Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Hitler Diaries/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hitler Diaries

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The story of the Hitler Diaries has twice been brought to the screen—both times as comedy/farce. There is much to laugh at as an inept and bungling forger managed to fox the brains of the world's media, and some heavyweight historians in the bargain. Even when read as straight prose, there are still enough moments of suspended disbelief to make you wonder whether the whole was a work of fiction. Sadly for those at Stern, the diaries were the only fictitious element in this story of incompetence, greed, bungling, ineptitude and mismanagement—with a dash of fraud and some old Nazis thrown in for good measure. This article has undergone a re-write in the last month or so, and all comments, thoughts and criticism is welcomed, before a hopeful trip to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cliftonian comments

[edit]

Thank you SchroCat! I love this story and had been hoping to get to it myself eventually, but I'm very glad to see it has been taken up by a very capable colleague and look forward to having a look through. I will note comments as I read through.

Lead

  • Perhaps clarify we mean The Sunday Times of London or similar
  • "including two who had previously authenticated the diaries—raised questions over the validity of the diaries" repetition
  • "The diaries were purchased by Gerd Heidemann, a West German journalist with Stern, who had an obsession with the Nazis. Stern started buying the diaries," So did Heidemann buy them or did the magazine? Or did Stern buy them from Heidemann?
  • "as a result of the debacle" I think is not necessary, it is clear from the context

Background

  • There wasn't an East or West Germany in 1938, when Kujau. Perhaps clarify that we mean what would become East Germany after the war.
  • Didn't his belief in Nazi ideals become problematic for Kujau after the war, when he lived under communism between the ages of 7 and 19? Presumably he kept quiet?
  • The wikilink to "luncheon vouchers" doesn't go anywhere. Perhaps try to find an alternative?
  • "On his release he and his wife formed the Lieblang Cleaning Company" What wife? We haven't mentioned his marriage yet. Do we mean Edith?
  • "at a routine check at Kujau's lodgings" a "routine check"? Why would the police randomly show up to check where somebody lives? Sounds more like East than West Germany. Perhaps expand on this (were such checks common at the time?)
  • "In 1970 Kujau visited his family in East Germany" He didn't spend too long in jail then? And wasn't it difficult to travel between West and East Germany?
  • Apparently not, but the sources don't clarify how long. I think Germans who had family on the other side found it relatively easy to travel (or at least less diffcult). Some people had a daily commute across the divide - I went over twice back in the 80s, and a very disconcerting experience it was! - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "material", not "materiel"; the latter is a military term
  • "Communist" doesn't need a capital C
  • In footnote "c" we mention "both Kujaus"—we mean him and his wife? See my comment above.
  • He had "five pistols, a machine gun, a shotgun and three rifles" and was only fined? Wow! (no action)

Have to stop now, will continue later. Good read so far. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for the delay.

Background, continued

  • We say in footnote "e" that Hitler painted in the trenches. But wasn't he actually a fairly serious art student before the war?
  • We should be clearer whether Kujau's brother really was an East German general or whether this was made up. (The wording could be taken to imply that the brother really was a general, and that Kujau was merely inventing the idea that he was a source for Nazi memorabilia.)
  • Footnote "h": why "Field marshal", with a small "m"?
  • We say Hitler was upset at "the loss of one of his favoured servants", but the quote seems to imply he was more concerned about the loss of the documents.

Production and sale of the diaries

  • "a German army wax seal" Wehrmacht, presumably? Or post-war Bundeswehr?

That's all for now—more later/tomorrow. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay.

  • "Priesack also showed the diary to Eberhard Jäckel of the University of Stuttgart, who also thought" repetition. suggest removing first instance of "also".
  • "News of the existence of the diary" perhaps "News of the diary's existence"
  • "soon began to filter through to the collectors of Hitler memorabilia" not sure you need "the" here
  • "had shown him round his collection" around, I think
  • "in which was a Hitler diary" perhaps "which included" or "and had" a Hitler diary
  • "Heidemann travelled to Stuttgart in January 1980, where Stiefel showed him the diary" perhaps "Stiefel showed Heidemann the diary in Stuttgart in January 1980"
  • "The collector acted as a go-between and spoke to Kujau" Don't think you need "acted as a go-between and"
  • "so they decided to look into the crash" perhaps "so they looked into the crash"
  • "he informed them that the source had been East Germany, unconnected to the diaries" the source had been East Germany? As in the East German government? Or is a word missing here?
  • "Primary among them was the two-volume work by the historian Max Domarus, Hitler: Reden und Proklamationen ... Kujau plagiarised this particularly heavily." Seems repetitive to me, like we are saying the same thing twice.
  • "Hamilton puts the date of delivery of the first diaries as mid-January" perhaps "Hamilton puts the delivery of the first diaries in mid-January"?
  • "for which Heidemann only gave him 35,000 marks, not the promised 120,000—40,000 marks per diary—from which Heidemann would also claim a 10% commission" this is not very clear; suggest redrawing.
  • "The following day the reporter delivered them" suggest clarifying what he delivered.
  • "Heidemann also entered into a private contract with Gruner + Jahr—one which was kept secret" we say "one of which", but "a private contract" is itself singular?
  • "to be handed on to the German government on his death" careful; it was still the West German government at this point (unless Hiedemann had foreknowledge of the wall coming down)
  • "the price rose from 85,000 marks to 100,000 marks" clarify if this is per volume
  • "convertible BMW" I'd say "BMW convertible" myself
  • clarify that the Elbchaussee is in Hamburg
  • "a Holocaust denialist" not Holocaust denier? or is this a direct quote?
  • "Heidemann requested a new title to the front page" check grammar?

Arrests and trial

  • "he took his wife and mistress to Austria" so they knew about each other? (the wife and mistress?)

Aftermath

  • Where did Kujau die, and from what?
  • "circulating round Cambridge" not around Cambridge?
  • A nice peroration to wind up the article would be nice.

I hope these comments are helpful. Thanks for the great read. I'll be keeping on eye on this as it hopefully marches on to FAC. Cheers! —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

[edit]

Reading through today, comments later. CassiantoTalk 06:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stern, The Sunday Times and Newsweek

  • " It was known for its investigative journalism" -- By who?

Producing the diaries

  • "Schulze puts the date in 1976" -- as? In fact, I think you maybe correct if you had a particular date in mind.

Acquisition

  • "The delivery of the diaries continued, although there were tensions between Heidemann and Kujau, partly due to the journalist's "domineering personality and duplicity [which] constantly irritated Kujau". -- A slip into AmEng with "due to" → "owing to" would be our version.

That's it I'm afraid. My comments get less and less with every article you produce, annoyingly. A great read as usual. A prod in the direction of FAC would be most appreciated when you arrive. CassiantoTalk 21:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments

[edit]
  • Crisco 1492, Swapped over the licence, but can you remind me of the "Copy to Commons" tag). The only thing I thought about with the signature is that it's not Hitler's signature, it's a different thing if done by a forger. I'm sure a IP lawyer could go on for pages at £1,000/hour for their opinion on it, but it's probably OK to shove into Commons! - SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

[edit]

Very enjoyable. I remember the Alexei Sayle TV version years ago, couldn't stop laughing. This is the first of several review instalments:

Lead
  • "The diaries were purchased by the West German news magazine Stern in 1983 for 9.3 million marks ($3.7 million), who sold serialisation rights to several news organisations..." Needs reorganisation, thus: "The diaries were purchased in 1983 for 9.3 million marks ($3.7 million), by the West German news magazine Stern, who sold serialisation rights to several news organisations..."
  • Also, "marks" were not the German currency of the day. Deutschmarks?
  • "The diaries were purchased by Gerd Heidemann, a West German journalist with Stern, who had an obsession with the Nazis. Stern started buying the diaries, although Heidemann stole a significant proportion of the money from his employers." I'm having difficulty working out what is happening here. Having earlier established that Stern bought the diaries for DM9.3 million, it is now stated that the diaries were purchaseed by Heidemann. But then, we learn, "Stern started buying the diaries". Much confusion. And what exactly was the nature of Heidemann's theft? These issues may be clarified later in the text, but the picture should be clear in the lead.
Konrad Kujau
  • "the defeat to the Allies in 1945" → "Germany's defeat in 1945..."
  • By 1963 the bar began suffering financial difficulties..." Either alter "By" to "In", or make it: "By 1963 the bar had begun to suffer financial difficulties..."
  • "...the bribable director of a museum and his brother, who Kujau re-invented as a general in the East German army." Not clear from this whose brother was being re-invented.
Gerd Heidemann
  • "With the rise of Hitler" → "During the rise of Hitler"
  • "photo lab" → "photographic laboratory" (encyclopaedic formality)
  • DPA can be linked here
Stern, The Sunday Times and Newsweek
  • "The Sunday Times had been involved in a deal to purchase the Mussolini diaries for £60,000, against an agreed final purchase price of £250,000." What does this mean: that they hoped toseal the deal for £60,000 but ended up paying £250,000? If so, this needs to be made clear.
  • Some amplification of Heidemann's role as "publisher" would be helpful. It clearly wasn't the high-powered position it sounds, as it seems that he was still answerable to the editors.
Yes, sorry, that was my misreading. Forget it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph: It would be a good idea to separate Trevor-Roper from the issues relating to the ownership of the Sunday Times. At the moment he appears in the middle.
Operation Seraglio
  • The presence of this subsection, at this point, is a bit puzzling. It seems that we are meant to infer something, e.g. that the boxes could have contained Hitler's diaries, but if so I think this needs to be spelt out more clearly. I also wonder whether the details of Bormann's demise are necessary. In any event, I might be inclined to place this subsection in its chronological position, at the top of the Background section.
Producing the diaries
  • "in November 1980 the two journalists travelled to Dresden and located the graves of the flight's crew. There had been survivors of the crash, the last of whom had died in April 1980." Is this germane?

I'll be back. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My next batch:

Producing the diaries
  • I think there should be a footnote mentioning that Wieland Der Schmeidt was the title of a draft libretto (1849–50) by Richard Wagner, which he abandoned and never set to music. I can provide references as required.
  • Brianboulton, if you could, that would be great, as neither of the diary sources deal with that sufficiently well enough to use here. Cliftonian also wanted a little more on this point, so it certainly needs to be covered. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who presented the prospectus? It seems that Heidemnann and Walde were jointly responsible, but the quoted wording shows "I suggest that I should seek out a publishing company..." – who is "I"?
  • "The pair did not show it to anyone at Stern..." Clarify that "it" is the prospectus.
  • "the figures were agreed" is a little vague. "The deposit was authorised"?
  • "As soon as the meeting ended, at about 7 pm, Heidemann travelled to Hamburg airport with Peter Kuehsel, Gruner + Jahr's accountant; Kuehsel visited the branch of Deutsche Bank at the airport and withdrew the deposit money before the journalist flew to Stuttgart to meet Kujau." I am wondering about the level of detail here – rather more than I would have thought necessary for an encyclopaedia article.
Acquisition
  • "At a second meeting the following day, the reporter revealed the additional lure he had brought with him: Göring's uniform." – except that it wasn't. Thus "a uniform which he said was Göring's", or some such qualification. Also "Heidemann lent Göring's uniform" → "Heidemann lent the uniform", and "a painting by Hitler" → "a painting purportedly by Hitler" .
  • "This was a great deal less than the 120,000 marks —40,000 marks per diary—promised to Kujau" – when was this amount promised? And why did Kujau accept the much lower amount?
  • "More importantly..." – editorial opinion?
  • "...the journalist's "domineering personality and duplicity [which] constantly irritated Kujau". Ho-hum, and who was Kujau to complain about duplicity? I think I'd paraphrase this to avoid the impression that Kujau's irritation was justified.
  • "Heidemann had stolen the rest" – true, but in the circumstances I'd probably say that he'd "pocketed" the rest.
  • " for 20,000 marks" → "for a payment of 20,000 marks"
  • "...the price rose from 85,000 marks to 100,000 marks per diary". I imagine you mean that Heidemann informed them that the price had risen.
  • "Kajau"?
  • "the right-wing author David Irving" – true, but are Irving's political credentials relevant? ("Right-wingers" might be offended to be lumped in with him!)
Initial testing and verification
  • First mention of Trevor-Roper in a long while. By now he was Lord Dacre, so I recommend re-introducing him.
  • I'd also give Murdoch a Rupert, as he's also been out of the story a while.
  • " the minimum price they would consider was $3 million" – who are "they"?
  • "Hensmann accepted Newsweek‍ '​s offer..." – isn't it rather that Newsweek accepted Hensmann's demand? In any event it appear that there was offer and acceptance, the two elements of a legal contract. So how come the whole deal was then re-negotiated, with Newsweek apparently left in the cold? There is no indication given in the final paragraph as to why the pricing of the deal changed so suddenly.

My final comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for these so far, Brian, they are all top-notch, as usual. I also remember the Sayle/Pryce television work - an absolute hoot, and I purchased it recently: it's lost none of the humour or enjoyment in the intervening years! - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding:

Released to the news
  • "The Sunday paper remained oblivious..." etc – perhaps a "thus" before "remained"?
  • "...the journalist refused to give it, but gave the historian another version of the story he had been given for the acquisition of the diaries." We have "give", "gave", and "given" in close proximity, and it's rather confused the meaning. Why not: "...the journalist refused, and gave a different story of how the diaries had been acquired."?
  • The phrase "at the press conference" closes and opens successive paragraphs
  • "authenticity" occurs twice in the first sentence of the final paragraph.
  • "proceedings began to become less calm" is slightly odd phrasing, and smacks of editorial observation I'd lose the sentence – the nature of the remaining proceedings is properly described in the remainder of the paragraph.
Forensic analysis
  • "Heidemann again met with Kujau, buying the last four diaries from him." Two distinct activities, meeting and buying, thus: "Heidemann again met with Kujau, and bought the last four diaries from him."
  • "an emergency meeting was called and the identity of Heidemann's source was demanded" – that's rather a lot of passive voice!
  • "His first impression was that the diaries were forged" – define "His"
  • "By the time the news was passed from the Bundesarchiv to Stern, they had already passed it to the government" – again there is confusion arising from the use of the passive voice, and an indistinct "they".
  • You say that the managers at Stern tried to release a press statement, but the government got in first. That would not prevent Stern issuing their statement, even if it was five minute later. Did they do so?
Arrests and trial
  • "he took his wife and mistress to Austria, introducing her to Edith as his cleaner" – needs rephrasing, e.g "introducing the latter to Edith as his cleaner". (I can well imagine my wife's reaction if a strange women joined us on a trip abroad and I said, "Oh, by the way, this is my cleaner".
  • A general point: since the principal facts seem largely uncontested, and the guilt of the pair self-evident, how did the trial spin out over eleven months? Ferhaps a few details of the proceedings would be illuminating?
  • First point done - (and I imagine that my wife's reaction would also be a little different, and I doubt I'd be on holiday after that!) I'll see what can be teased out of the sources for the trial. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • "Five years later it was revealed..." etc: who revealed it, and with what consequences if any?
  • Was the 700,000 euro debt the remnant of Heidemann's fraud? (And how do you print a euro sign – nothing on my keboard)
  • It's not made clear in the source (apart from saying €150,000 was from shipyard bills for the Carin II), but I presume so. I've not found anything that clarifies the point too well. - SchroCat (talk)
  • Re €: in Word if you press CTRL and ALT along with E you'll get a right thing (although not when editing directly into Wikipedia, unfortunately! - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A settlement of 3.5 million marks..." meaning DM. What is the source that equates this to $1 million?
  • Quotes such as " "once known for its investigative reporting, became a prime example of sensation-seeking checkbook journalism" need to be attributed as well as cited.
  • Robert Harris is a bit more than a "journalist". At least a "writer" I'd have thought.
  • "In 2004 one of the diaries was sold at auction.." Who owned the diaries at this point?
  • I think all were owned by Stern, except this one (as far as I can work out), but the details of the auctioned volume are unclear as to the provenance. I presume this was Steifel's diary - the first one Kujau did, but nothing in the sources actually confirms it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. I must watch that miniseries again. I seem to remember that Alison Steadman played a cameo role as Edda Göring (not to be confused with the Poetic Edda) Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • She certainly did - although Alan Bennett kilted while mowing the lawn as Dacre was a high point (as was Barry Humphries as Murdoch!) Many thanks for the superb comments - I'll finish off this final lot and hope to give it a final polish before FAC in the near future. Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim

[edit]

If you can bring yourself to prolong the PR for a few days I'd very much like to comment. I'm catching up on my WP to-do list post hols and will be back here soonest if you're still trading. Tim riley talk 12:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - am happy to wait, partly because I'm still waiting for inspiration for a decent closing line to it all, but mostly for your comments, which are always worth the wait. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Late on parade I can offer very little.

  • Lead
    • "Stern" in the second sentence – perhaps italicise, and add link to Stern (magazine)?
    • "several newspapers editors" – either several newspapers' editors or several newspaper editors?
  • Konrad Kujau
    • "all subjects that Hitler never painted, or would want to paint." – this could do with a citation, I think.
  • Stern, The Sunday Times and Newsweek
    • "the journal's Head of Contemporary History" – not clear why this gent is capitalised when his boss, the editor, isn't.
    • "was appointed Baron Dacre of Glanton" – as this has survived BB's expert scrutiny I assume it's idiomatic phrasing, but I think I'd have written "created" rather than "appointed".
    • "was a specialist in Nazi Germany" – I think, to avoid any ambiguity, I'd replace "in" with "on" here. Ordinarily I'd prefer "in", but there lingers the faint suggestion that he was a specialist who practised in Germany under the Third Reich.
  • Released to the news; the Stern press conference
    • "also thought it unlikely" – not clear to which noun, if any, "it" refers here.
    • "could not believe it was true" – ditto.
    • "forcibly dragged Irving" – can you drag someone unforcibly?
  • Forensic analysis and the uncovering of the frauds
    • "The Times ran the story of Irving's U-turn the following day" – not that one necessarily expects a coherent reason, but did Irving explain why he had done his U-turn?
      • Harris speculates it was purely for publicity only, but I'm not sure Irving himself gave an explanation (although I'll check the sources pre-FAC)
  • Aftermath
    • "Two of Stern 's editors, Koch and Schmidt, lost their jobs" – their roles in the story aren't clear to me. Koch switches from being opposed to Heidemann's goings-on to touring the US banging the drum for them, so one can see why he got the chop, but Schmidt is mentioned only once before this mention of his dismissal, and there is nothing to explain what his fault was.
    • "ostensibly to pursue…" – I think the quotation marks make "ostensibly" unnecessary.

That's all from me. A complex tale told with great clarity. One would need a heart of stone not to rock with mirth at the egg on the faces of the great, the good, the greedy and the gullible. – Tim riley talk 10:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for your thoughts on this, which I've tried to deal with (with the exception of te two commented upon above). I felt slightly sorry for Dacre in all this - he was out of his depth in dealing with Murdoch and was pushed into his decision; academic bitchiness did for him in the end, regardless of his peerless academic record up until then, but the rest of them deserved what they got! Many thanks. I'll go to FAC shortly, but still need to think of a suitable closing line to wrap it all up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing PR: Many thanks to all who came and commented so constructively. I hope to be at FAC in a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Hitler_Diaries/archive1&oldid=1138561939"