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.


According to German-Jewish prof. Dietrich Bronder, Eichmann, a self-hating Jew, was born in Palestine, and his birth certificate was later fabricated, giving Sollingen as his place of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is nonsense and so doesn't belong here. Zerotalk 07:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you a bit more specific? Why do you automatically reject the work of a genuine scholar, a professor? "This is nonsense" doesn't sound like a solid argument. We know well, from the famous book of Bryan Mark Rigg - "Hitler's jewish soldiers", that this sort of situations were possible and acctually pretty frequent. This case should be examined more thoroughly by some qualified historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
"Dietrich Bronder", who may or may not have been a real person, claimed that most leading Nazis were Jewish. It's crap. Zerotalk 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
In his book, The Occult Roots of Nazism..., the historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke dismisses Bronder's book as "crypto-history" (p. 221) For his definition of crypto-history see: Crypto-history Joel Mc (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
And as for Hitler's Jewish soldiers, Rigg is considered a quack and his book nothing but fantasy just as well by modern German scholars. Rigg gives vastly, preposterously higher numbers of German-Jewish Mischlings serving in the Wehrmacht at an age fit to serve than there were even registered Mischlings alive at any age between birth and death in the official 1939 census. Most Mischlings he interviews were either not allowed to serve to begin with or were soon found out and discharged (and in either case were subjected to slave labor from October 1944 onwards). According to the Nuremberg laws, only "1/16 Jews" (i. e. those whose great-grandparents had no more than one Jewish parent) were allowed to apply for "racial examination" (Rassegutachten) to be examined on whether they showed any "Jewish" biological and psychological traits, in order to be declared fit to serve if they appeared "Aryan" enough. Rigg's book is about as reliable as the infamous Hitler diaries hoax. -- (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Profession of Lothar Hermann[edit]

There is something gone wrong in the sentence addressing Lothar Hermann's correspondence with Fritz Bauer (a German judge and prosecutor). Lothar Hermann was not a “German Jewish lawyer who had fled to Argentina ” but a “German ex-pat and survivor of the Holocaust who had fled to Argentina . . . ” [1]

Citation from the source mentioned above: Eichmann’s undoing began in Argentina after the daughter of Lothar Hermann, a German (and Jewish) ex-pat and survivor, started dating his son.

“She begins dating a young man named Nick.” Lipstadt paused. “Eichmann.” With Hermann’s tip, German-Jewish lawyer Fritz Bauer and Israeli operatives sniffed out Eichmann, who had changed his name to Ricardo Klement.

--Vulpesvulpes201 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The source you provide does not back up the edit you made, which said "Lothar Hermann (1901–1974), a German Holocaust survivor, (son of a Jewish cattle dealer from Quirnbach/Westerwald, Germany), who had fled to Argentina in 1937". -- Dianna (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree to your argument, but in my statement above I only refer to the current version of the wikipedia on Adolf Eichmann. The web source I provided above is to make clear that it was Fritz Bauer who was a German judge and prosecutor, but not Lothar Hermann! Did you get my point? Please compare with this sentence:
Also instrumental in exposing Eichmann's identity was Lothar Hermann, a German Jewish lawyer who had fled to Argentina after escaping from Dachau concentration camp, where Eichmann had been an administrative officer at one time.

--Vulpesvulpes201 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bauer was a lawyer. I don't find any good source saying that Hermann was a lawyer too, and the citation given for that sentence (Lipstadt, p11) doesn't say that he was. So we will remove that. Hermann was not a Holocaust survivor either, since he left Europe before there was a Holocaust. Lipstadt also does not say that Eichmann was working at Dachau concentration camp when Hermann was there (for socialist activity). At that time Eichmann worked for Department II/112, but I didn't figure out where that was located. Zerotalk 09:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Actually, neither Lipstadt nor the new source I brought (Cesarani) say the camp was Dachau, so that is gone too. Zerotalk 11:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for responding swiftly. Regarding the profession, the best would be, of course, to contact Liliana Hermann (niece of Silvia, the daughter of Lothar Hermann), who is on a fact-finding mission regarding the history of Lothar Hermann. This is an Argentine website where information is presented about the history of Lothar Hermann, unfortunately without giving detailed references / sources. [1]
In the source below, I found more detailed biographical information about Hermann.
Cited from: Neal Bascomb: Hunting Eichmann: How a Band of Survivors and a Young Spy Agency Chased Down the World's Most Notorious Nazi; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009
Lothar was half-Jewish and ... had been imprisoned at Dachau for socialist activities in 1936. Mindful of the increase in the persecution of the Jews, he had immigrated with his Christian wife to Argentina soon after Kristallnacht.

--Vulpesvulpes201 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hermann was an interesting person, and I wonder if we can find enough material for an article on him. The story of how he was arrested on suspicion of being Mengele is quite extraordinary. Unfortunately that web site does not meet WP:RS. Zerotalk 10:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an attempt to contribute an explanation on how the false designation of Lothar Hermann's profession could have come into use in one of the previous versions of th wikipedia article on Adolf Eichmann.
... Bauer, a Jewish Holocaust survivor, had received the information about Eichmann's location from another German-Jewish lawyer, Lother Hermann, who had immigrated to Argentina during the war.
According to this source, (unfortunately, this website does not allow to identify the author responsible for its content) Lothar Hermann was a "worker"
"... as Lother Hermann, a worker of Jewish descent who fled to Argentina from Germany following his incarceration in the Dachau concentration camp."
I found another very interesting message (related to the role Lothar Hermann played in the capture of Adolf Eichmann) in a forum
Citation: The blind refugee's secret, by Yossi Melman
... . . Argentine author-journalist Uki Goni focuses on how chance and luck played a key role in the operation, and tries to set the record straight concerning Lother Hermann, who deserves the lion's share of the credit for exposing Eichmann but who did not attain the glory and the gratitude he so richly deserved.
..The source to which Yossi Melman refers is also mentioned in ODESSA: Uki Goni, The Real Odessa: Smuggling the Nazis to Peron's Argentina
--Vulpesvulpes201 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Estimado mi nombre es Ariel y soy esposo de Liliana Hermann, pude ver en la pagina de Adolf Eichmann sobre el tema en discucion sobre si Lothar Hermann era abogado o no. Quiero decirle que no era abogado,el era gestor y tramitaba jubilaciones para Alemanes en Buenos Aires, tenia un buen conocimiento de leyes y no temía a la hora de reclamar por algo justo. Por otro lado ya estamos en condiciones de afirmar que la primera denuncia de Lothar hermann sobre el paradero de Adolf Eichmann fue realizado ante la Embajada de Israel en 1954 simultáneamente con la DAIA organizaciones que representa políticamente a la comunidad judía en Argentina quien fue la responsable de amenazar a Lothar por mucho tiempo, incluso fue la que invento la causa para confundirlo con josef Menguele en 1961 luego que escribiera a Israel cansado de tantas mentiras que le dieron honores a Simon Wiesenthal un gran mentiroso, Hermann fue torturado y amenzado por 5 agentes del mossad , 2 de alemania Federal y un alto directivos de DAIA que tambien era agente del mossad Gregorio Schurmann.Tambien me gustaria informarlo que el sr Harel fue un gran mentiroso e invento muchas cosas sobre la familia hermann , un romance de Silvia con Klauss algo totalmente falso y el hijo de Eichmann jamas visito la casa de hermann ,todo es una gran mentira, imagine que ni la operación garibaldi fue verdad. Estamos trabajando en el libro para contar la verdad y desenmascarar toda la operación basándonos en documentos desclasificados en Argentina , Alemania,Israel y Estados Unidos. gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arushko (talkcontribs) 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Proffered immunity[edit]

I find no reference for the statement that the former high ranking Nazis were offered "immunity and safe conduct". Six, at least, was told that he risked arrest for war crimes. Mc (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes they were refused entry to Israel with one or two exceptions. I'll fix this, I'm just slow. Zerotalk 12:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Stephen Landsman writes: "Experts and other potential witnesses were intimidated from appearing on behalf ot the defendant. The prosecution made it abundantly clear that Nazi war criminals who entered Israel would be arrested and prosecuted. Attorney General Hausner specifically declared that propose defense witnesses, including Otto Winkelman,..., would be arrested on sight." (Crimes of the Holocaust: The Law Confronts Hard Cases By Stephan Landsman, p.65)--Joel Mc (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful update by Diannaa as of 17:53, 6 October 2013[edit]

In revision: Revision as of 17:53, 6 October 2013 Diannaa it is claimed: "His poor school performance resulted in his father withdrawing him from the Realschule and enrolling him in the Höhere Berufsfachschule für Wirtschaftsinformatik vocational college"

Wirtschaftsinformatik? Before WWII? Really?

The whole update is huge, contains many facts, but this one alone makes it very doubtful that any of the updates are in fact true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejtam (talkcontribs) 05:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It is odd. Such a school exists now but was founded in 1984. Zerotalk 10:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It was correct except for the name of the school. Should be Höhere Bundeslehranstalt für Elektrotechnik, Maschinenbau und Hochbau. I fixed it. Zerotalk 11:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction, Zero0000. "Höhere Bundeslehranstalt für Elektrotechnik, Maschinenbau und Hochbau" agrees with the quoted source. Sorry for the mistake. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bascomb's book[edit]

From what I've seen it is a journalistic (as opposed to scholarly) book that is rather sensationalist and probably not reliable for details. Claims that it makes which are not otherwise supported shouldn't be added as fact. I noticed "a series of monasteries that had been set up by the Catholic Church as safe houses" — this is extremely far from being proved. It is well known that there were monasteries which served as safe-houses (esp. for Catholic criminals from the Balkans), but the suggestion that the Catholic Church (implying the church hierarchy rather than local church people) set them up for the purpose of hiding people like Eichmann is highly disputed. Does Bascomb offer any proof of this assertion? We need to state it as Bascomb's opinion, if at all. Zerotalk 04:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cesarani states (page 208) that Eichmann stayed in a series of monasteries and convents but does not mention the Catholic Church as being the organisers. He says some of the safe houses were under the auspices of Father Anton Weber of the St Raphael Community in Bavaria, but does not mention the Catholic Church as a whole. Levy (page 136) also mentions Weber. I have amended the prose, see what you think. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]


for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adolf Eichmann/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Diannaa

This is an important article about a fascinating (and horrifying) individual. I will begin this review shortly. It may take a little longer than most reviews, due to the detail required. Quadell (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to bring up issues as I find them, allowing you to work on them as I review, if you like. First off, let me say that the prose is excellent. Far beyond the "clear and concise" standard for GAs, the sections I've examined are up to our exacting FA standards. I've made a few copy-edits on very minor issues, and I'll continue to do so; as always, feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree with any of my changes.

I'm very pleased with the state of this article. Once the final issues are resolved, I'll be delighted to promote it. I'll put it on hold now, and I look forward to your responses. Quadell (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Intrusion by Cliftonian

I hope neither of you mind, but I have made a few minor alterations during the review; nothing major, mostly just formatting, some minor copy-editing and the like. I just had a suggestion to make I thought I might note here: do either of you think it's worth mentioning that Landau, Halevy and Raveh, the three judges at the trial, were all, like Eichmann, German-born? If so, perhaps we might add a footnote mentioning that all three immigrated to Palestine in 1933 after the Nazis came to power. Perhaps not directly relevant but I think it adds an interesting dimension. Cliftonian (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's true they were all fluent in German and did not have to wait for the translation, which was just as well, as apparently the German→Hebrew translation was dreadful. But these details are probably best left to a separate possible future article about the trial. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, just thought I'd mention it. Great work on the article so far! Cliftonian (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I gotta go to the gym now so if you want to do some more copy edits now is a good time. Face-smile.svg -- Diannaa (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Great. I'm glad you feel I'm being helpful. Cliftonian (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for both your edits and your inputs. Quadell (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • His wife's name is given in the infobox as Vera and in the body as Veronika; this should probably be consistent (easily rectified by changing the body to say Veronika "Vera" Liebl, if Vera was short for Veronika). Also I presume they remained married until his death? Would be good for the infobox to put that Cliftonian (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Green tickY fixed
    My name's Quadell, and I endorse this message. Quadell (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
    Amendments complete, thanks so much. Let me know if there's anything that got missed. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Final assessment
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is quite a challenge to write a comprehensive, balanced article on such a notorious and important historical figure. I'm proud to have been a part of it, and I hope the article becomes featured some day soon.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The prose is brilliant. The MoS is followed in detail.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The article is impeccably sourced, and the "References" section is beautifully formatted.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Impressive work was done to make sure the article is free from tangents or focus problems. The article is reasonably comprehensive.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    After much work and thought, I feel this article conforms to our NPOV policy.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No problems at this time.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Most images are legitimately free, and the non-free lead image is used appropriately. All captions are good.
  7. Overall:
    I'm delighted to promote this article to GA status. Well done. Quadell (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your kind words and for your assistance in improving this article. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of Eichmann's birth name[edit]

This article has his birth name as Otto Adolf Eichmann while the following site ( this site ( both identify that Eichmann's birth name was Karl Adolf Eichmann with identifying "Otto" as an alias he used (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There are many sources that say his name was Karl Adolf, but they are not very strong sources. The best sources I know of give his name as Otto Adolf. These include the trial report. In his interrogation by the Israeli police he states that his full name was "Otto Adolf Eichmann" but his customary name (Rufname) was Adolf. This is also what his biographer Cesarani, who studied his early life in great detail, says that his name was. So you need something better in order to change it. Zerotalk 13:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Image caption[edit]

Several editors seem to want the caption for one of the images to describe its subjects as on their way to "the gas chamber" [2]. However, the image's description page [3] says only, "Hier Kinder und eine alte Frau auf dem Wege in die Todesbaracke (Auschwitz-Birkenau) ... Woman with children in German death camp Auschwitz in Poland during Second World War ... Here, children and an old woman on the way to the death barracks of Auschwitz-Birkenau."

As mentioned in one of my edit summaries, I suppose "Todesbaracke" (literally, death barracks) might be some kind of camp code language for "gas chamber", but if so someone's going to have to point to something explaining that. Otherwise, while one imagines that the gas chambers were the ultimate destination of these doomed souls, I don't see anything to suggest that's where they are bound in this photo. The caption should reflect what the image's own description says, not some enhanced narrative no matter how plausible. Or am I missing something? EEng (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right. Changing the caption of an image is OR unless it can be supported by reliable sources. In this case the change is incorrect. "Todesbaracke" was not a name or euphemism for the gas chambers. It was the nickname given to one or more barracks ("living" quarters) with especially appalling reputations. See this plan where Block 11 of the main camp is called the "death barrack". Also this book has some description of a "death barrack". Here and here you can read testimony of female Holocaust survivors who describe being in the "death barrack" at Auschwitz. The "death barracks" description of the photo is used by many eminent sources. So should we. Zerotalk 10:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that the image caption has a disclaimer that "For documentary purposes the German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme." We are not obliged to use the caption if it is not an accurate depiction of events. 85 per cent of the Hungarian Jews were killed in the gas chambers immediately on arrival in Auschwitz (Steinbacher 2005, p. 109). My opinion is that the caption should say "gas chambers" rather than "death barracks". -- Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The caption as it stands is perfectly plausible, even though your statistic is correct. The original caption is the only evidence we have of what these particular people were doing at that particular moment, and 15% is still a large number of people (and the image caption doesn't say that were Hungarians). We can't just decide for ourselves that a photo shows something different from what it claims to show; that is a textbook example of original research. It isn't any different from intentionally misquoting a book because we think the author got it wrong. Zerotalk 14:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
From the hover text for the (i) at the end of the disclaimer to which Diannaa refers, it's clear that by "original captions" is meant the Nazis' own captions, which this obviously isn't. But I have an idea. Since Mengele was at Auschwitz, let's say they're on they're way to be subjects in a medical experiment. That would be an even better story! EEng (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • First, the original caption stated "una abuela y sus nietos caminando hacia las llamadas "duchas" que en verdad eran camaras de gas", which translates into "a grandmother and her grandchildren walking towards so-called "showers" that really were gas chambers". Also, the entrance to Krema IV and Krema V is the exact same as the picture, plus the picture is displayed on the road to Krema IV. The description for the image has been that the old woman and children are heading to the gas chambers for years, so it's incumbent on those who wish to change the caption to gain consensus first before it's changed. Not edit war to change it. Dave Dial (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, as I stated, the picture is blown up and put on the entrance of the road(a 'shortcut to the showers') to Krema IV, the caption for the picture here states: "Auschwitz-Birkenau, women and children deemed "unfit for work" being led unknowingly to Gas Chamber #4 - Yad Vashem Photo Archives, ID Number 31588". Dave Dial (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
By "original caption" you seem to mean what some early version of some Wikipedia article said, which is of zero relevance. I do see that, on the "Scrap book" webpage you linked, that this very photo is part of the display along what was (according to the webpage -- and I believe it) the road to the "showers", but to turn that into "so that means someone's saying that's where these people were going" is exactly the kind of synthesis we're not supposed to do -- connect dot A to dot B to dot C to dot D, so therefore A leads to D. It's a very small point, really. The image would be poignant with no caption at all. But it does not serve history, but rather dishonors it, to knowingly allow ourselves to become instruments by which facts are slowly blurred and rearranged in "reasonable" and "harmless" ways. It's not harmless. It's corrosive. EEng (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Now, having written the paragraph above, I see Dave Dial's additional post linking to the Yadvashem site, which gives additional information about the image. That changes things. I'm not in a position to evaluate sources in this area of history, but I'm willing to accept that site as reliable. On that basis the image description page should be augmented with this information, thus supporting the desired caption. But this new, supporting source is the justification for the caption -- not "everyone knows" or "it's been that way a long time". EEng (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I am with Diannaa and Dave Dial here. I also strongly dislike "consigned", and endorse the comment about edit-warring on a sensitive subject like this. It is better to come to the talk page first, agree an edit, then make it. --John (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)