do not believe it unfair to mention WP:OWN.

Surely, Wehwalt, there are more constructive things to be doing on Wikipedia than obfuscating the crimes and playing up the self-serving propaganda of a leading Nazi? I have a number of revisions to make; looks like this is going to be painfully time-consuming. I can assure you that, in addition to making sure all of Tooze's findings on Speer appear prominently, a certain 2003 article by Heinrich Schwendemann—it documents mistake by both Sereny and Fest, yet is not so much as mentioned—is going to be emptied into this article as well. Other books will also be deployed. So, let's begin.

Yale professor Adam Tooze says in his multi-award-winning book that the first systematic bombing brought the armaments "miracle" to a halt.

One can't win when trying to make this first revision about the effect of Allied bombing: when it was added without a source, it got reverted because it was "unsourced"; I then added it with a source and it still got reverted. (I also note that this complaint—about the effect of the bombing—has been brought before, again way back in 2009). I don't even see where the room for discussion is. Tooze's book is unquestionably RS—it's the best study of the Nazi economy we have—but perhaps you have some personal correspondence with Tooze in which he admits that you have shown him the error of his ways.

The Knowledge of the Holocaust section is truly bizarre; you couldn't even guess from the article that he basically admitted he knew about the Holocaust to Sereny, but we'll come to that in due course. For now, how about p. 704 of her biography?

I believe that after Posen—whether he actually attended Himmler's speech or not—he knew about the long planned and almost completed genocide of the Jews, including the women and children.

Let's finish up with Hilberg 2003, p. 867:

From early 1943 to the beginning of 1945, one man in particular attempted to integrate the Hungarian army's Jewish labor service into his industrial machine. This man was Reich Minister of Armaments and chief of the Organisation Todt, Albert Speer. Some very important developments during the "Final Solution" phase of the Hungarian destruction process are traceable to his efforts.

Anyway, over to you regarding the first revision. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

One more thing about Tooze. In a review of Bella Gutterman's A Narrow Bridge (2008), Christopher Browning said, "The major weakness of the book is the placement of her topic in the wider scholarship and debate over the interplay of Nazi ideology and economic and labor policy on the other. For wider context, she relies on older works"—including, unfortunately, "a relatively uncritical use of Albert Speer". (Sounds like the crusty old Nazi Speer isn't all that reliable, wouldn't you say?) Other important works, continues our leading Holocaust scholar, are "[b]arely touched" by Gutterman. "Not used at all", Browning admonishes finally, is "Adam Tooze on the Nazi economy". --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Tooze's view is interesting and it has a place in the article. As Tooze's view. As I see it, we're arguing about two things: the degree of increase in armaments and other industrial products related thereto, and the extent to which Speer is due praise for it. Surely we can find language that mentions both the more traditional view of Speer's armaments work, and Tooze's, in a way that is not overly long. As for Sereny's view, I've thought quite a bit about including it. It's her belief, and yet it is a person who spoke much with Speer, and has studied him as much as anyone. My thought is including it would be coming down a bit too heavily on one side of the scales, and we should focus on facts, and leave the who believes who for the reader's further research. And for what it's worth, I agree. Speer knew, the operations it took to transport and murder Jews were extensive enough they could not have gone on without his knowledge, in his position. It simply ... wasn't important to him, other than professionally.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was fairly surprised when I stumbled on this article today to see that it presents the orthodox view (i.e., Speer's view) as the default and shunts Tooze to the Legacy section - while the intent might be to present both and let the readers decide, structuring it in this way certainly does not do that. And Tooze's book is pretty widely accepted among military and German historians, at least in the US. While Wikipedia should be conservative with some things (for instance, on English usage), it should certainly reflect recent scholarship over older works. Parsecboy (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, then it behooves me to get a copy. This article was written seven or eight years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's fairly hefty, but well worth the read. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Material about a pamphlet

I don't think material about a pamphlet as added in this diff should be included in the article. I have removed it. Posting here to open discussion to see if there's any consensus to include it. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ventilation shaft

(1) The video that is used as a citation for this material is a copyright violation, as it was uploaded to YouTube by "John Doe", not the copyright holder of the film. (2) The bunker must have had ventilation – air intakes and outlets of some kind – else the occupants would have suffocated. @Kierzek: you have source material on the Fuhrerbunker and may be interested in commenting here. – Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd oppose keeping it. The article already includes contemporary comments about the bunker/air shaft that make it clear that some mocked him at the time (not having a ladder). I don't see the point in adding something 70 years on. The purpose seems to be to additionally discredit Speer Sr. and I think there's POV issues with it. Especially with where it is placed in the lede, or it being placed in the lede at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be glad to look into it when I get home as I do have good RS books on the subject of the bunker, Diannaa. With that said, at this point there is no consensus to include it; in review, I agree with Wehwalt as to it having POV issues. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"to additionally discredit Speer Sr. …"

Still fighting hard for Speer, Wehwalt! It is a thankless task; it is an impossible task. Can you imagine if someone wrote, "The purpose of this small addition to the article seems to be to additionally discredit Hitler." Wow. If I could do so, I would ban this guy from editing this article and any others relating to Speer.

As for the 2005 documentary: I could not care less about whether or not it stays. It can do precisely nothing to "further discredit" Speer, since the guy was a leading Nazi. Further "discreditation" ought to be impossible. My reason for I reverting the apologist's excision was that he performed it with a false claim that the material was in the lead (it quite clearly was not). --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Speer in Panther tank

The photo of Speer in a Panther tank has to be from 1944 or 1945 and cannot be from 1942 as captioned previously. The tank has zimmerit coating which entered production in the winter of 1943-44. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust

How was Speer able to lie about being at the speech given by Himmler? Surely many other people would have attended and at least some would have remembered that he was there? (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:B8C1:21E9:12BA:776E (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC))

Lede

"Insisting he had been ignorant of the Holocaust" isn't good enough. We now know for certain that Speer was fully aware of the Holocaust in 1943. He should have been hanged at Nuremberg - it's a joke that he was allowed to live when lesser criminals like Keitel, Rosenberg and Streicher were executed. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:B8C1:21E9:12BA:776E (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for you to rant. If you have an RS to support your claim, cite it (along with page number if appropriate.) When your block is up in a month, that is. Also, you might want to read a bit more about the three executed war criminals that you consider guilty of lesser crimes than Speer. The mind - it reels.

Who is Hanke

There are six mentions of Hanke in the article.

The first is that Hanke recommended the young architect to Goebbels to help renovate the Party's Berlin headquarters. Basically Speer's introduction to the NAZI Party.

But nowhere is a definition of who Hanke is.

Banner at the top says : You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits.

Sorry, this is the first time I attempted to influence Wikipedia. I wouldn't attempt to edit the article because I don't know who Hanke is. Just pointing out a deficiency.

2601:206:8000:4751:72F1:A1FF:FEE6:FCA1 (talk) 08:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I am sure it was in the article at one time, but may have been edited out. I have fixed that and also deleted your personal information to protect your privacy (and, as an administrator, hidden the revision in which you revealed it). You may wish to consider getting an account, it is quick and easy.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Speer attended a speech by Hitler while still at university. He met Hanke at a later date.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Preserving here by providing this link; please see edit summary for rationale. In general, it seems odd that an FA would have such unsourced content. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I added the sources and restored the material. The original consensus to include this information was from about five years ago when it was merged in from a service record article. -O.R.^Comms 15:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Over-reliance on Speer's memoirs

There are 30+ citations to Speer's memoirs, with some presenting content from Speer's writings in Wikipedia's voice. For now, I've reduced the trivial material (which books Speer read, how long his walks were, etc): diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns.

Suggest revisiting to introduce 3rd party sources. Any feedback on this? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted, pending discussion. Most of these are no controversial and the information derives from Speer in any case so a third party source will have taken Speer's word for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

What purpose does this content serve in the article? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It tells Speer's bio, for example what he did for almost 20 years in Spandau, doing his world walk. I would have no objection if you wanted to re-source it to a different source, say a bio of Speer, but wholesale cuts seem a bad idea in a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

To illustrate my point, this anecdote is sourced to Speer:

• According to Speer's post-war memoirs, his political rivals (mainly Göring and Martin Bormann), attempted to have some of his powers permanently transferred to them during his absence. Speer claimed that SS chief Heinrich Himmler tried to have him physically isolated by having Himmler's personal physician Karl Gebhardt treat him, though his "care" did not improve his health. Speer's case was transferred to his friend Dr. Karl Brandt, and he slowly recovered.

References

Who knows whether it's true or not? I don't think we should be taking Speer's word for this, in absence of other sources. Likewise, it's doubtful whether 3rd party sources would cover in detail what types of books he read in prison or the different libraries he procured them from. This type of content strikes me as undue. I would love to hear what other editors might think. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It says inline that Speer is the one saying this. It's been a while since I wrote it, but from the way I phrased it, I had doubts. The problem on a lot Speer's interactions with highers-up during the war, no one survived to contradict him. I don't think we should delete it, just let the reader make their own judgment based on what we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The Memoirs of Albert Speer have been extensively studied and analyzed over the past 20 to 30 years, even more so since he has died. Most everything he said in the Memoirs have been verified independently as being mostly true. For those areas which are exaggerated or he didn't tell the complete truth (such as the slave labor program) historians have been very apt to point it out and there are numerous references showing this as well. There is no legitimate reason that I can see to challenge his Memoirs as a source for this article. -O.R.^Comms 17:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly: Speer's memoirs have been studied extensiveley, but what were the results? The article suggests: His books, most notably Inside the Third Reich (in German, Erinnerungen, or Reminiscences[136]) and Spandau: The Secret Diaries, provide a unique and personal look into the personalities of the Nazi era, and have become much valued by historians. As a matter of fact, however, Speer's image was, according to de:Magnus Brechtken, who is about to publish a book on Speer by the end of the month, shaped "by his own writings and interviews" and "by a small number of mainly journalistic biographies that became highly influential in the public mind. These key texts were written not by academic historians, but by journalists, most notably Joachim Fest and Gitta Sereny." Martin Schmidt's Ph.D. thesis on Speer in 1982 "should have destroyed whatever remnants there were of Speer's credibility, but they had little effect on public attitudes." "Significantly both [Fest and Sereny] failed to recognize the fundamental corrections available that should have informed any critical biography." Brechtken recognizes van der Vat's book as being more critical than Sereny and Fest, but notes, that "it does not offer a full deconstruction of the Speer myth." (Persuasive illusions of the Self: Albert Speer’s Life Writing and Public Discourse about Germany’s Nazi past, in: Birgit Dahlke, Dennis Tate, and Roger Woods (eds.): German Life Writing in the Twentieth Century, London: Camden House 2010, pp. 71-91, here pp. 73-4, 85.) Martin Kitchen is even harsher on Fest. He calls Fest's biography of 1999 (English ed.) "a rehashing of Speer's memoirs, which was their joint effort. ... Fest's admission of guilt was every bit as circumspect as Speer's. In many ways they were kindred souls. Both found it exceptionally hard to admit to any wrongdoing." (Speer. Hitler's Architect, Yale UP 2015, p. 11) In other words, not only is it a problem to rely on Speer's memoirs, it is also problematic to rely on Fest's and Sereny's accounts. Moreover, that Speer's writings themselves have become an object of historiographical analysis is not reflected in the article. I could provide a bunch more citations from German historiography. The issue has been subject of some debate, after Heinrich Breloer's TV movie Speer und er was shown in 2005. An exhibition on Speer has just opened in Nuremburg. It puts a keen focus on the historical forgery commited by Speer with the assistance of Joachim Fest and publisher Wolf Jobst Siedler. As historian Alexander Schmidt put it, Speer's memoirs were written by three authors. Well, what more legitimate reason could there be to challenge Speer's memoirs and Fest's biography as a source for anything, than historical forgery?--Assayer (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• From a glance at the citations, this article relies extremely heavily on Speer, Fest and Sereny. If there are concerns that none of the sources is reliable, it is my suggestion that the concerned editors put the article up for FAR. There is no point reducing a featured article through normal edits to below FA standards, since this will inevitably generate opposition (after all, the community has already "certified" the article). If it's 90% crap, you might as well come out and say it. I am in no position to judge either the sources in question or Assayer's representation of the secondary literature. Srnec (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

One step after another. This article has been written by someone who does not read German and was promoted to FA status in 2008. And to be fair, you can only be as insightful as the literature you are using. On the other hand, the archives of the talk page feature several instances of criticism along the lines that I have just outlined. So let me give a couple of examples of what is at stake here. One of the legends Speer purported is the (propaganda) story that the new Reich Chancellery was planned and built within a mere 12 months. As Angela Schönberger showed in her Ph.D. of 1979, published as Die Neue Reichskanzlei von Albert Speer. Berlin 1981, planning for the building started as early as 1934. In March 1936 Speer already charged some preliminary payment for his work on the New Chancellery. Fest still clings to the "propagandist lie" as does Dan van der Vat. Why? We do not know. Or take the eviction of Jewish tenants from Berlin. Fest, Sereny and van der Vat claim that Speer was merely aware of it. They all ignore that the whole process did not start in 1939, but with a meeting in September 1938, at which occasion Speer presented his ideas. In other words, Speer initiated the evictions. For these examples of criticism levelled at Speer's biographers see Isabell Trommer: Rechtfertigung und Entlastung. Albert Speer in der Bundesrepublik, Frankfurt/M.: Campus, 2016, p. 273. An almost classic Speer is how he managed to put the blame for slave labor mostly on Sauckel. He already did this successfully in Nuremburg, and he continued to do it, wrapping it up in some form of appealing self-criticism, all the while skipping over the fact, that Sauckel was his subordinate and that it was him who ordered the slave laborers that Sauckel delivered. These insights by historians have been largely ignored by Fest, Sereny and van der Vat. And sure enough, this article also features Sauckel as the sole culprit: Rather than increasing female labor and taking other steps to better organize German labor, as Speer favored, Sauckel advocated importing labor from the occupied nations – and did so, obtaining workers for (among other things) Speer's armament factories, often using the most brutal methods.

Since this article relies heavily on biographies who do not wholly demystify Speer, this article is not up to the challenge of Speer's mystifications. Instead there is a section Legacy and controversy, as if there is anything controversial in disproving Speer and Fest. The lead section remains completely silent about Speer's lies. It is not a good idea to suggest to let the reader make their own judgment based on what we have , if you only have half the information or even less.

There is now a critical biography of Speer by Martin Kitchen, which has received positive reviews. Furthermore, Rolf-Dieter Müller's important study of Speer's rise to prominence and his struggle to implement a 'total war' armaments policy during the war from 1999, featured in Vol. V, Part 2 of Germany and the Second World War was published in English in 2000. So the article can be rewritten, probably pointing at the problems of Fest's narrative, and possibly be saved as FA. I won't do it, because I am not a Speer specialist and I do not find his biography particularly appealing. Let's hear what others think.--Assayer (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone for their comments. I ended up at this article in a rather circuitous way. I was looking for information for a potential article on the Luftwaffe in popular culture. Instead I stumbled on Jägerstab and Rüstungsstab (both of which Speer created and supervised in the final 12+ months of the war; hence my additions to this article).

Specific to the discussion at hand, I am concerned that the current presentation is not neutral. Speer, of course, had valid reasons for obfuscating his role in the slave labour program / the Holocaust, chief of them avoiding the death penalty at Nuremberg. To illustrate my point, the narrative in the article described the final 17 months of the war (link) as follows: In Jan 1944, Speer falls ill and is on leave for three months. Himmler and Bormann are plotting against him. Speer has a row with Hitler, but they make up. Germany is defeated. The end.

The section that I added (Consolidation of arms production) deals with 1944 in much more detail. It’s understandable that Speer would want to skip over the topic of the massive scale of transfer of armaments production underground: life expectancy on such construction projects for the majority of prisoners was 4 to 8 weeks. One of the sources that I use specifically states that after the war he claimed that only 300,000 sq m of underground space were completed by the end of the war, while in fact the number was six times that, and by Nov 1944.

A separate matter is excessive detail, which contributes to the non-neutral presentation of Speer’s biography: i.e. the libraries that he borrowed his books from, his political decorations, the party ranks that he held, etc. (see: Albert_Speer#Career_summary, with four subsections). In the absence of a substantive discussion of Speer’s role in armaments production, they are immaterial and / or undue.

I note that the article achieved FA status 8 years ago and much more research has been published in English since then. For example, two of the sources I cited were published in 2010s. I think that the goal should not be to get the article delisted, but to improve it through normal editing. I'm looking for feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That is true. I did a lot of the writing on it, and I had limited sources as well. Additional scholarship would be very useful, though I suspect it will bear more on Speer's professional performance, as architect and as minister, than upon the minutiae of his biography, much of which is beyond fact-checking. We're just not going to find out more about a conversation Speer had off the record with someone who died in 1945. We let the reader know Speer's the source on this, and after that it's for the reader to sift through and form a judgment.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

As for the career summary, I would gladly see that gone. It wasn't in the version of the article that passed FA. However, they were added over the years by good faith editors who, when you revert them, appear and argue for their positions, and sometimes you have to pick your fights. The detail for example about his imprisonment is a different story. There is, or was, public interest in the circumstances of his imprisonment or his diary would not have been a best seller. And it's twenty years of his life.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I rewrote the section on the new Reich chancellery. What I said about Speer putting the blame on Sauckel is more difficult to figure out, because it relates to Speer's responsibility for the use of slave labor during the war. That needs to be clarified.--Assayer (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting FA status

I’ve reviewed the WP:FAR instructions and the first suggested step is to discuss on Talk page, which I’m now doing. The discussion above convincingly demonstrates that, due to its current sourcing, the article does not meet the WP:FA requirements for RS, comprehensiveness and neutrality. To illustrate, here’s the extended snippet from a review of the volume of Germany and the Second World War that covers with Germany's war-time economy:

• The next section deals with the high politics of German production, in particular Albert Speer, the minister in charge of much of the German economy from 1942 to 1945. Speer has always been one of the trickiest of Hitler’s acolytes to analyse. In his exquisitely self-serving autobiography Inside the Third Reich, Speer presents himself as a mostly apolitical architect who was brought under Hitler’s spell and laboured greatly in the interests of the German people, while missing out on the most horrible atrocities committed by the state in which he played such a crucial role. Near the end, so Speer claims, he even developed plans to assassinate Hitler while working hard to thwart the more millenarian Nazi impulses to lay waste to the surviving German economy.

The picture presented here, an entirely convincing one, is of a ruthlessly ambitious and extremely competent political organizer who from the moment of his appointment did everything possible to concentrate the power of the German economy in his hands as a way of making himself the second man in the Nazi state and, even, the preferred successor to Hitler. He was able to ride roughshod over many of those opposed to his aims, sidelining the minister for economics, Walther Funk, and benefiting from the alternatively self-destructive or apathetic behaviour of Hermann Göring. (…) Later, Speer was able to take advantage of the Luftwaffe’s loss of prestige due to the Allied bombing of German territory to incorporate all air armaments in his empire. Etc.

The article relies, to a large extent, on Speer's memoir and on the biography by Fest. Fest was also Speer's ghost writer, and I don't believe that the source meets the requirement for independent, reliable sources. The article does not employ the current scholarship and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to bring in independent, 3rd party sources. I thus propose that the article be nominated for FAR. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is improvement through normal additions, including of the sources in the 2010s, you mentioned earlier this year, not an option?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the article needs additions but rather revisions, i.e. replacing Speer / Fest with 3rd party source. Also: truth in advertising, so to speak. If the article does not meet FA criteria for RS, comprehensiveness, NPOV, etc, then it should not have the status. Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Plainly we have disagreed on this. I would welcome, as well as yours, the views of other editors, especially those who have been involved with the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I am unable to find a copy of the above review online so I am unable to determine which volume of the series Germany and the Second World War they are reviewing. So far there's 12 books in this set that have been published in English. None of them are available for inter-library loan in my area and they're prohibitively expensive to buy on Amazon (the most recent volume, Volume 9 part 2, is priced at $150-$200 Canadian). Expecting other people to invest in these books on the off chance that they contain something new about Speer and threatening to get this FA de-listed if they do not, well, that strikes me as unfair. And making the assumption based on this review that one or all of these books contradicts the material presented in this article is a bit of a stretch. If you have access to these books or other additional sources I suggest you make improvements to the article yourself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede is misleading

Block evasion by banned User:HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We now know he was fully aware of the Holocaust from at least 1943. (5.81.223.2 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)) I would urge you to read this talk page, and its archives, and understand the time and attention we have devoted to this matter through discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Hi @Wehwalt: Could you point me to these discussions? I located Talk:Albert_Speer/Archive_2#Holocaust and Talk:Albert_Speer/Archive_1#Holocaust but they don't really address the query here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC) I mean, those points and others regarding the tone of the article. The article sets forth what he said on the subject, and what he wrote. The reader can draw their own conclusions.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Re: "what he wrote", "he" being Speer? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Re: "The article sets forth what he said on the subject, and what he wrote": I think it's been established that Speers memoirs are selective and biased; why would an encyclopedia article be a retelling of his memoirs? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Most of it is not sourced to his memoirs.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of Speer's memoirs as a source for his knowledge of the Holocaust

From WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." This edit [4] restores a large passage, sourced solely to Speer's memoirs, presenting - in Wikipedia's voice - Speer's claims about what he "later concluded" etc. Speer's claims, which have of course proved to be fraudulent, should be presented, if at all, with reference to a reliable source. zzz (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

We are not saying what he knew. We are saying what he claimed to have known.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I'll leave it, then. zzz (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Relationship to Great Britain in the last years of life

Speer had an English lover with whom he also spent the last day of his life, says Professor Magnus Brechtken, who teaches at Nottingham University. In addition, Speer's autobiography is largely based on myths and inventions that Speer himself launched in a targeted and skilful manner. For the BBC he was the "good Nazi", so both profited symbiotically from each other. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K8Zc8V0Co8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.200.66 (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That is interesting. Has the professor reduced it to article form? I don't think we can use youtube talks. As for the lover, and the memoirs, we discuss both things, and they have been the subject of discussion on this talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)