Talk:Adolf Eichmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Eichmann's last words[edit]

Eichmann's last words are incorrect. The last page of Chapter XV of Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem accounts his execution where he explicitly states that he was a gottgläubiger (someone who was not a Christian and did not believe in life after death). He went on to say : "After a short while, gentlemen, we shall all meet again. Such is the fate of all men. Long live Germany. long live Argentina. long live Austria. I shall not forget them.”

121.217.221.57 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanna Arendt was not present and there is no reason to prefer her version over Cesarani's. There can be some differences of translation, too. Zerotalk 23:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I very recently came upon this. http://www.timesofisrael.com/eichmanns-final-barb-i-hope-that-all-of-you-will-follow-me/

This is certainly first hand testimony, from Eitan. The whole article gives some fascinating insights. It is not sufficient for any inclusion in mainspace however. Irondome (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it doesn't contradict Cesarani's version. One was a prepared statement (that I think Cesarani took from the book of cleric William Hull who was present; I can check that), the other was something Eichmann allegedly muttered the moment before he died. Both can be true. But also, I can't see Rafi Eitan as a reliable witness; deception has been part of his job description for most of his life. Zerotalk 23:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think both are probably true. Cesarani's account has the ring of the last statements of the Nuremberg condemned. I do not see what Eitan has to gain really at this late stage. It seems a bit late for deception, and what would be the point? In any event, it has not the weight to be included in mainspace. Irondome (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
After looking into this a bit more, I think that Eitan's "I hope that all of you will follow me" is just a report of the sentence that Cesarani has as "We'll meet again soon, as is the fate of all men." There are multiple language translations here: Eitan's version that we have is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of what Eichmann said in German. Incidentally, here is a comparison of Cesarani's version with Hull's version. Cesarani cites Hull as well as the report of a German journalist who was one of the four journalists present.
Cesarani (p321): "Long live Germany. Long live Argentina. Long live Austria. These are the three countries with which I have been most connected and which I will not forget. I greet my wife, my family and my friends. I am ready. We'll meet again soon, as is the fate of all men. I die believing in God."
Hull (p159): "Eichmann called out in German: 'Long live Germany. Long live Argentina. Long live Austria. These are the three countries with which I have been most connected and which I will not forget. I greet my wife, my family and my friends. I had to obey the laws of war and my flag. I am ready.' Later: 'Gentlemen, we shall meet again soon, so is the fate of all men. I have believed in God all my life and I die believing in God.' "
Zerotalk 09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the multiple translation issue is the main factor here. Thanks for digging further User:Zero0000. Irondome (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eichmann Before Jerusalem[edit]

"[Bettina Stangneth's] new portrait of Eichmann is very different from Arendt's..She reveals a skilled social manipulator with a pronounced ability to reinvent himself, an ideological warrior unrepentant about the past and eager to continue the racial war against the Jews.", Saul David, Review, The Daily Telegraph, 29 Nov 2014. It may be worth someone's while to read this book and cite it. Budhen (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm about 1/2 through reading it. Zerotalk 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Would you recommend it User:Zero0000? It may not be too late to ask my significant other to get it for me as a new year present. She is aware of my rather bleak reading preferences. She is more of the A bear called paddington literary school. She may have her priorities right. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It is a fascinating book that I definitely recommend. A large part of the book is an account of the Sassen "interviews" which in fact were no such thing. Sassen hosted a long series of group discussions in his house, attended by Eichmann as well as by a lot of other fugitive Nazis and sympathisers, using their real names. They discussed everything to do with the holocaust, including working through books about it page by page. It wasn't always cordial, either. The discussions were recorded and typed up; over 1000 pages survive as well as many of the tapes. Eichmann also wrote a large amount himself, most never published. Zerotalk 04:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Appreciated. Do you have the ISBN? Regards Irondome (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
9781847923233 or 9781847923257 . It was earlier published in German and there is a second German edition too. Zerotalk 06:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eichmann's nationality[edit]

It lists his nationality as having been of Nazi Germany, which makes sense, but he wasn't actually born there between 1933 and 1945, so it wouldn't have actually been such at the time of his birth, but would have been of the German Empire. It wasn't "Nazi Germany" at the time of his death, either. Perhaps there is a better way to represent Eichmann's nationality? Maybe just an unlinked "Germany"? I can't really think of anything else, so I am open to any ideas. Dustin (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Germany isn't a nationality. It's a description. I don't believe it was even officially called that, since "Nazi" refers to a political party (and the word Nazi wasnt used in Germany, but never mind that). His nationality should just be German and perhaps his country of birth changed to German Empire. freshacconci talk to me 00:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
An interesting point. I would suggest an additional "Allegiance" line, with Nazi Germany as the flag. But I would argue that his nationality covers his political and ideological alignment very acutely at the moment. He was operating as an official of Nazi Germany, and he embraced its perverted doctrines to an extreme degree. Your suggestions I would say are far too convoluted for article clarity in their present form. Nazi Germany is many times referred to as National Socialist Germany by many leading Nazi figures in speeches and writings. Its official status as N.S.Germany seems to have been widely accepted in Germany. The party and state morphed into one in German consciousness, especially among the young. Some foreign descriptions use this term, as I believe can be dug out as sources, especially dating from the early years. Irondome (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Saying he was German isn't convoluted. It's actually the simplest solution. And as Dustin V.S. says, he wasn't part of Nazi Germany his whole life, so that's just confusing. Actually, the simplest thing would be to see what other articles do. I looked at Himmler's and Goering's articles and they seem to bypass it altogether by not stating a nationality, just birthplace and place of death, plus party allegiance. freshacconci talk to me 01:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I like those examples. I would support a change to fall in line with those articles. His early life is in mainspace anyway. People should read the article, not infoboxes :) Irondome (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
According to Template:Infobox person, the |nationality= parameter should not be used when it is already made clear by the place of birth what the person's nationality is. I completely removed the parameter. Dustin (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Good edit. Looks better. Irondome (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Date of death[edit]

Sometime in 2013 I changed the date of death from 31 May to 1 June with this explanation:

This has been brought up before (see Archive 1) but not adequately addressed. As far as I know, sources based on eye-witness accounts say that Eichmann was hanged after midnight, i.e. on June 1. For example the chaplain Hull (who was present and gives a minute by minute timeline) states 12:02am. The book of Cesarani, while not stating an actual time of death, says that it was scheduled for midnight but there was a technical problem with the apparatus that caused a delay. What sources of similar quality exist for May 31?

The date was soon changed back to May 31 by some anon without explanation. I don't see any reason for not now changing it back, so I will. Zerotalk 08:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It was probably removed because Worldcat has the book labelled as fiction. Can you confirm that it's a non-fiction work? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Definitely not fiction, that's a mistake. Also note that Cesarani cites this book repeatedly and describes Hull's role starting on page 316. Stangneth cites the German edition of it too. Zerotalk 00:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eichmann's address in Buenos Aires[edit]

The address where Eichmann lived at Buenos Aires is listed in this article as "14 Garibaldi Street (now 4261 Garibaldi Street)". However, on the Simon Wiesenthal Center web site in the article "Wiesenthal Center Marks Eichmann Capture in Argentina Fifty Years Later" ( http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=8407623#.VMkvJi7iueI ) the address is listed as "6061 Garibaldi Street". Recent photographs of the adress are included in the article. When you confirm this address with Google Maps Streetview, the location and surrounding buildings match the photographs on the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Amsterdave (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Trial publicity[edit]

The previous source which states that Israel wished for publicity for the trial, which is online and can be read, is in opposition to the assertion that the authorities had to be persuaded that filming was permissible. Unlike the former source, I cannot see the relevant passages that form the basis of this claim. Please can you reproduce the original material which covers this alleged reluctance for filming. Best way to clear it up it seems.I would like to see involvement from other interested editors, so WP:CONSENSUS can be reached. This is how WP works. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The new source Concentrationary Memories: Totalitarian Terror and Cultural Resistance (Google link) says on page 60 that Ben-Gurion was concerned that the harsh lighting required for filming the proceedings would turn the trial into a bit of a circus. However, the new videotape technology did not require floodlights to be set up and had the added bonus of being more suitable for use in television broadcasts (page 61). It says at the top of page 62 that Ben-Gurion and members of his gov't were keen to give the trial extensive mass media coverage. It says on page 63 that Fruchtman "managed to convince" them to permit the videotaping. The next paragraph states that the network signed a contract giving them exclusive rights to videotape the trial. So the source does indeed say that the Israelis had to be convinced, but I don't think that's the most salient point, as the remainder of the material emphasizes how keen the Israeli government was that there should be massive and worldwide media coverage. We have to be selective in what we include; not everything that can be sourced should be put in the article. If Fruchtman had a Wikipedia article I would favour including his name, but without it, not so much. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a bit of peacocking and some self-publicity in the wording of the source. the importance of usage of film/video "had not been clearly perceived" (Page 63) is a long way from outright opposition based on technical or moral grounds. There appears to have been no evidence of any sustained resistance put up by the Israeli Authorities in the source. It sounds like Fruchtman was pushing at an open door here. I think it is quite ambiguous in terms of wording. I largely agree with the bulk of your argument however, User:Diannaa. I would like to see F's notability established also. Not having a WP article on him does not help. Irondome (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The lack of a simple "let me get back to you" from the original editor who began this I find frustrating also. A quick note just to touch base would not take 30 seconds. I am afraid I have issues with eds who do not communicate when asked to, repeatedly. It does not help credibility. Irondome (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, is that a reference to me? If I'm not following protocols, it isn't out of intent. It's that I'm entirely new to this business and have no idea what the norms are. I confess that I'm still confused about the difference between reading that Fruchtman won America's top tv journalism award on the awards page and reading it on Wikipedia.- Galena 64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galena64 (talkcontribs) 04:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thats ok. Good to hear from you anyway. So write an article about him! Go for it. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm really busy and I'm a historian by trade, which means I don't like to write articles unless I'm absolutely sure that all the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s crossed, and that takes lots of time. Even the two or three paragraph bios I've written for encyclopedias are really time consuming. But as I understand Wikipedia rules, the winning of a Peabody more than meets the requirement for a bio, so I don't see the difference between reading that info on Wikipedia and reading it on the awards page.-- Galena64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galena64 (talkcontribs) 04:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure Mr Fruchtman would meet WP:NOTABLE so an article just needs to be created. I've 2 articles in the works but it's time and research as you say. I understand wanting to get it right. But WP is an ongoing work in progress, so others would contribute. I hope you stick around :) Regards Irondome (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure an article on Fruchtman is a good idea, but as you say, he meets the notable requirement, so why is it an issue in terms of this article whether or not he has a Wikipedia page? Seriously, I still don't get that. But as far as I can understand our original discussion, we seem to be in agreement that he meets the "notable" requirement, even if he doesn't have a page. The other editor said "I largely agree with the bulk of your argument," so what obstacles still remain to reworking the opening of that paragraph along the lines that I originally suggested? More evidence that the door wasn't largely open, as the other editor seemed to suggest? -- Galena64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galena64 (talkcontribs) 04:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My opinion: I am not in favour of including Fruchtman by name as it's off-topic for this article, which needs to focus on Eichmann himself. I think the present wording is fine. The information would be appropriate to include in an article about the trial (another article which we don't at present have, and hopefully someone will write it someday). -- Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I certainly named him in relation to the UK television film The Eichmann Show. He seemed quite pivotal in that, although it was just a fictional re-telling, of course. Did Ben-Gurion appreciate who he was dealing with? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It is possible that DGB may have had other, more pressing concerns on his mind at the time, Martin. However, this just reinforces the need for us to have an article on Mr. Fruchtman, IMO. Also the concept of an article dealing with the contemporary (1961) sub-issues of the trial seems increasingly attractive. Material like this would very comfortably fit there, as would artistic re-tellings of the trial in film or on TV. This article concentrates on Eichmann. His trial is just a part of the whole dark story. I am attracted to the idea of separate articles. Irondome (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Who needs Hollywood contacts when you've got a direct booking service. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In answer to one of the questions above, a bit of googling shows that Fruchtman had already done a film with Ben-Gurion. A bit more googling shows that he married the niece of Ben-Gurion's justice minister, Pinchas Rosen. But I really don't have anything more to say at this point, so whatever you guys come up with is fine with me-- galena64

That's all very intriguing. Amazing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. I think an article on Mr. Fruchtman would be very valuable. Irondome (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A bit more googling shows that Ben-Gurion really didn't approve of television in general, which gives general support to the source that kicked this whole discussion off-- galena64

Probably wasnt a telly addict, but a link would be useful to support that. For general interest. As Israel showed TV coverage (based on article sources) it seems DBG's prejudice against TV was overruled. Just how and who by, and the extent of his opposition, would be interesting to explore. Regards Irondome (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yoram Peri , Telepopulism: Media and Politics in Israel, 20-21, for Ben-Gurion's dislike and its effects. “it is doubtful whether there is another case of a democratic state in which one man was able to prevent the introduction of the cultural artifact that is so symbolic of the second half of the twentieth century.” Again, the only immediate relevance of this for me is it's support for the accuracy of the source I originally cited and the issue raised by the first person of the extent to which Fruchtman was knocking at an open door.-- galena64