Talk:Ernst Kaltenbrunner

The scar

Any information about the scar on his face? Fencing injury or something like that? -- 199.33.32.40 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A car accident.

"Officially", his scars are from his dueling days in school. In reality, it's been said it was drunk driving. Ladycplum (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been established he was a top quality fencer in school, as well as a heavy drinker. One of my friends is a German nurse and studying his photos she was pretty sure it was from fencing. I think it's possible both might be true, but I'm of the opinion the majority of his scars are from what he claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.165.138 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I recommend people look at multiple photos of Kaltenbrunner, there are some side profiles that show more scars than you might realize, like his left temple scar. For those who lean to car accident, why is that Kaltenbrunner's nose is in near perfect shape? I think there is a light fencing scar on the side of his left nostril. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.165.138 (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Smoking

Is there any proof that Kaltenbrunner used to smoke 80-100 cigarettes a day? I mean I have never seen a photo of him smoking (if someone saw one, please give me a link) and I dont think it is possible for any man to smoke such an amount of cigarettes, even for such a big and strong guy as Kaltenbrunner. Besides, we should consider the fact that 70 years ago there were hardly any good filters and harm to health was much greater than now.

I think there's a pic of him smoking in his cell in Nuremberg, it's in one of the zillion or so books on the subject. I have heard of five pack a day smokers in this day and age, wo who knows if the # was exagerrated or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.181 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the first mention of "80-100 cigarettes a day" was made in the Shellenberg Memoirs; Shellenberg hated Kaltenbrunner and could have lied and exagerrated in order to drag Kaltenbrunner through the mire. Let's imagine he really smoked some 90 cigarettes a day: 90*4 minutes(time needed to smoke each one)=6 hours! It means he smoked one cigarette, waited 5 minutes, then started to smoke the next one. Seems ridiculous to me. Had he started to smoke 90 cigarettes a day, he would have died during the next two or three years. IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.101.0 (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just an exaggeration. He merely smoked a pack or so...about 20 cigarettes a day. 72.229.48.178 (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Adolf Hitler himself was strongly opposed to smoking I imagine he wouldn't allow the release of any photographs of his officers smoking, especially since he sternly regulated the advertisement and sale of cigarettes (specifically banning the targeting of German children by advertisers). Hence the fact that the only picture that has been spoken of showing Kaltenbrunner in the act is after the death of Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.168.98.83 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

His wife and Mistress

I heard Ernst was married to Elisabeth eder who was born Oct.20th 1908 and married on Jan.14th 1934.She became member of NS frauenschaft # 301,490.The couple also had 3 kids.The oldest was a son born on Feb.28th 1935 the middle was a girl born on July.25th 1937 the youngest who was a boy was born in 1940.In the end of the war Kaltenbrunner had a misstress named Gissela von Westrap(nee wolf) she bore him two kids twins.When they found his house they saw him get hugged and kissed him they knew they found him.his kids are alive still.

by:~katie~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.188.164.84 (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Has anyone ever seen pics of his kids? I'd be interested to see if they inherited his height! Ladycplum (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I used to be friend with one of his his grand-kids, she clearly looked like him and bore his name (for a while) she was tall but not extremely (about 180 cm or a few less). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.51.152 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross

The article states that Ernst Kaltenbrunner was a recipient of the Knight's Cross. However he is not listed in Fellgiebell, thus we can safely assume that he never received the Knight's Cross.MisterBee1966 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

From the Trial Proceedings, Volume 4, Page 291: [1]

LT. COMDR. HARRIS: Kaltenbrunner carried out the responsibilities as Chief of the Security Police and SD to the satisfaction of Himmler and Hitler, for on 9 December 1944, according to the Fsefehlsblatt of the Security Police and SD, Number 51, Page 361, our Document 2770-PS, he received, as Chief of the Security Police and SD, the decoration known as the Knight's Cross of the War Merit with Crossed Swords, one of the highest military decorations. By that time Kaltenbrunner had been promoted to the high rank of SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Police.

It might be that this statement is wrong, but if so the error should noted and sourced in the article Fornadan (t) 16:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note: The Knight's Cross of the War Merit is not the same as the military award Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross!--Henrig (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Kaltenbrunner Birth Date

Someone might want to check out Ernst Kaltenbrunners Birthdate. He was only 3 years old when he died?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.114.73 (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You are looking at time in office, not lifetime```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoriceXII (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of Kaltenbrunner body

I added this back in. Someone not a registered user removed it. Please do not remove again without discussion.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If a higher resolution image of the 1943-1945 photo is available, it should be uploaded. The original copyright owner ceased to exist 66 years ago. 1779Days (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What does this actually add to the article? We know he is dead, we know he was executed, do we really need to see an image of his corpse? I don't have a problem with linking to the image (provided the link makes the nature of the image clear), so that people who want to look at it can. But adding it to the article just seems gratuitous. It will make many readers uncomfortable, and with no clear benefit in doing so. SJK (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Keep it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Completely disagree; keep it. Kaltenbrunner's actions should make people uncomfortable, not the picture of his decrepit corpse. 190.194.223.134 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with removal. Photos of the horrors of the actions of Kaltenbrunner, and other Nazis are shown in photos in related articles, no reason not to show justice being served herein. Kierzek (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It was pretty common in the late 40s to have WWII books with plenty of pictures of their trials and their corpses. Honestly, any book on war will have horrible images, get used to it. What happenned to the color photo of Kaltenbrunner in high resolution? We now have two images of him with the headphones on the page, i think we should go back to the color photo again. Add photos, don't delete them, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.165.138 (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

This is not right. Kaltenbrunner was never in any battles and he was only a "soldier" to the extent that he obtained a military rank in the hope it would prevent his execution.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the Battle/wars segment is incorrect? I've read material that says Himmler appointed him commander of all Waffen-SS and SS units remaining in southern Europe on 18 April 1945 Lt.Specht (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that it is not supported by any reference in the article supporting any military service of any kind by this person, whose occupation is reported to be that of lawyer, who was too young to serve in WWI, and who never underwent any military training so far as I can see in the article.Mtsmallwood (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And how many Waffen-SS and SS units were around in southern europe on that date? Seriously, the non-Waffen-SS wasn't a military organisation anyway, and the Waffen-SS units were not only on other fronts but were largely removed from any sort of central command by that date. This seems to be a political move by Himmler with no bearing on actual reality. It doesn't change the man's actual qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoriceXII (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This report, https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol4no2/html/v04i2a07p_0001.htm, states, among with many other things, that "On April 18 Himmler had named him (Kaltenbrunner) Commander in Chief of all forces in southern Europe. He had reorganized his intelligence services as a stay-behind underground net, dividing the command up between Otto Skorzeny, head of the sabotage units, and Wilhelm Waneck, whose radio station in the Kerry Villa." This seems to indicate that Kaltenbrunner at least held overall command of Waffen-SS "sabotage units" under the subcommand of Skorzeny (who served in the Waffen-SS). So perhaps changing Kaltenbrunner's Service/branch to Waffen-SS, and years of service to April 1945 - May 1945 would be appropriate. Or if not, maybe changing "Military service" to "Paramilitary service" would work. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That approach seems closer to the historical evidence, yes.Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's important to note that no matter what, Kaltenbrunner was affiliated with the military highly and he was just under Himmler. The Geheime Steit Polizei units and Schutz Staffel were fused into the already established military unit of the Wehrmacht. Although the Wehrmacht was not deemed "criminal" and the others were, it still doesn't exclude the fact that Kaltenbrunner was indeed a military man. I wouldn't say he was leading a paramilitary unit but that he was leading a military unit and in fact, one of the largest and most important ones (although there were some paramilitary branches under his main unit. So whether the police sectors were fused with the military is beside the point. Both held ranks attainable only to extremely high level people: his being Lieutenant General. Zarbon (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of that seems very convincing. Especially since "lieutenant General" isn't even a German rank (in fact, it's a literally meaningless rank in a third reich context, since a lieutenant general is a stand-in for a monarch). Himmler himself served in WWI but if he's a "soldier" by that basis then we need to add "soldier" to quite a few other people not generally famed for being so, therefore, Kaltenbrunner serving under him doesn't prove anything. As for "fused into the already established military units of the wehrmacht", that's not what I read in Order of the Death's Head, which has a lot to say about the independance of SS units from Wehrmacht control. There was a tendency of Waffen-SS commanders, late in the war, to ignore orders from Berlin (having come to the conclusion that the Nazi high-rollers were totally incompetent) and submit themselves to local Army authority instead, but that's not quite the same thing. This man was a thug. Calling him a soldier because he got thrown an honourary command at a time where there was almost nothing left to command is misleading. As well as an insult to anyone who actually earned the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoriceXII (talk • contribs) 13:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very wrong about that thug attribution and that's a bias if anything at all. For one, he was commanding many units. They can be called paramilitary or whatever some may want to call them. But those units consisted of very highly trained operatives (Otto Skorzeny was revered by allies and foes alike) And yes, every person who got control of an honorary command, SHOULD be given that attribution HERE because this isn't bias-pedia. It's WIKIPEDIA. The only concern of this resource is to be ENCYCLOPEDIC, not source your opinion or my opinion. The only encyclopedic way to look at things is to ensure that all military ranks are established correctly. And yes in Germany, Lieutenant General is a rank. It is translated as Obergruppenfuhrer. Below him is Gruppenfuhrer (Mueller), and above him is Reichsfuhrer (Himmler). He was given the rank in beginning of 1943, two years prior to the end of WWII. And even before that, he held high rank so that's irrelevant. You can't judge a man by his last year of service, you also need to take his entire life's service into mind. - Zarbon (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and I really, really, hate to argue, but Heinz Hohne's "The order of the death's head" mentions this guy only in terms of his physical intimidation of subordinates, I can't agree that "Thug" is an inaccurate term, it may show bias on my part, but if "thug" is a useful term at all, it applies to this man. Also, how much control did this guy HAVE over his subordinates? At the time listed, most SS units were following previously-stated directives, or following the army. The moment of actual control Kaltenbrunner had would have been minimal. Skorzeny was a soldier, but I'd question how much he'd have paid much attention to what this guy said in april 1945. The question is; do we rate him a soldier because he got thrown a command at the last minute, or what? You obviously believe yes. I believe no. And Opergrupperfuhrer does not translate to lieutenant-general in any sane sense. If it did, the Wehrmacht would have used it. Lieutenant-General has a SPECIFIC MEANING that doesn't work for this man. SS ranks are not Wehrmacht military ranks and neither directly correspond to Anglo-American ranks. There is no correct English for "Oberlieutenant". Or "Corvettenkapitan". Don't start there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoriceXII (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Me again. Having checked out "Lieutenant-General" I find that it's not associated with "obergruppenfuhrer" even by the insane standards of Wikipedia which involve treating non-waffen SS ranks as military ranks, when pretty plainly they weren't. SS ranks were handed out during the period of Nazi domination of europe specifically as a method of control. The SS itself are not a military organisation (paramilitary...ok). The Waffen-SS is a different story, but treating SS ranks on a scale with Anglo-American military ranks is basically stupid, and using that supposition as evidence is even more stupid. You haven't addressed the fundamental question of "what this man actually did". I don't care how many posts you've made or how many words you can capitalize, but your argument rests on a foundation of nonsense. And if you're the best Wikipedia can do, then Wikipedia is doomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoriceXII (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should learn to sign your posts before you worry about whether or not wikipedia is doomed. For other inaccuracies in your estimations, Skorzeny was well acquainted with him and met him on many occasions; it was he who suggested and recommended Skorzeny for all the missions. He assumed command of that highest rank in 1943 through the end of the war...since when does two years of giving commands accumulate to the last minute? The man was well-organized and in military ranks way before the end of the war. Just look at the ranks he's obtained through his life. It's not like he joined the organization at the end of the war. He's had his whole life as a testimonial, and his own words to go along with it in his trial. What in the heck's name makes you more credible than the source itself? Yeah, uh huh. Keep dreaming matey. He's the highest ranking man to stand trial and answer in place of thousands. That in itself is extraordinary if anything. - Zarbon (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And none of this is convincing, or relevant to whether he held military ranks. SS ranks are simply not the same as military ranks, and claiming he's a soldier on the basis of what rank he held is silly. I don't care, and neither does anybody else, what rank he held in the SS. It's not a military organization. There is no anglo-american equivilant to the SS. Personal relations between him and Skorzeny are also pointless. You can say "keep dreaming", but your argument is built on fantasy. I don't give two hoots about this man. He was a lawyer, a secret policeman, a bully, but...not really a military man. As for " He's the highest ranking man to stand trial and answer in place of thousands.", that's a failure of the other side, not a claim on his.

[edit] also, if you have evidence that his authority predated his actual appointment, you should probably add it rather using it as discussion fuel.nece

What are you talking about? Just look at the service record? Why would you assume that the SS isn't a military organization. It was classified as a military organization, not just a police force. It was the secret arm of the third reich's army. Just because it was ruled to be criminal, does not at all make it non-military. - Zarbon (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. We have a real problem as to what qualifies as a "military organistation". The non-Waffen SS, as far as I tell, isn't. It's no more a military organisation than the KKK or the Salvation Army. You've already stretched "obergruppenfuhrer" into meaning whatever you want, which makes it hard to assume good faith with you (it doesn't mean "Lieutenant-general". It doesn't mean anything outside the third reich). There's a reason why late-war Waffen-SS commanders tended to use more conventional nomenclature for their ranks. SS ranks were handed out to quite a number of people in Nazi occupied territories, regardless of military service or loyalty to the third reich. German police officers were given SS ranks on the same basis, solely so they could do their job.

You ask about timeframe. I used the same timeframe as the main article gives, I used the time he actually formerly held a military command for the basis for my post. That is to say, he commanded military units in April 1945. And never before. This man was a trained lawyer, fine. He was a Nazi high official. Fine. He was a thug? We can argue over that for a long time. But a soldier? Knowing soldiers is not evidence. Being in technical command of soldiers at a time of total national collapse is also not evidence. If people like Robert Graves and JRR Tolkien were listed as "soldiers" (both of whom served as soldiers more than this man did) , it wouldn't be problem. But they're not. so it is. Nobody will mind this man going into "major Nazi figure", or "policeman", but "soldier"? Very dodgy.

What you say is very "dodgy" in itself. My favorite resources on him are "Hitler's Elite", a nice book where he is among the top 20 of Hitler's officials. Another is "The Nuremberg Interviews", where he is actually interviewed by Goldensohn. But perhaps the best resource is in the title of this book: "Ernst Kaltenbrunner: Ideological Soldier of the Third Reich." Yup, one of my favorite resources. Title speaks for itself. - Zarbon (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, it's a matter of definition, what a soldier is. For instance, nobody would call Freisler, the infamous president of the infamous People's Court a soldier. But in the complementary close of his entrance letter to Hitler he used the phrase 'Your political soldier'! It seems to me, for the most part, Kaltenbrunner should be attached the same corner. --Henrig (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no comparison in that Roland Freisler was a "kangaroo court" judge. Kaltenbrunner (also a lawyer) was in fact aligned with military and police command and much of his decisions were a heavy impact upon not only soldierly duties but police duties, as well as international affairs, the handling of prisoners of war, and other measures that only a soldier could be aware of. In the case of Freisler, the terminology "political soldier" works well in that he did his duty from a political angle, but there's still no comparison as they are two separate men with two separate career backgrounds. - Zarbon (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with this article stating that Kaltenbrunner was the highest SS official ever to be put on trial. Kaltenbrunner held the rank of Obergruppenfuhrer. In 1942, Himmler created the rank of Oberstgruppenfuhrer, which was a higher rank that Obergruppenfuhrer. Sepp Dietrich and Kurt Daluege both held an SS rank higher than Kaltenbrunner's and both were convicted with Daluege being executed. I think Paul Hausser may have also been put on trial. It stands to reason that if these men were of higher rank than Kaltenbrunner, that the wiki article is inaccurate as it ignores at least Dietrich and Daluege. Eldraque77 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither Daluege nor Dietrich were in the same rank as Kaltenbrunner, besides rank... nor were they tried in the primary Nuremberg trial... they were either tried in the separate war criminal trials, etc. or in other trials, but not in the major war criminal trial. Kaltenbrunner was still the highest ranking man tried and executed in the main war criminal trial in '46. - Zarbon (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the article needs to be adjusted to make noet that Kaltenbrunner was not the highest SS official put on trial, as is currently written. This should read that he was the highest SS official put on trial during the first Nuremberg trial. The current statement is inaccurate.

I think another wiki article summed it up perfectly - "Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the highest-ranking surviving SS main department chief, was found guilty of crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg trials and hanged in 1946." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.165.138 (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The SS was a para-military organization. The Waffen-SS was its military branch. Kaltenbrenner was Heydrich's replacement, and technically was higher up the ladder than Sepp Deitrich, etc. And "thug" is exactly what he was. He was a mass-murderer and convicted war criminal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Date of death?

The intro lists his death as 17th November 1956. Yet further down the article it says he was executed on 16th October 1946. 2001:470:1F0B:8FF:230:1BFF:FEBC:C47D (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Error in promotions timeline

I know before I say this that there is a reference for what is currently on the wiki page. But the reference is also making a mistake, as I will now demonstrate.

Currently, in the "Dates of Rank" section it says that Kaltenbrunner was promoted to Untersturmfuhrer in 1940. But that would mean that he took a huge demotion from his previous rank of Gruppenfuhrer in 1938. Such a notable demotion would warrant its own section in the main article!

I tried to contact the referenced website, but the email listed there for "contact us" is no longer in use. So this should really be changed, which is why I'm taking that one line out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:142E:2CD9:742C:6A7D:A5E2:193E (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand the confusion-the July 1940 rank was a reserve officer rank; not a Allgemeine-SS (General SS) rank. An SS officer could have different ranks for different branches of the SS. Hermann Fegelein, for example did, as well. Kierzek (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Religion

Ernst was raised Catholic but he identified as Gottgläubig, so his religious affiliation should be changed. 83.128.72.82 (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Again that may be so, but it is not covered in this article (thus far) and needs to be cited. Kierzek (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW: Some good first hand knowledge here: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/2115170/the-last-days-of-ernst-kaltenbrunner-approved-for-release-

As a fanatical Nazi, he wouldn't have remained Catholic - instead, especially as an SS man, he would have (nominally) been a part of the pagan sword-and-swastika cult. Jesus Christ would not have been part of his spiritual make-up.50.111.51.247 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Some Clean-Up

@K.e.coffman: and @Kierzek: - Gents, I've done a little work on this one but in the absence of the outstanding biographical work from Peter Black on Kaltenbrunner, this article still needs lots of holes filled. Please feel free to hack away at it but I have a couple of questions nonetheless -- why the extensive list of rank dates and awards? This seems unjustifiable to me and more like glorification of the figure. Who really cares about what Nazi awards he received and the date of every promotion besides Neo-Nazis? Also -- why two pictures of him touring Mauthausen? -- one seems enough. Just my thoughts.--Obenritter (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. FYI: For major figures such as Hermann Göring, Kaltenbrunner and others, ranks and "awards" are included; as one would find in any RS biography and actually, as you know, RS books on the SS cover such information, as well. It has no agenda attached to it. As for the photos from Mauthausen, I added the second one which is more of a close-up photo; there are not that many photos of Kaltenbrunner and why not include both? Especially since he was a mass murder and had the gall to deny he was ever there when he testified under oath, after the war; he would not even admit to his own war crimes. Glad he faced the hangman. Kierzek (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. It just seems like the major milestones in his life/career should appear in the narrative vice being listed in such exhaustive detail. It's not a big deal to me, but I just don't care for the way this looks to the average reader. Many of these awards have dubious distinctions behind them. If this is what has been standard for these major Nazi figures in Wikipedia, I'll acquiesce accordingly.--Obenritter (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You raise good points to be remembered. I only have the same two RS source books you used, plus Miller's RS book, so I really cannot add anymore than you have; in fact that is originally why I asked if you would have a look as I hoped you could expand the article. Anyway, again thanks for the work here. Kierzek (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Without a solid biography on Kaltenbrunner however, it is tough to find much on him. Most sources barely mention him and if they do, it is generally regarding his post as head of the RSHA as a replacement for Heydrich. While I have not encountered a lot of additional detail, I've added some minor granularity. Perhaps we'll get lucky and some editor who owns the Kaltenbrunner bio by Peter Black will fatten this article up in the future. For now, I think I'll start digging through some academic journals to see what's out there.--Obenritter (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image size

File:SS-Obergruppenführer Ernst Kaltenbrunner.jpg

The current size

File:SS-Obergruppenführer Ernst Kaltenbrunner.jpg

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) 02:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

"President of the ICPC" - he was President of the "International Criminal Police Organization" from 1943 to 1945? INTERNATIONAL? Are you kidding? 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Interpol wasn't a force during the war, and was later purged/re-organized. It's sourced - so, no, no one is 'kidding' you.50.111.51.247 (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Himmler named Kaltenbrunner commander-in-chief...

"In mid-April 1945... Himmler named Kaltenbrunner commander-in-chief of the remaining German forces in southern Europe." Hmm, how's that possible? Himmler had no authority in the Wehrmacht, and after his disastrous tenure as Army Group Vistula commander Himmler was not popular with Hitler. This is not mentioned in German WP. Also not sourced. Perhaps it refers to some SS appointment. Or maybe it's just imaginary. 2A02:AA1:1017:3AE:8FC:FFF3:F502:3C22 (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

According to the thesis below, Kaltenbrunner's position was "chief of security for the southern portion of Germany", which makes more sense. It also says he was appointed in late March.

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/89090/RICE0127.pdf 2A02:AA1:102D:E719:881C:7992:111F:6C3A (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It comes from The Holocaust by Paul R. Bartrop and Eve E. Grimm, definitely RS, now added to article. Aeengath (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Summary rewrite discussion

Recently, Aeengath made considerable changes to the Summary. After looking at them for a little while, some of them seemed acceptable, others contained too much editorialization (i.e. "deeply entwined" etc.) With that in mind, I restored the content to its original status. My suggestion for the editor who made these changes is for a discussion to occur on the Talk Page so we can get consensus on how the Summary should read. It's current look is very concise and more neutral in phrasing IMHO. What say you?: @Nick-D: @K.e.coffman: @Kierzek: @GeneralizationsAreBad: @EyeTruth: @Beyond My Ken: @Diannaa: @Peacemaker67: @Nillurcheier: - Your input would be appreciated. Obenritter (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Obenritter, Apologies for not coming to the TP first, I am of course open to discussion and look forward to collaborating on improving this article. Please see my proposed version below:

Ernst Kaltenbrunner (4 October 1903 – 16 October 1946) was a high-ranking Austrian SS official during the Nazi era, deeply entwined in the orchestration of the Holocaust. Following the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich in 1942, and a brief period under Heinrich Himmler, Kaltenbrunner assumed the role of Chief of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) from January 1943 until the conclusion of World War II in Europe. This pivotal office included the oversight of the Gestapo (Secret Police), Kripo (Criminal Police) and SD (Security Service).

Kaltenbrunner's trajectory within the Nazi Party began in 1930, and by 1935, he had ascended to a leadership position in the Austrian SS. His involvement in the Anschluss in 1938 resulted in command over the SS and police force in Austria. In January 1943, Kaltenbrunner succeeded the assassinated Reinhard Heydrich as the chief of the RSHA.

Known for his unwavering loyalty to Hitler and vehement anti-Semitism, Kaltenbrunner played a crucial role in implementing the Holocaust, coordinating security and police agencies involved in mass extermination; his brutal methods extended to suppressing resistance movements in occupied territories, carrying out mass arrests, deportations, and executions. As the highest-ranking SS member to face trial at the Nuremberg trials (Himmler having committed suicide in May 1945), Kaltenbrunner was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. His sentence, death by hanging, was carried out on 16 October 1946. Aeengath (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate your willingness to discuss. However, I am not OK with "deeply entwined in the orchestration of the Holocaust" where he was previously identified as a perpetrator of the Holocaust. It's a little euphemistic to couch this as you have here. Also, the writing is less succinct than it was previously. Overall, we can probably come to an agreement but I'd prefer for other editors like K.e.coffman, Nick-D, Kierzek, or Diannaa to weigh in here as they are more experienced with maximizing Summary content with minimal verbiage. --Obenritter (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - it's unclear how language like 'deeply entwined' is helpful when we should be aiming to write in plain English. As a comment on the content of the article, it's odd that the 'Nuremberg trials' section is focused on Kaltenbrunner's defence case and barely mentions the prosecution's case. Nick-D (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Great point Nick-D. Do you have a structural suggestion? It does cover the sentencing in the sub-section, which constitutes the charges leveled against him.--Obenritter (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The structure is OK, but this sub-section should discuss the prosecution case - this would help make it clear that his defence was misleading. The material on the judgement should also spell out what he was found guilty of and include appropriate quotes from the judges (this is a common flaw with articles on convicted Nazi war criminals though). Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

In terms of the Nuremberg section, you could do worse than use similar section of the Gottlob Berger article as a guide on flow and content. I agree that "deeply entwined" is a bit lyrical; something like "instrumental" would do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Peacemaker67 that the term "instrumental' is more apt than "entwined". However, my primary suggested modification to the introduction also came after I changed the infobox from office holder to criminal, that is an administrative role to a criminal designation. My main edit specifically addresses the concluding paragraph of the lead and the phrase: "Kaltenbrunner oversaw a period in which the genocide of Jews intensified" a characterisation that I find excessively weak for summarising the actions of an individual convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. My proposed revision, which I believe better encapsulates the key aspects and gravity of his actions is: "Kaltenbrunner played a pivotal role in orchestrating the Holocaust, overseeing the coordination of security and law enforcement agencies involved in widespread extermination. His strategies encompassed the suppression of resistance movements in occupied territories, involving extensive arrests, deportations, and executions". Aeengath (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Aeengath Your description hereby is apt and much better than what you originally proposed. Your comment is noted that the statement "Kaltenbrunner oversaw a period in which the genocide of Jews intensified" is weaker by comparison. To me, your new proposal is how we should restructure but in the following manner perhaps: "Kaltenbrunner played a pivotal role in orchestrating the Holocaust and Nazi genocide intensified under his leadership. He oversaw the coordination of security and law enforcement agencies involved in widespread extermination, the suppression of resistance movements in occupied territories, extensive arrests, deportations, and executions".--Obenritter (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

A good and needed discussion. There is little for me to add, at this point. Some original language changes by Aeengath were too flowery and lyrical. A good suggestion to add to the Nuremberg section as to the prosecution of his crimes. I don't have time to work on it right now but will look in on it sometime this week. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)