Talk:Röhm scandal/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 23:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this one. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• The first sentence says how the Röhm scandal happened, but not what it was.
  • I'm drawing a blank on how to concisely summarize "what it was", other than the outing and resulting scandal. Perhaps you have some idea?
• "The latter became completely dependent on Hitler" — Should clarify why.
• Also worth adding something on why Hitler had him murdered, that clarifies whether it was related to the scandal.
  • Done these two.

Background

• "violently attacking" — "which violently attacked"?
  • Done
• Although Röhm was attracted exclusively to men — How is the information in this sentence known?
  • It's not clear exactly where this information comes from. Hancock says, quoting from the Röhm–Heimsoth letters, that Röhm commented, "I pride myself on being homosexual but first really 'discovered' this in 1924." I've rephrased to be more cautious.
• Is it worth adding a sentence or two about the general ramifications of being an out gay person in 1920s Germany? Given the views of the Nazi Party discussed in the third paragraph, it's surprising that Röhm seemed relatively open about his sexuality.
  • In 1920s Germany, very few people were "out" in the modern sense, because it was illegal and socially reviled. Marhoefer has a theory: "Röhm believed that his desire for men was an innate part of him that society forced him to conceal. He resented being forced into deception. Early on, he displayed a stubborn disinclination to hide his sexuality." (151) In addition, Daniel Siemens writes, "Unlike Röhm, most [Nazis] did not believe in the image of the ‘homosexual warrior-activist’ and instead conventionally associated male homosexuality with ‘femaleness’ and weakness, characteristics with which they carefully contrasted their own self- images. For a stormtrooper to ‘come out’ by free choice was thus extremely difficult, if not impossible. The fact that homosexuals in the SA leadership at times established networks that protected or actively promoted fellow homosexuals, such as those created in the Silesian SA under Heines and within the SA leadership under Karl Ernst, was ultimately a consequence of the party’s homophobia – and not the other way round." (175) Sorry, I'm not sure how to summarize this into the article :(
    • It might go after "the SA's tacit tolerance of homosexuals in its own ranks was in contrast to this", perhaps in a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Röhm's return to Germany

• "his position was fragile and dependent on Hitler's personal support" — Why?
  • He was unpopular, largely because of his homosexuality. I've tried to clarify this by reordering it.
• "probably, also because of his inclinations... [which] offered a useful point of attack at any time" — Pfeffer's words, or Hancock's?
  • The former. Clarified
• "newspapers started to allude to his homosexuality" — Any examples?
  • Sources don't give any.
• Walter Bergman or Walter Bergmann? What is his relevance? Why was he arrested?
  • Sorry, wrong link. This Bergmann seems to be a non-notable Nazi. It seems like he was arrested for starting a fight with Ernst and Röhrbein, but Zinn is vague on this, saying only; "In der Nacht vom 26. zum 27. Juni 1931 muss Karl Ernst aus dem Lokal »Halenseer Hütte« den Sturm 12 um Hilfe rufen. Das Lokal wird von einem Stennes-Sturm unter Walter Bergmann belagert, der Ernst und Röhrbein dort gemeinsam angetroffen hat. Als die von Ernst alarmierten SA-Leute ankommen, ist bereits das Überfallkommando der Polizei eingetroffen. Bergmann wird festgenommen und schreit: »Da seht Euch die Parteischädlinge an, diese Pupenjungs, diese verfluchten Arschficker, die den guten Ruf der Partei zum Teufel gehen lassen. Da sitzen sie alle beide, diese schwulen Säue.«"
• Any word on why Hitler was indifferent, and on what his general views towards homosexuality were?
  • Like most Nazis, Hitler was a homophobe but it was not one of his major obsessions (unlike antisemitism). As for why he tolerated Röhm, the likely reason was that Röhm was very useful to him. Röhm was dependent on Hitler, therefore his loyalty was assured, and he was also a capable leader who built up the SA in 1930–1932 into a force that threatened civil war, therefore helping Hitler pressure his way to the chancellery.
• Although he asserted that the party had become "accustomed to my criminal idiosyncrasy" — In what context did he say this?
  • In one of the Röhm–Heimsoth letters. Clarified
• Here and in "Trials against Röhm", perhaps add the date in the section header, as in the other subsections?
  • I did not add the date because it's more vague. For example, the return to Germany covers events from late 1930 to June 1931, partly overlapping other sections. RS do not state the dates of the trials.

Röhm–Meyer letters (1931)

• Are there any available images of any of the front pages in question, which could be added?
  • I cannot find any. As far as I know these aren't digitized. There would also be copyright issues as the newspapers are likely still copyrighted in both Germany and the US (at least for another few years). Some interesting caricatures at this link.
• What was Röhm's relation to Meyer?
• Whom did Röhm sue?
• Why did Meyer kill himself? Why was he in prison?
• Who forged the letters?
  • Clarified the above as much as I can from the sources available. The dewiki article de:Eduard Meyer (Rechtsanwalt) has additional information, which I am unable to confirm in reliable sources.

Trials against Röhm

• "Röhm admitted to bisexuality" — Presumably a lie?
  • Sources don't enable us to draw that conclusion. For example, Hancock says, "Rohm usually identified himself as homosexual, although he described himself as bisexual in some police interrogations" (628)
• "It is unclear if they were given the opportunity to publish them before 1932" — What does this mean? It's unknown if they did publish them? It's unknown if they had the capability of publishing them?
  • Cut as unimportant.
• "Röhm was unsuccessfully tried five times" — Why is only one trial discussed?
  • None of the sources give any details whatsoever on the other trials.

Röhm–Heimsoth letters and the presidential election (March 1932)

• "the SPD printed and mailed 300,000 copies" — to whom?
  • Added
• "intimating" doesn't feel like the right word here.
  • Reworded
• Who is Franz von Hörauf?
  • A Nazi
• Who were "the immediate perpetrators", and for whom was the press coverage negative?
  • Added additional details on this plot
• What is the Kaiserreich? The German Empire? If so, link.
  • Done
• Any word on why Hitler defended Röhm?
  • Most likely because he was useful (see above)
• NSDAP hasn't been explained.
  • Done

Assault of Helmuth Klotz in the Reichstag (May 1932)

• "While the other man was away for a vote" — What does "away for a vote" mean?
  • Reworded, what this means is that Klotz was interviewing him, but he had to leave in order to cast a vote on something
• several policemen under the command of Bernhard Weiss entered the building to restore order — You haven't mentioned that order had been lost—unless everything happened in one go? In that case, how long did it take for them to be suspended? I had figured it was a matter of days, but was it a matter of hours? Also, Weiß (as in that article's title) or Weiss (as in that article's lead)?
  • ß and ss are interchangeable, depending on which German orthography is used. ß is not an English letter so it's better to use ss. I've rewritten hopefully to explain better
• Münchener Post published an article speculating that Hitler would dismiss Röhm — "the Münchener Post"? What was the basis for the speculation?
  • Done, and source doesn't say

Press coverage

• Anything to link Chief of Staff of the Bolivian Army to?
  • I've looked on enwiki and eswiki and don't think so.
• What was the marriage order
  • I end up removing this as it's only Zinn that draws the connection to the scandal and the marriage order would be too tangential to explain.
• Some conservatives and Nazi sympathizers who opposed homosexual emancipation nevertheless portrayed Röhm's sexuality as a matter not of public concern, but Marhoefer argues that this is a sign of acceptance that homosexuality did not necessarily entail expulsion from public life. — Why the "but"—isn't this Marhoefer's point?
  • Rephrased
• Does the DVNP acronym need to be introduced, given that it's never used again?
  • I reckon DVNP is more recognizable than the spelled out English translation, as DVNP is how it's referred to in most English-language works.
• When/under what circumstances did Röhm publish his memoirs? I think of memoirs as things people publish towards the end of a career, not in the middle of one. For that matter, do the memoirs contain anything else worth mentioning about the scandal?
  • Late 1933 as his power was at its height, and no, nothing more about the scandal

Aftermath and legacy

• "the Nazis were willing to temporarily tolerate Röhm and some other homosexuals within its ranks" — Any word on why?
  • Because they were useful. Added clarification
• "Bell had procured Reichstag arsonist Marinus van der Lubbe for Röhm" — This is being stated as fact, when I think you mean to state it as an allegation.
  • Rephrased
• How was "the disclosure of Röhm's homosexuality" an "impressive action against Hitler"?
  • Stephan did write this, but doesn't say why this was so impressive (I checked the original source). I ended up removing it as I'm finding it hard to fit in the aftermath and legacy section.
• Why did Hitler have Röhm killed?
  • Attempted to add explanation. Unfortunately, there is so much that is unknowable about this event.
• Previously you said Hitler was indifferent to homosexuality, and then here you say he was homophobic and went on to become yet more homophobic.
  • It's not that he was indifferent to homosexuality, but that he was willing to tolerate Röhm as long as useful. Hopefully this is clarified better in the current draft.

References

• #47, 53 — Is footnote 64 on both pages?
  • No, but the content in the note (on Strasser's involvement) is relevant to both citations
• What is #84?
  • The Reichstag minutes. Not really sure how to cite these, we have {{cite Hansard}} but no equivalent for the German-speaking area.

Sources

• Suggest locations of publishers.
  • I don't think this is useful information.
• Rott 2010 lacks the English translation of the title.
  • That's because I'm not 100% sure how to translate the first part of it.
• Göllnitz 2021 lacks the "(in German)" tag.
  • Fixed
• So does Reichardt & zur Nieden 2004. Also, I'd suggest using the "name-list-style = amp" parameter for that one.
  • Added the language, but I don't really like the amp style.
• Schwartz 2021 also missing the language identifier.
  • Fixed

Further reading

• What is this work? And I assume it's not available online, but can you add an OCLC or something to it?
  • There's a 1985 reprint with oclc and ISBN:[1] but I can't find any such metadata for the original publication
• What does "Herbert Heinersdorf (i.e., Richard Linsert)" mean?
• These can take "trans-title=" and "trans-journal=" parameters.
• You likely could pull OCLCs from WorldCat, which would a) link to bibliographic information and b) identify libraries with these works.

Thanks so much for starting the review! I will get to these comments, but currently I'm working through Talk:Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany/GA1. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem, Buidhe, and no rush. It's a very interesting article, and already in good shape. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Usernameunique I've answered everything except a few that I'm not sure about. Thanks so much for your feedback! (t · c) buidhe 02:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, I've left a few comments above, but am passing now. Again, it's a well-done piece on an interesting subject; I hope to see it at FAC (and a Four Award added to your treasure chest). --Usernameunique (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much! This is definitely going to FAC once I polish it a bit and add a couple sources. (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.