Talk:Heinrich Himmler/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"New Death Information" Section

To avoid an edit war, I suggest leaving this out for a lot of reasons. Its not well written and obviously lacks sources. I see its been inserted twice and removed. Per WP:VERIFY, this should stay out and should not be inserted over and over again after multiple removals. -OberRanks (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I only reason I did not remove it completely the second time is because no other editor had yet voiced a concern in agreement after I removed it the first time (for the valid reasons stated). Therefore, I re-wrote it and shortened it this last time while listing the Wikipedia:Verifiability note with it. Kierzek (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed, as there has been no further discussion as to the matter at this time. Kierzek (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it should stay out. It was reinserted yet again which constitutes POV pushing and edit warring. Someone should perhaps advise the user who is continuously placing the info into the article. -OberRanks (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dhruva55, 2 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Heinrich Himmler, the SS Cheif handed over his possition to Dhruva Patel, as the new Cheif Of Staff of the SS. Dhruva55 (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit is to add incorrect information and will be reverted as your edits were by another editor in your attempts to add on the Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels and Schutzstaffel article pages (in relation to Himmler info.) Kierzek (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. elektrikSHOOS 17:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Brunwald, 18 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Brunwald (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC) I draw your attention to the MailOnline article dated February 18, 2011 at the following address: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357847/Picture-Heinrich-Himmler-taken-moments-suicide-sale.html.

I suggest the following two additions within the section "Capture and Death"

Suggested addition #1: The current Wikipedia article says that Himmler "was arrested on 22 May by Major Sidney Excell...". Perhaps the following sentence from the Mail Online article could be added directly after that sentence: "Himmler was handed over to British intelligence chief Major Michael Murphy who had him driven to the safe house at Luneburg for interrogation."

Suggested addition #2: Perhaps the following passage can be added immediately after the phrase, "...Several attempts to revive Himmler were unsuccessful.[38]":

"A slightly different version of the moment of death was given by American Lance Corporal and secret agent Guy Adderley, who was an eye-witness to the death and was one of the undercover team who arrested Himmler and his two Waffen SS bodyguards at Bremervoerde. In a written statement Corporal Adderley said, "A senior staff officer took control of the situation from Guy Adderley, with much noise and ceremony. Himmler became alarmed, crunched the poison pill, and that was the end of the story." It was Adderley who photographed the body (see right) immediately after death." Brunwald (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done. Do we really need to spell out the chain of command that he passed through? The person who arrested him is listed. I don't think it's consequential to list who ordered him driven where. The second part essentially matches the first version of his death, he "committed suicide in Lüneburg by means of a potassium cyanide capsule before interrogation could begin." Also, although the picture in the article you listed was taken by Adderley, the picture in the article was taken by

Sutton L (Sgt): No 5 Army Film & Photographic Unit. The picture in the article is a free public domain picture. The picture in the article you listed does not appear to be free, although I could be mistaken. If you have any further questions, let me know on my user talk page, or put a {{help me}} template on your user talk page or put another edit requested template back up and in either of those two latter cases someone will be along to help. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Himmler forgeries in the National Archives

Editors,

The footnote attribution of the Himmler forgeries element of this article is wrong. It was not the Sunday Times, but The Daily Telegraph that broke the story that a book claiming Himmler was murdered by a British agent was based on forged documents smuggled into the UK and cited as sources in the book (Himmler's Secret War by Martin Allen).

The Daily Telegraph story in 2005 (July 2) originally exposing the forgeries is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1493192/Files-on-Himmler-murder-exposed-as-fake.html

There were a number of other stories published on the same day - it was the lead story on page 1 and there was a spread of stories on page 2 and 3.

The Telegraph followed up over the next few days and weeks with other stories, all of which can be found on the web.

This was the story that the Sunday Times, cited as the source on this Wikipedia page, followed up on the following day (July 3), without attribution or credit to The Daily Telegraph. It was the only work that the Sunday Times did on the story.

NB: A more detailed follow-up to the story was published in the Financial Times magazine in May 2008 and you can find it here:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3a43fbc-18ab-11dd-8c92-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz1LkSthVIp

The news stories connected to the FT story are here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/371bb7fe-18aa-11dd-8c92-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz1LkSthVIp

and here http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b70ab512-1adc-11dd-aa67-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz1LkSthVIp

Full declaration: I am the author of the original Daily Telegraph pieces and the FT follow-up in 2008. It was my discovery in the National Archives that these documents were forged, so it is slightly galling to see it "on the record" in Wikipedia that this was a Sunday Times story.

I would be very grateful if this could be amended.

81.152.248.119 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Ben Fenton

"National Archives" link goes to generic National Archives page rather than to The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.163.132 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Heinrich_Himmler

"In 1942, Reinhard Heydrich—Himmler's right hand man—was assassinated near Prague after an attack by Czech special forces supplied by British Intelligence and the Czechoslovak resistance. Himmler immediately carried out reprisal. Over 10,000 were arrested, and at least 1,300 executed; the village of Lidice was razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants murdered."

Corr'd: ... assassinated IN Prague .. special forces TRAINED by British Intelligence FROM the Czechoslovak resistance ... IT'S MALE inhabitants murdered.

V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.241.40 (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Heydrich was assassinated in Prague, but it was by British Special Operations Executive (SOE), trained soldiers, Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš of Czechoslovakia’s army-in-exile which by that time was in the U.K. Kierzek (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I made the minor correction and additions with links and cite. Kierzek (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good job Kierzek. You are a person of great character. Quite hunky dory indeed.Hoops gza (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Himmler Awards and Ranks Section

There are still some worrying aspects to this article. The "Awards" section surely should not be there. It makes him sound like a much-respected and decorated army general, not a self-awarding potentate and co-ordinator of mass-murder. We could say the same about "SS Career", since he didn't have a "career in the SS" - he invented the organisation and appointed himself head of it with Hitler's permission, so any pseudo-ranks he had as part of that were self-given. Throwaway lines like "for the most part, Himmler abstained from drinking alcohol and smoking" do not belong in "Historical Views", perhaps there should be a "personality characteristics" section or something similar. The long lists of Nazi medals and fake awards are usually inserted in articles about SS people by, shall we say, "fans". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Career Summary/Awards Discussion (Part I)

A similar discussion was held on the article talk page of Reinhard Heydrich and it was agreed that service summaries and list of decorations are completely appropriate for articles on notable SS personnel, especially the top leaders of the organization. I was also the one who initially added the career summary and the list of awards to both this article and the article on the Service record of Reinhard Heydrich. I am by no means a "fan" of Himmler and Heydrich. -OberRanks (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's the anodyne wording of it that is concerning. "Awards" and "SS Career" are not neutral phrases. They sound as if they are designed to give a positive portrayal. It's also highly questionable that we really need special sections to display these for SS "officers" - how about their special concentration camp medals for example? I think we need to take the view that these are not "awards" and "careers" in the usual sense. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There actually was never a service medal for Concentration Camp service in-unto-itself, although many of the notable camp personnel were awarded the War Merit Cross for no doubt sinister reasons. As unpleasant as SS ranks and awards may seem, this is all sourced material published in academic texts (in fact, numerous textbooks have been written solely on career histories and awards earned by SS personnel) so there really is no justification to remove the section. In addition, most of the Wikipedia SS personnel articles have some type of career summary section. Rudolf Hoess, Herbert Kappler, Joseph Mengele, Reinhard Heydrich, Adolf Eichmann, just to name a few. -OberRanks (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an "Awards" section in the Heydrich article. It does have a "Service Record" link and article, but given his more junior role, albeit at a high level, there is perhaps some justification for the latter. I find the "Awards" and "Summary of Career" sections actually quite offensive for some of these articles, I mean, does the Eichmann page really need a list of his "awards"? This discussion clearly needs centralising as I didn't realise that it was such a widespread phenomenon - OberRanks, I'm happy to accept that you aren't some kind of neo-Nazi, but do you see the distinction between being absorbed in the subject and adding every detail and the way it looks to have sections entitled "awards"? That was a very old discussion you pointed to on the Heydrich page, so it obviously merits another look. In the meantime, I will remove the trivia line from Historical Views. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Which would be disruptive editing since this is sourced material from academic sources. I won't have an edit war, but be aware the material will probably be restored by several editors who follow this article. -Oberranks 19:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, pardon?? It's "disruptive editing" to remove anything from an article that carries a source? Can you point me to that policy please? Material has to fulfill basic relevance criteria. It isn't a Historical View. Did you add that line originally? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:CENSOR. Widespread is right - I think practically every article on notable SS figures contains a list of dates of rank and awards information. From an academic point, they should. In fact, an entire book was written about this subject entitled "SS:Role of Infamy" which is an index of SS service histories. Its actually where a lot of the material comes from. -OberRanks (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We might be at cross-purposes - it isn't censoring to remove the particular line I was talking about, as it isn't censoring to remove something that doesn't fit a particular section. It might be censoring to remove lists of Nazi medals but I am not particularly advocating that we remove all of them - I am advocating that we not use pre-loaded phrases like "Awards" and "Service Career" that are very clearly designed to carry a certain POV. Did you personally add all of this material, or are others involved? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see any harm in the "Awards" section. Plus, it clearly states: " Himmler, like many top Nazi leaders (Hitler among them) felt no need to bestow upon himself lavish awards and decorations, but saved these honors for junior members of the movement who would see such awards as a point of inspiration." So what if he had received some awards or what not, it's irrelevant and we all know those "awards" were nothing but racist and mean nothing to any of us. It's not like anyone today recognizes these awards. Also, he didn't "invent the SS" - the SS grew out of a small elite paramilitary group. He wasn't even the first Reichsführer, however he was the one that took it and made it what it was by the time the war ended. I don't think there are any fans of Himmler here. As for Heydrich's awards, same thing with that. Heydrich was an over-ambitious underling who thought much of himself. He was put in his place on several occasions by Hitler and Himmler, then he began to cool his heals until he died in 1942. Like Himmler, his "awards" and "decorations" mean nothing today. However, I've noticed OberRanks has some kind of fondness for Heydrich from way back before I made a username and began editing. I may be wrong, but it just seemed that way. Bastian (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Stick to what's in the article, please, not the background or motivations of the Wikipedia users who added the material. We're bordering here on WP:NPA. Enough said. -OberRanks (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The awards and decorations section are clearly relevant as they were bestowed on the person by the gov. authorities or party authorities in power at that time or allowed by same. One needs to view this objectively as historical information ONLY for general readers. It is NOT meant for any glory or positive recognition of some sort as these are ALL infamous men. Further, there is NO consensus (see: WP:CONSENSUS) to remove the sections in question. Kierzek (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you know there isn't? We've only just started talking about it and not at the relevant project page! Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean there isn't consensus - where was the consensus to add it all in the first place? Please direct me to the project-based discussion that approved adding it all. Just because some Nazi organisation gave every Nazi leader a cupboard full of medals doesn't mean we should add big lists of them to every WP article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with KZ. In addition, since SS service histories with ranks and awards began appearing in articles now going on several years ago, dozens of editors have contributed to the expansion of this academic information. Over the years, I have only dealt with a grand total of two other editors who found this material offensive and tried to remove it from articles. In both cases, their edits were quickly reverted with clear consensus that SS service history summaries were relevant to the articles. -OberRanks (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

James, it was allowed and not objected to; until now. You have been around long enough to know the burden is on the one who wants to remove. Again, you need to view this objectively, in historical context; dispassionately. Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Then they didn't approach the issue in the right way. They should have sought to discuss and obtain consensus first. However, given the tendancy for Wikipedia to regularly feature content of a "stamp-collecting" nature in articles about the war, it doesn't surprise me that there are some Nazi-detail fans out there keen for this content not to be removed. That doesn't make it right. At the moment it's a real eyesore in this article - also in the Eichmann one. However, it isn't the only problem I picked up in my initial comment - it's interesting that you focus so much on this point. The discussion needs raising properly where more eyes will see it. And once again, I am not advocating blanket removal but that consideration be given to how this is phrased. The fact that it wasn't dealt with properly before does not mean it can't be. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

James, no reason for personal attacks that are clearly unfounded. Please refrain from same herein. You are stating your POV. The historical context has been stated; if you want to see something changed, you need consensus to do so. If you get it, so be it. We may be able to agree on some mods that are not a complete removal. Work in the system herein. No need to be emotionally charged about this matter. Now I must go, as some real life matters need my attention. Kierzek (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard Discussion/Awards Discussion (Part II)

Discussion appears to have moved here. -OberRanks (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it hasn't, I was asking for a valid location for such a discussion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with KZ and Ober here. I just don't see what the big deal is in having an "Awards" section to major Nazi officials' articles. They have been part of many of the articles for quite sometime now without problem (that's enough consensus, IMO), so I don't see why we should take them off now. Bastian (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflit) Deleting or renaming an "awards" section because we consider these men to be butchers & sadists is very POV, IMO. What I think of their actions must not color my reporting of the facts. If it does, I shouldn't be editing the page. These decorations were awards within the Nazi system & must be recorded as awards. Do we mean to rename sections for Sov officers? IJA? U.S. Army in Occupied Iraq or Afghanistan? Brit officers in Ulster, or 18hC India? Spartan officers, since Sparta kept slaves? Do we propose deleting all "awards" sections based on a modern view of what is acceptable? Because slavery was not only acceptable in Sparta (& that shining example of democracy, Athens), it was expected. Enemies were to be killed or enslaved. If we begin inserting modern views of what is acceptable, we not only add POV, contrary to WP policy, we distort the record, & that is a disservice to all our readers. It is also, I suggest, beneath us. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, partly my objection here (and frankly I'm not very interested that it hasn't been raised before - all kinds of nonsense subsists in WP for years before being raised and eventually removed) is that these subsections are within "Historical Views" - 7.1 Summary of SS career, 7.2 Dates of Rank, 7.3 Awards and 7.4 Other service, don't sound anything to do with "Historical Views". Secondly, the article is still fairly short and needs a LOT of work as it contains fairly shallow material - against this background, filling the page out stamp-collecter style with lists of bogus Nazi "awards" and "service ranks" doesn't seem to make much sense. It's not a huge thing but it doesn't look right. Thirdly, the "ranks" and "SS Career" Himmler had were all self-awarded - yes, I know, the SS marginally existed before him, but Himmler's SS is the only SS that counts, not some trivial branch of the SA that was there before he was in charge of it. Those section headers make it sound as if Himmler advanced to ranks and awards by some kind of meritorious and prestigious service, whereas the reality is far from that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Any biography should include details of any awards and service history. No one is glorifying Himmler or the SS, just constructing a historically correct article. What evidence do you have that he gave himself the awards and ranks.? Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point and we should have sourcing and material on who "gave him" those "awards" - Hitler? The NASDAP? Himself? The real problem here is that the format (Service Awards, Medals, etc) is one used for military officers, generals, etc - Himmler was none of these. He was the Beria of Nazi Germany, an inner-circle intimate of the Fuhrer and a monomaniacal imperial dictator of a Europe-spanning death machine. Given that background, the routine labels of military service hardly seem right for the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Military Commander/Awards Discussion (Part III)

Himmler actually was considered the equivalent of a Regular Army General officer. At the end of the war he commanded not only the Reserve Army but also an Army Group. As for the awards, the first six or seven were presented to Himmler by other high Nazi officials, mostly Hitler but also a few others such as Goering. Himmler then qualified automatically for several service medals and then, yes, did present himself with the SS honor ring and sword. The SA Sports Badge was in fact a media event, as Himmler put on running shorts and went out with the SA troopers to qualify right beside the "rank and file" - and he only qualified for the basic bronze badge. Of enormous interest was that Himmler did NOT award himself or seek award of high military medals such as the Knight's Cross, German Cross, Iron Cross, or even the War Merit Cross. That fact was what actually inspired me to put this section in to begin with. -OberRanks (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank God, Himmler was such a disaster as a military commander; now, if one wants to talk about self awards and titles, Hermann Göring is a good example for a certain amount he obtained over time. Kierzek (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite the title, he was never really a "military commander", he spent his time "at the front" cowering in his command train giving random mad orders or in the sanitorium. We could bring this out from various sources. I suspect there's a basic confusion we're trying to have clarified here, which is the "militariness" of the SS - Himmler was not a "military" figure and neither were the SS generally, which is why they were not treated as such by the allied powers. The Waffen SS may have acted as if they were, but that does not make Himmler a "military figure" - ditto Heydrich and other senior Nazis. The NSDAP may have used and given pseudo-military titles and honours to high party officials but that doesn't mean we should write them up in Wikipedia using their formatting. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of our personal opinions of his abilities, Himmler was appointed by the legal military establishment of Nazi Germany as the Commander of two Operational Army Groups and is listed in military history textbooks as the military commander of those formations. So, per WP:NPOV, he was a military commander, plain and simple. -OberRanks (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the 1945 stuff? If so, your military template material should only relate to that period. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Military Awards Discussion (Part IV)

In reference to the above, I restored the information about Himmler's lack of self award bestowal, mainly the KC, GC, IC, and WMC. The user who removed it stated the source was "dubious" and "not a reliable source", yet its a mainstream text on Himmler's career published by Schiffer Military History. I see no cause for that source's removal. I did, however, keep out the opinions about Himmler's own views on award bestowal, since that could be seen as POV. -OberRanks (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the actual source for the long list of "Awards"? There doesn't seem to actually be a valid source there....? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The two cited sources- his service record on file at the National Archives and the Photographic Chronicle text which also lists his awards in an appendix. The awards may also be found in a book known as "SS:Roll of Infamy" as well as a text by the veteran SS historian Mark Yerger entitled "Allgemeine-SS". -OberRanks (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. There's obviously a difference between "Nazi awards" and "Military (or pseudo-military or SS) Awards" and so it may have been a mistake to bring this up at all in a military project discussion type of way. From the list below, many are actually Nazi Party awards. Probably these should be separated off as Nazi awards as that's clearly not the same as a military type of award, which is the current implication. (my bolds)

• Blood Order NASDAP
• Golden Nazi Party Badge NASDAP
• Golden Hitler Youth Badge NASDAP
• Combined Pilots-Observation Badge (in Gold with Diamonds)
• Olympic Games Decoration (First Class)
• Nazi Party General Gau Badge NASDAP
• Nuremberg Party Day Badge of 1929 NASDAP
• SS Long Service Award (12 Years Service)
• NSDAP Long Service Award (15 Years Service)
• Anschluss Medal NASDAP
• Sudetenland Medal (w/Prague Castle Bar)
• Memel Medal
• West Wall Medal (1944)
• SS Honor Ring
• SS Honor Sword
• SA Sports Badge (in Bronze)
• Honour Chevron for the Old Guard NASDAP

I assume I am correct in my distinguishing the two above. Correct me where I am not. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Anschluss Medal is generally regarded as a service wide award for all military/para-military groups in Nazi Germany. The various classifications of awards are broken down into separate articles at "Orders, decorations, and medals of Nazi Germany", mainly military, political, and civilian. Established texts on Nazi Germany typically list all awards together in that precedence since they were authorized for simultaneous display. -OberRanks (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean they should be displayed in a list here under the misleading title "SS Career" as many of these are actually party awards. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Himmler's Place in Nazi Hierarchy

Recent edits have attempted to place statements in the opening paragraph of the article declaring that Himmler was the 2nd most powerful man in Nazi Germany after Hitler as well as the main perpetrator of the Holocaust. Personal feelings aside here, that is obviously Original Research. Modern day texts on Nazi Germany group Himmler with a collection of top Nazis, among them Reinhard Heydrich, Karl Wolff, Martin Bormann, Hermann Goring, Ernest Kaltenbrunner (the list goes on and on) who were perhaps more directly involved in the actual execution of the Holocaust than Himmler and texts clearly state that, by the end of the war, Himmler had lost a great deal of power and was no longer considered Hitler's successor. So, I can understand where this is coming from, but we cant simply say "Himmler was the 2nd most powerful man in Nazi Germany and the one most directly responsible for the Holocaust" as that is an extremely controversial and unsourced statement and is prohibited by WP:SOURCE and WP:VERIFY. Other opinions are welcome, of course, on this issue. -OberRanks (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As to when Himmler reached his zenith of power, the historians debate. I believe his national powerbase started in April 1934 when he and Heydrich took over the Gestapo (and was named chief of all German police forces outside Prussia) from Göring but it was not complete until after the failure of the "Battle of Britain". So, I would say by the end of 1941, beginning of 1942. However, other historians look to August 1943 when Hitler removed Frick and made Himmler "Minister of the Interior". And certainly, right after the failed plot of 20 July 1944, Himmler's power of even greater. At that point one could make a good argument he was second-in-line; but Bormann was also one of great power in the upper hierarchy and carried great weight with Hitler; but outside of Berlin he didn't have the power base of Himmler, for that timeframe. Himmler did not fall until he was Commander-in-Chief of Army Group Vistula and failed in playing general; finally abandoning his command in March 1945. Certainly, Göring was a bigger joke by then; leaving, Bormann (until Hitler's death). Kierzek (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine the way you have it now. My issue was more with the statements about the Holocaust than the Nazi hierarchy. The names you have listed are all candidates for second-in-command in the Nazi hierarchy, but I don't see how you could say any of them, with the exception of Heydrich and Kaltenbrunner, were as directly responsible for the Holocaust. Still, there is no way that we are going to a find texts that definitively and conclusively state "Himmler was second most responsible for the Holocaust".Hoops gza (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The point of my edits was to emphasize the idea that Himmler should be thought of as the next most responsible (or among a group of next most responsibles) for the Holocaust after Hitler. I was not thinking so much of the idea that "Himmler is more responsible than these other Nazis" or "there are other Nazis who shared equal responsibility".Hoops gza (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we'll all agree that right now there isn't consensus to make the original statement that Himmler was the Number 2 man in Nazi Germany and that the current write-up should stay as is per WP:CON. -OberRanks (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Second most responsible

As aforementioned, there is no documentation that would conclusively state that Himmler was "second most responsible" for the Holocaust. But then, for what subject in history are such conclusions ever objectively stated?

However, in retrospect, I believe that it is a judgment that is easily made and conclusion easily reached based upon the burden of evidence, based upon how much Himmler directly perpetrated the Holocaust, based upon how much authority and power he had over the Nazi system, based upon his commands to lower ranking Nazi officials, and for this we have the evidence, incontrovertibly. After Hitler, Himmler was the commanding officer of the death system. There have been publications that have gone so far as naming Himmler as the greatest mass murderer of all time and more directly responsible for the deaths than Hitler.

So, I would like to change the lede to list Himmler as second most responsible, with a burden of evidence approach.

Similar to the way that Wayne Gretzky's Wikipedia article has a burden of evidence approach to his listing as the greatest ice hockey player.

You probably should review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which pretty much sums up all the reasons why we should avoid stating such conclusions about Himmler. Also, I dont recall the exact name of the policy, but one of the core principals of Wikipedia is to avoid using other articles as evidence for why an edit on an unrelated article should be accepted. I don't know the exact policy name, but it is one of the more important ones. -OberRanks (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?Hoops gza (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion above. To derive a supposition not based on a definitive source, but rather on a compilation of previously stated facts into a new or otherwise unverifiable theory, is the very definition of Original Research. By your own statement, "it is a judgment that is easily made" - Wikipedia does not make judgments or state new ideas - we go by established sources and there is no source that clearly says Himmler was the #2 man in the Holocaust - indeed, there are many modern day scholars who believe Reinhard Heydrich bears that "honor".

Heydrich did not live long enough to have the impact that would support that claim.Hoops gza (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, that is your opinion. There are others who have different opinions. I agree with what KZ stated down below - we are not letting Himmler off the hook, we are simply sticking to WP:NPOV and not stating personal feelings or opinions in the article which is how it should be. -OberRanks (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there is anything debatable about at least writing "Himmler was the commanding officer of the death system". It is fact and it is verifiable.Hoops gza (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

He was the Chief of the SS and in charge of all its branches and sub-branches, including the Totenkopfverbande. But, no, he was not the actually direct commander of the Death's Head's units. That fell to Theodor Eicke and later Richard Glucks. Indeed, sources also state Eicke had a certain derision for Himmler, and saw the camps as "his". In contrast, Himmler often referred to Eicke as an "ambitious dwarf" who he believed held too much power in the SS through his domination of the camps. -OberRanks (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, Eicke did not live long enough to have the same impact that Himmler had. Glucks has a strong case, but Himmler was Reichsfuhrer, I mean come on. Did Himmler take orders from Glucks? I thought that the only Nazi Himmler took orders from was Hitler, and all else were under Himmler?Hoops gza (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It already clearly states Himmler was ..."one of the persons most directly responsible for the Holocaust". Now one could tweak that a little to say, "one of the persons in national leadership most directly responsible" but that is not really necessary. The fact is the points have already been stated in a strong way. The article lede goes on to state, "...As overseer of the concentration camps, extermination camps, and Einsatzgruppen, Himmler coordinated the killing of some six million Jews, between 200,000 and 500,000 Roma, many prisoners of war, and possibly another three to four million Poles, communists, or other groups whom the Nazis deemed unworthy to live or simply "in the way", including homosexuals, people with physical and mental disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and members of the Confessing Church." I don't think we are letting the man off the hook by what is written already.

As for the order of who was "...the #2 man in the Holocaust"; I would say there is strong argument for Heydrich, followed closely by Himmler, and then followed by Eicke, Eichmann, and others on down the list. As a footnote, as far as Himmler being "the greatest mass murderer of all time" that really is not correct but makes for good magazine copy. One could argue, as far as numbers go, Stalin and Mao killed more people overall; however, their focus was more on their own countrymen. Kierzek (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Heydrich did not live long enough... anyways I guess this is a moot point. Re. Stalin and Mao, true, but most of the deaths in their country were not by their direct order, or more accurately, they were not perpetrated by their direct order, rather the result of poor leadership. I've read that Stalin ordered the deaths of "only" half a million people (not including the Holodomor).Hoops gza (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Heydrich served in the SS for eleven years and died in 1942, three years before Himmler. Indeed, many researchers and scholars alike have pegged Heydrich as a far more dangerous man than Himmler with possible aspirations to become Reichsfuhrer. My own opinion after 25 years of study into the SS (which, yes, is sill only an opinion) is that Himmler was sort of a strange small man whose power mostly rested on those who worked under him. And, in any case, Himmler was truly despised by some senior SS officers - let us not even get into what the Waffen-SS thought of him. -OberRanks (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I still am curious to know, though, did Glucks give orders to Himmler? Everything I've read, seen, etc. suggests that Himmler was the one who gave the first orders.Hoops gza (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, especially from the memoirs of Rudolf Höss, Glucks was very much afraid of Himmler and in the end became an alcoholic. Towards the end of WWII, Glucks also became further and further incompetent and let his camp commanders do whatever they wanted, so long as Himmler didn't come and "yell at" Glucks about some problem. But, that is a conversation for another article. Whole point here is to just avoid POV statements and OR. -OberRanks (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I woud agree with OberRanks as to his description that, "...Himmler was sort of a strange small man whose power mostly rested on those who worked under him". Himmler delegated much and did not have leadership capabilities of a serious nature. As for Stalin and Mao, I don't want to get too far off subject but, your analysis Hoops gza does not work for as to the two men above you are only arguing "direct order(s)" which you don't apply and frankly one cannot apply when counting Himmler (and Hitler's) numbers. As for the comment, "...rather the result of poor leadership", truly that reminds one of a David Irving argument. But enough said on that, Himmler is the real subject here and we have discussed him. Kierzek (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had the privilege in my life to have met two people who actually met Himmler. Both were Jewish camp survivors - one of them Rudolf Vrba - and both said Himmler walked with a pompous air about him in a uniform and boots that were too big for him; he was surrounded by aides and an entourage that never let him see or hear anything unpleasant (except that one time, obviously, when he witnessed an execution and got sick). I don't think anyone alive today can truly know what was going in Heinrich Himmler's head - we can only go by what history has left for us and draw our own conclusions using the source material available. -OberRanks (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Kierzek, your comment makes me feel that you are likening my comment on Stalin and Mao to Holocaust denial. I hope that is not your perception of me. I worded myself poorly, it was not an argument, just an off-hand statement. imo Stalin was a completely sickened and heartless individual. For the record, I think that Stalin was and should be held responsible for the vast majority of the huge death toll in his state, but there is something intrinsically different between Stalin's policies and the Nazi's. Nazis was more direct and deliberate, and more actively destructive, and not caring. Stalin's regime was even more destructive, yet not not as actively, there was not as much perpetration behind it, it was more towards being careless than the Nazis. In my non-professional opinion, Stalin was also probably one of the most paranoid persons who has ever lived. He should have been institutionalized.Hoops gza (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OberRanks, that is amazing testimonial. Did Vrba ever publish those observations? If so, it should be included in the article.Hoops gza (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, too, Stalin was just one person, so it's much easier to argue that he was completely batshit insane, whereas the Nazis were a large group of individuals. Certainly not all of them could be argued as "completely batshit insane" because 1. that's just not possible and 2. their actions proved otherwise.Hoops gza (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hoops gza, there was Soviet policy involved, by Stalin, the Communist Party Politburo and the the MVD (F/K/A the NKVD, and the MVD was forerunner of the KGB). Looking at one group, for example, the Jews in the Soviet Union (or their controlled areas); as is stated in "The Hitler Book" page 302, "Both before and after World War II the organs of the State Security murdered many Jews...the numbers must total tens of thousands... After 1947 the persecution grew in intensity and scale. It was no longer politically motivated, but had now acquired a clear... policy". BTW, I accept your earlier comment on Stalin and Mao as one you "worded...poorly"; my reply was a little strong, I just don't want to let those men off the hook, anymore than I want to see someone try and let Hitler, Himmler and the rest off the hook, either. Kierzek (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that we (humanity) look back on the 20th century probably a bit more fondly than we should.Hoops gza (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Himmler's position (redux)

Why revert my edit about Himmler being the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany? Wolfgang Sauer is not the only historian who has claimed this, many others have plainly said that from AT LEAST 1941 and beyond, Himmler was the most powerful man in the Reich after only Hitler. Göring fell out of favor after the failure of the Battle of Britain and not to mention his morphine addiction (which Hitler detested). Looking at it objectively, you just have to admit that after Hitler, Himmler had the most power. In fact, both Hitler and Himmler were originally targeted in the 20 July 1944 assassination plot because they knew that if Hitler died, Himmler would've quickly seized power. It was obvious even back then. TheGoodSon 17:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

See the talk page of the article, where this was heavily discussed and all concerned agreed it violated WP:OR. No need to repeat the debate, there was CLEAR consensus on this issue. -OberRanks (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that it has been discussed, but why would you discount what many historians have already claimed, including Wolfgang Sauer. Most historians that make mention of the subject clearly distinguish Himmler as Hitler's second in power. It doesn't violate anything when you have clear and reliable sources/references. In fact, it makes the article more accurate. I'm German and this is even taught in school in Germany. Common knowledge is that Himmler was second in power to Hitler. TheGoodSon 02:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that "many" historians have weighted in on this matter and it just is not as clear cut as you might think. The fact a certain point may have been stated in your school does not add weight to the matter; that is akin to one stating, well I saw it stated on a History Channel show. Peter Padfield is a well respected historian/author on Himmler, and stated in relation to this query, "It is impossible to say whether he was in practice." Given the fact this discussion has continued (on my talk page), I am going to move it to the Himmler Talk Page. Kierzek (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Kierzek, it wasn't just taught in my school. It's taught in all schools in Germany and Austria. Common knowledge in Germany is that Himmler was second in power to Hitler. Many historians claim it, and as you mentioned, many documentaries make mention of it, as well. So I don't see why it's a problem to claim it here. It is supported by many sources/references. TheGoodSon 03:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I would agree that in perception (and on paper) one can certainly make that argument, but that does not give the whole story; in other words, "perception" doesn't necessarily make it the whole truth "in fact" (see historian Padfield, which I quote above). You are also missing the point, as to the History Channel example; they are mainly for entertainment and should not be quoted as a source of great weight. Further, in Japanese schools they have been "taught in all schools" a skewed history of their past war crimes in World War II; (this over the years, although that may be changing, somewhat). Given that fact, one would not quote here that so-called "common knowledge", as you put it. I have to go for now but suggest others have input again (as it has been discussed before). Kierzek (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

GoodSon, please see the lenghty discussion above, where this was all discussed and spelled out. To summarize, a statement "Himmler was the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany" violates WP:OR and WP:NPV. There are no doubt sources that say he was, but there are also many sources which state he wasn't. The way the article is now written is a neutral statement which acknowledges Himmler's role but does not draw any personal conclusions about his relative power, which is something no one can say for sure. -OberRanks (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents on this subject is mixed. I think it was as obvious then just as it is now that Himmler was Hitler's #2 in terms of power. Himmler held immense power before the early 1940's, but beyond 1941 there was no doubt that he was Hitler's #2. However, the wording "one of the most powerful..." I believe should suffice. On the second subject about the Holocaust - the concentration camps was an idea which Heinrich Himmler had thought of. In fact, after opening Dachau concentration camp, Himmler wanted to build another camp near Osnabrück in Germany. When Göring heard about this (this was 1933, so Göring still had the Gestapo), he sent Gestapo men to investigate. All the Gestapo men sent to investigate were shot dead by Himmler's SS personnel. Göring went and told Hitler about this and Hitler ordered Himmler to shut the new camp down immediately. Göring was "appalled" at the conditions and the way which Himmler punished those held in Dachau and so Hitler ordered amnesty to some 25,000 prisoners in time for Christmas. Himmler was angered, but remained loyal and subservient to Hitler only. However, Hitler actually thought much of Himmler's ways and severe forms of punishment. So I think Himmler's ideas made the Holocaust possible in Hitler's head. Was Himmler more responsible for the Holocaust than Hitler, I would say that Himmler and Hitler both share equal amount of responsibility. However, Himmler is most definitely more directly responsible for the Holocaust than people like Heydrich (who died too early, anyway), Kaltenbrunner (I tend to believe he played a larger role than Heydrich), Eichmann, and much of the rest. Bastian (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact is the SA had oversight of what organized numerous detention camps existed to incarcerate political opponents of Nazi policy before the SS finally took over all the detention facilities after the Night of the Long Knives in late June/early July, 1934. Himmler did not have the "idea" for Dachau, as it already existed before the SS took over on 26 June 1933. I would not say Heydrich "died too early". He had already set down the course of the Einsatzgruppen, ordered the "Night and Fog Decree" and chaired the Wannsee Conference; clearly the evidence shows he was a major player as to the Holocaust. As for Himmler, I wont repeat the arguments I made above, except to add, he was scared of Martin Bormann; Himmler did not have the political insider power with Hitler, which one might assume he should have had. Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hitler constantly played off his "underlings" against each other, creating a chaotic atmosphere, where the question of who was uppermost in the Fuhrer's esteem varied from time to time, even day to day. That said, Himmler, like other satraps within the Nazi empire and even more so than many of them, concentrated on power-building and acquisition of more and more parts of the police, terror and war-fighting machinery. His main focus at all times was to accumulate power for the SS, to ensure that the SS was pre-eminent in all decisions regarding political, cultural, racial and occupied territory policies and to defeat "rivals" who jockeyed for similar positions. He must have at least partly done this to "draw closer" to the Fuhrer, partly because of his fears about the possible retributive actions of others (this was after all a state where murder/execution of rivals, either overtly or on trumped-up charges, or covertly, was regular) and partly because of his ideological mania and the "need" as he perceived it, to have the power to carry out those ideologies. Attempts by some to make Himmler sound like a minor functionary or irrelevance fly in the teeth of the overwhelming evidence that Himmler spent almost every waking hour either plotting to obtain more power, or personally ordering and sanctioning mass terror actions, deportations, mass and individual murder, appalling mistreatment of people, etc. In terms of this article, it still doesn't fit the bill for showing the extent of his power, his control, empire, domination of Nazi Germany and the occupied countries and personal determination to see through his commitment to the hateful racist agendas of Nazi Germany. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No one has stated that Himmler was "a minor functionary or irrelevance" (sic). "His main focus at all times was to accumulate power for the SS..."; true; and certainly Himmler was pushed onward and upward by Heydrich (until June 1942). Kierzek (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Kierzek, Heydrich took direct orders from Himmler. He would never have dared to make major decisions without having direct permission from Himmler. The Einsatzgruppen was formed under Himmler's orders. Please, don't give Heydrich more credit than he deserves here. Heydrich was arrogant and ambitious and some form of action was taken directly for that by both Hitler and Himmler, after that he cooled his heals a little. Dachau concentration camp was opened by the Nazi Party, which was Himmler's idea as Chief of Police of Munich. He proclaimed it as the "the first concentration camp for political prisoners." That is fact. He quickly went on to attempt to build another one near Osnabrück. Göring sent Gestapo to investigate and SS personnel shot and killed all the Gestapo members that came to investigate. So he went and told Hitler and Hitler ordered Himmler to shut it down. There is absolutely no doubt that Himmler was just as responsible for the Holocaust as Hitler, if not moreso. He is definitely more directly responsible than any of his underlings including Heydrich, Eichmann, and the other. There's also no doubt that he was Hitler's #2 in actual power from at least 1941, but I'd say well before that. Bastian (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We should return perhaps to the original point, which is that on Wikipedia, according to our own policies, we cannot draw a personal conclusion and state "Himmer was the 2nd most powerful man in Nazi Germany". To do violates WP:NPOV. A good modern day example would be to say something like "Colin Powell was the most powerful member of George Bush's cabinet". You may think he was, might be able to find several books which say he was, but a statement like that would be reverted in under five minutes for exactly the same reasons why we cant say something similar here. -OberRanks (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OberRanks, I agree. And, Sebastian, I am not going to argue points which are well stated per Wikipedia:RS. Kierzek (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OberRanks, I agree that although Himmler may have been Hitler's #2, we shouldn't put that. But your analogy doesn't hold up because as Secretary of State, Colin Powell was 3rd most powerful person in the Bush jr. administration (2001-2005). The Secretary of State of the United States is the highest ranking cabinet member both in line of succession and order of precedence. Same can be said for Condi Rice (2005-2009), and Hillary Clinton (2009-present). Go to Federal government of the United States and read about it. Bastian (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Order of ranking is one thing, to say "the most powerful, second most powerful", etc requires personal conclusions about the person's abilities and as to how they were viewed in the structure of government; much like Robert Kennedy seen as more powerful than higher ranked cabinet members during the Kennedy administration. That is the whole point here, which I think everyone agrees on. -OberRanks (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ober, I understand what you are saying about an individuals abilities or what not (you can even call it "star power" - like in the current administration for example, although Hillary Clinton is #3 on paper, but because of multiple reasons/factors she really has more power than #2 Joe Biden), but on paper in the Executive Branch of the federal government of the United States the President comes first, the VP second, and the Secretary of State third. There is no if, ands, or buts about that. On to Himmler now - to be quite honest, I haven't seen too many documentaries on Himmler, Hitler, the Third Reich, or the Holocaust that don't directly or indirectly claim that Himmler was Hitler's #2 in terms of total power over the whole of Nazi Germany. Himmler's organizational abilities and skills were excellent, almost frighteningly so. His loyalty, over-ambition, and Machiavellian nature was second to none. He was skillfully cunning, opportunistic, tenacious, and most of all he was patient, vindictive, and very stubborn. James above said it best: "(Himmler) spent almost every waking hour either plotting to obtain more power, or personally ordering and sanctioning mass terror actions, deportations, mass and individual murder, appalling mistreatment of people, etc." And as the GoodSon already mentioned, its even taught that way in German schools today. I think it's obvious that Himmler was far more powerful than any other Nazi official other than Hitler. Not only did Himmler have complete control of the SS as Reichsführer (and all of its "tentacles", including the Waffen-SS, but he even had part of the economy under his control), but in 1943 he became Reich Minister of the Interior. He also held numerous positions which brought him more and more power: General Plenipotentiary for the entire Reich's administration, Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of Germandom, and later, Commander-in-Chief of the Replacement Home Army and many other similar positions which gave him powers over different things here and there - he took whatever he can get and he got A LOT! He even once offered Göring an honorary position in the SS, which Göring rejected. He did it to show Göring who was on top - to offer the "Reichsmarschall" a subordinate position had to be very embarrassing for Göring. I think that after the The Night of the Long Knives, Himmler became the most formidable man in Nazi Germany after Hitler, of course. There's no doubt that Hitler and Himmler were #1 and #2, repectively. After that come (in no particular order) Göring (yes, his power waned, but he still had much favor with Hitler), Bormann, Goebbels, Ribbentrop, Kaltenbrünner, and the list can go on and on in any order you wish. Should we state in the article that Himmler was "the 2nd most powerful man in Nazi Germany" - I say not exactly in those words, but I think we should allude to the fact in different wording. I don't think simply stating that "he was one of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany..." does Himmler justice. You can say that about a lot of other top Nazi officials, but I think that Himmler should somehow be distinguished for obvious reasons. It's the wording that we have to change. For example, we can say "many (historians, etc) claim that he rose to become the most powerful man in Nazi Germany, after Hitler..." or something similar. Bastian (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As you are new, Sebastian, I would suggest you read: WP:WEASEL, as to why "many (historians, etc) claim" will not work herein. And further read, WP:OR, as to this matter. Kierzek (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Kierzek, well did you read my entire message? I made some changes to it after I posted it, so you might want to skim through it again. Yes, I am a new user, but that doesn't mean I haven't been reading wikipedia articles or even occasionally making small edits anonymously. I have gone through much of Himmler's talk page and I believe you were once for the wording "...rose to become the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany", no? What changed? So how are we going to distinguish Himmler from the rest? Because it is without a shadow of a doubt that he was Hitler's #2 in actual power. For example, as the GoodSon mentioned, we can quote Wolfgang Sauer who is a historian that claims Himmler was second to Hitler in actual power. We can quote several historians if we have to. By doing that, we aren't claiming that he was second to Hitler, we are simply quoting scholars in the field who claim such. Bastian (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Himmler 2nd most powerful (Third Discussion)

I want to talk about the Heinrich Himmler article and the fact that he was the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany in actual power. To quote the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum here: "Himmler presided over a vast ideological and bureaucratic empire that defined him for many -- both inside and outside the Third Reich -- as the second most powerful man in Germany during World War II." This "ideological and bureaucratic empire" is the Schutzstaffel and all of it's bureaucratic and militaristic arms (from the RHSA to the Gestapo & Einsatzgruppen to the Waffen-SS and all other subordinate organizations), he administered the concentration/extermination camps and ultimately the Holocaust. Not only that, but he even had some power over Nazi Germany's economy and in 1943 became Reich Minister of the Interior, among so many other positions he held that to name them all is mind-boggling. Nobody in Germany had such power - Himmler was unparalleled. Only Hitler was more powerful. There has to be a way of making that known in the article. Encyclopedia Britannica plainly says he was "second most powerful", the U.S. Holocaust Memoral Museum claims it, why can't Wikipedia claim it? Bastian (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

With respect, Sebastian, this is the third time you have brought up the same topic and the answer remains the same. To state that anyone is the "2nd most powerful person" in any organization is Original Research. We can talk about where his position was ranked in the government, his specific duties, but not about our opinions as to how powerful he really was. I think this has been extensively covered above. You wish to go to a Wiki-project noticeboard if you are still not satisfied. -OberRanks (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a vexing query, I have thought about and commented on over time. As I said most recently when this came up herein, "on paper" it can be a strong position to argue, yes. However, "in fact", is another matter. For one, the positions shifted over time. And, if someone is afraid to test their power/position, as Himmler was, then that is a factor, as well. To quote again, Peter Padfield, a respected historian/author on Himmler, in relation to this query, "It is impossible to say whether he was in practice." Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is also too much material stating that Hermann Göring was the Number 2 man in Nazi Germany - even named as Hitler's successor until 1945. The wording we have now sticks to the policy of WP:NEUTRAL. We are stating he was "one of" the most powerful men in Nazi Germany. To go any further is opinion which, as KZ stated, varies. And we cant have opinion in articles. -OberRanks (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not Original Research because Wikipedia defines Original Research as such:

"The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[1]"

In this case, we do have reliable, published sources which claim that he was second most powerful man in Nazi Germany right after Adolf Hitler. Historian Wolfgang Sauer, as stated by another user, was just one example out of others. So it isn't "Original Research" even based upon Wikipedia's definition of what original research is. In regards to Hermann Göring being the "designate successor" - that at once was true. But between his morphine addiction, his excesses in everything (from food to clothing, etc), and his failure in the Battle of Britain made him seem very weak in Hitler's eyes. At that point, he was Hitler's successor on paper only. In terms of total power combined with an extremely close and intimate relationship with Hitler, nobody came close to Himmler. Hitler listened to Himmler, he trusted him, and he delegated a lot of power to him. Even back at the time, nobody in the Nazi Party seriously thought that if Hitler was assassinated that Göring would succeed him. They knew that Himmler would be the natural successor simply based on the vast amount of power he had. You guys just don't seem to realize how really powerful Heinrich Himmler was. The 20 July plot was originally supposed to include Himmler, not just Hitler because they were afraid that if Hitler died, Himmler would quickly seize power. Nobody took Göring seriously. Even back then. Nobody. Himmler was the head honcho, unparalleled in power within the Third Reich. Bastian (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sebastian, I know what power Himmler had; I have been studying the Third Reich and writing about it for a long time; you are missing my point; the point stated by Peter Padfield. Kierzek (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This needs to go to one of the Wiki-Project discussion boards. Batting it around here for the third time is simply a waste of talk page space. The opinions of the three main editors have been made clear. -OberRanks (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

KZ, Padfield didn't say he wasn't. He simply said that it is "impossible" to say one way or another. Others have said he was, including Wolfgang Sauer and Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw alluded to it. So I don't see how this is Original Research. Bastian (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Himmler's Service Record

There was some suggestion at my user talk page about a split off article about the "Service record of Heinrich Himmler". I have a copy of it from the National Archives and could do something along the lines of the Service record of Reinhard Heydrich. Any thoughts? It would be a cited article so wouldn't get deleted or anything like that, but I'm wondering if it would come under fire due to the recent threads on Wikipedia about these SS articles. Guess that shouldn't really be a reason not to write it... -OberRanks (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't find it to be objectionable from a purely factual, historical aspect. It should be easier and much shorter than Heydrich's. Mark Yeager's book, "Allgemeine-SS: The Commands, Units and Leaders of the General SS", Schiffer Publishing, would also be a good source for the article. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, OberRanks! Bastian (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing Intro Picture

There has been no consensus for the changing of the article intro picture, and this appears to have been done on the preference of a single user, simply because "it looks better". There is already a picture of Himmler in his black uniform further down in the article and the current picture portrays him in an overcoat and SS cover, covering up some of his features. I recommend this picture be changed back. -OberRanks (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The current earlier photo does not show his uniform well and appears to have been touched up. Also, the argument of "better" by itself, with no other reason is generally a weak one. Kierzek (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 March 2012

Add more information on war crimes

First, he is already listed under the Nazi leaders cat so their is no reason to add him under German Nazi politicians cat. We try to avoid and/or limit redundant cats on articles. Second, there is already plenty on war crimes in general. Not sure what you have in mind, unless you state specific detail of an event or events, for some consideration. Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 May 2012

About his life

101.161.144.135 (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

Roman Catholic (early)???? Himmler was a supported of the Nazi pagan movement

Yes, but he was born into a Catholic family, hence, I presume, the bracketed "early". I'm not sure that we can easily label his later Aryanist/pagan views, but either something should be added to explain his later opinions, or the "Roman Catholic" deleted, leaving the section blank. Paul B (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Why would the Roman Catholic bit be deleted? Unless he went through excommunication, he would have remained a Catholic albeit not devout.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't be daft. You can change your religion without being excommunicated. It's a question of personal conviction. Himmler's no different from any one else. "Roman Catholic (early)" is very poorly phrased and confusing. Hitler was also brought up as a Catholic. Unlike Himmler he directly stated he would always remain one. He didn't carry the Gita around with him either! And yet the consensus at the Hitler article is that this section should not make an explicit assertion about his beliefs. We should, of course, go with what RS say. As far as I am aware they are pretty well unanmimous that the mature Himmler was not a Christian. Paul B (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not being daft but was a little confused. I've changed the title of this thread to more accurately reflect what is being discussed. I thought you were suggesting removal of mention of his Catholic upbringing from the article text which I would disagree with. I don't care what is in the infobox. I was also thinking in terms of sources albeit primary ones. Either the Catholic Church has a roster somewhere that has his name as a member or not. Unless he went through the process of leaving, their documents would have maintained him as a confirmed member. Again, not arguing to change anything.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism is not a club. In any case, it has been long established that we go by what reliable sources assert. With living persons we typically go by what they assert. If they say that they are atheists or Buddhists or whatever, then that's what we put. We don't say "they were members of the Catholic/Greek Orthodox/Church of England, and since they haven't officially "resigned" or been expelled they must remain so. Indeed as far as I know there is no officla way to "resign" from Catholicism at all. Paul B (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There was the Actus Formalis Defectionis ab Ecclesia Catholica which was done away with in 2009.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 May 2012

Adding categories about Freikorps like Category:20th-century Freikorps personnel

101.161.38.174 (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Six words (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of hidden text

I have removed the hidden text that User:NotOnIsraPal has added to the article over the last few days. Some of it might be usable, but most of it will not. It is far too long; it covers material in too much detail for the Himmler biography. I have parked a copy at User:Diannaa/sandbox. -- Dianna (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. For these articles, as you know, detailed coverage must always be weighted against length of an article. I hope NotOnIsraPal you will not take it personal. Any additions to the article have to be kept short. This one needs ce and cite work at this time. Kierzek (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Additions to the article can be a bit detailed if they cover new information specific to the individual and not covered elsewhere. My main concern was the inclusion of hidden text which is just confusing to other editors. The author should write their new idea in their own sandbox, get it cleaned up, referenced, and ready for primetime before its added to the article. -- Ultracobalt  (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Diana: I now understand that this is your article; forgive my failure to have immediately realised this. If I am honest, this is not the first time I have failed to recognise such ownership! For example, when I added a few snippets from Adam Tooze's book to the Speer article, the user who owns it was in palpable agony that it was not they who had made the additions (alas, despite their expertise in matters of Speer, they had not read the book).

I did put an edit summary saying I would need to condense down what I was in the process of adding and rehashing about 1933 thru Röhm; however, I can now appreciate that, in making such an observation, I was simple betraying my then failure to grasp that this is your article.

Good luck!
~ NotOnIsraPal (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not about WP:OWN, NotOnIsraPal. The fact is the article covers the main parts of his life already and at this juncture, needs copy edit (ce) and cite work; small additions of detail are welcome. We could use some help with cites, especially. Kierzek (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you chose to take it so personally, NotOnIsraPal. The material is still readily available for you to edit on down to a useable size for inclusion later on. But for right now, the hidden text was getting in the way of the improvements that are being undertaken on the way to a GA bid. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Late in the game here, but this looks like a re-born account of someone with some issues against the system. Very strange start-up edits and editing less than three weeks with a high level of Wikipedia knowledge, used at present for both good and bad. Also apparently has something out for this admin [1]. If any disruption comes from all this, I would say report it immediately. -OberRanks (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

NotOnIsraPal has now been blocked as a sock of Iloveandrea. -- Dianna (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

internment of wife and daughter

re this edit/reversion [2], which relates to the imprisonment of Himmler's wife and daughter. According to Katrin Himmler's recent book The Himmler Brothers, Gudrun and her mother were arrested by the Americans, not the British, and were held until the Nuremberg trials at which they testified. They were released in November 1946. The "four years" internment by the "British" seems to come from this web page [3]. Paul B (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Longerich (p 732) says they wound up in a British internment camp but it does not say who initially did the arrest. He does not mention the testimony at Nuremberg, but that would make a nice addition if you could provide a full cite and page number details. Or you could add it yourself if you are so inclined :) -- Dianna (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added it to the Gudrun Himmler article with full citation. I'll change the text here. Paul B (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request.

This needs to be addressed in some fashion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299606/Final-moments-Nazi-Heinrich-Himmler-revealed-soldiers-war-diary.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMadness (talk • contribs) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Himmler's death is already covered, and I'm not seeing any specific amendments that need to be made based on this article, as the Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source. -- Dianna (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We would have to wait until we get some discussion of this evidence from a better source (I've no idea why the correct UK spelling of "worshipped" has (sic) after it!). Paul B (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose my point is this. A direct contribution of evidence from a government source that utilized eyewitness accounts is no different than an sworn to secrecy eye witness that decided to finally talk soon before death. If you are to take one source at face value especially considering it used men precisely like this man as its justification then how can we simply disregard this mans declaration? Regardless of what news agency it came from. They are the same thing and to be frank, since secrecy timeframes were placed on these men the mere fact this man broke it before but near death should give us pause and therefore force debate about the authenticity of the original account. I'm not suggesting this mans account of the incident is the correct one. I'm suggesting that this man was at the site, that he was present in the room and that he saw something. No one known has come forward to denounce any of that. The only thing that has occurred is his government prevented the publication of his diaries. Telling actions don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMadness (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The article refers to a "war diary" written by Jones, but it is far from clear what was written at the time or was written from memory many years later. We are told that "he penned his astonishing eye-witness account aged 70 in 1988." Newspapers often get these details wrong when reporting on science or history, and people can embelish their memories. We have no reason to doubt the basic accuracy of the report - that Harry Jones's son says he has this document - but there could be many reasons to mistrust it. An initial tabloid report like this is, IMO, insufficient to change the article. Paul B (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Paul and Diannaa. It doesn't meet WP:RS. Kierzek (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMadness (talk • contribs) 14:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Heinrich Himmler/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Start class rating== I rated the article start class because it still is not adequately cited and referenced. There are many references however not all are used or in accurate positions. THe rest of the article is worthy of B-Class. Work on removing the reference tag and this can be B-class and on the way to becoming a good article. Also everyone be vigilant to prevent vandalism as this is a hot topic.--Banime (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC) ==Banime's Review== Obviously Banime's review is outdated, and should not be taken into consideration in future references.Nick2crosby (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)