Talk:Ernst Röhm

Rohm's homosexuality

I've read both that he was gay AND that his homosexuality was fabricated as a pretext for his murder.

It's widely accepted that he was indeed homosexual. But this fact was known long before his muder, so it's not really reason for this.

On the Night of the Long Knives, several witnesses, who were in the hotel when the SS and Adolf Hitler stormed in on Rohm's bedroom, testified in later years that Rohm was found with a young 16 year old boy in his bed. This apparently threw Hitler into a rage and he scramed that Rohm would die. The testimony is generally accepted as truthful and it was used in the manslaugter trial of Sepp Dietrich (one of several trials he udnerwent) where Dietrich was convicted of manslaughter for leading the Leibstandarte on the Night of the Longt Knives -Husnock 4Feb05

Here are some more references for Rohm's sexuality: Spartacus Schoolnet Boston Globe Peter Tatchell Simon Wiesenthal Centre University of California Book catalogue The Guardian DJ Clayworth 17:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any question Roehm was gay. According to biographies of Hitler and Goebbels, this seems to be a given; the following info I took from an essay in: Snyder, Louis L. Hitler's Elite. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1989. ISBN: 0-87052-738-X.

Roehm, as far as I can tell, was rather open about his homosexuality, and gladly drew parallels between himself and other homosexuals in history (most notably Frederick the Great). Hitler, according to these sources, was always well-aware of Roehm's proclivities. However, the scene described above - when Hitler (with Goebbels) caught Roehm in bed with a younger man, is likewise accurate. The reason is simply Machiavellian politics, as far as I could tell - while Hitler didn't personally care about Roehm's sexuality, it offered him a good excuse to wipe his hands of him once he decided to get rid of him.

However, is there a reason Roehm isn't listed in the "Nazi Leader" category? I plan to add him in the near future - gay or not, betrayed by Hitler or not, he was nonetheless an SA leader. He was no martyr. --L. 29 June 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Ernst Röhm was one of the most prominent of a number of early Nazi party members who was an alleged homosexual and his homosexuality was ultimately the pretext used for his removal during the purge of the SA.

Röhm was a homosexual, please remove the word ..> alleged.

No history of the era qualifies Röhm's sexuality. He was homosexual and, for the times, relatively open about it.--Mcattell 16:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section for several reasons - it was too much like a book review, contained errors (the name Schdtzl is obviously wrong - even German requires a vowel) and was not encyclopedic in style. That Rohm was gay is well-known and need not be based upon one or another book review. Further, this is not the place to discuss theories of Hitler's sexuality. Eusebeus 20:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I worry that some of the terms used in this article with reference to Röhm's sexuality have too much of a contemporary feel; words like 'outed' 'closet', and even 'gay' itself. Röhm made no great secret of his sexual inclinations, which arose, in large measure, from his military background, with a strong emphasis on both on misogyny and manliness. White Guard 00:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right White Guard. Rohm's sexuality had more in common with the ancient greek practices of homosexuality within the military than with the modern connotations of homosexuality. Cauld1 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture gone

I found a picture online of Ernst Roehm, but I cannot read German and cannot tell if it is copyrighted or not. Picture--Lucky13pjn 19:39, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to say, so the first question is whether German published photos are like US ones, in having protection whether they assert it or not.

(Erich Retzlaff is the author of Wegbereiter und Vorkämpfer für das neue Deutschland, which means roughly "Trailblaer and Early Combatant for the new Germany"; DHM turns out not to be the publisher (which was probably a NSDAP house organ) but the "German Historical Museum", located in the former East Berlin.)--Jerzy(t) 17:47, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

German-language chronlogy of his life: [1]--Jerzy(t) 17:47, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

I think there is some discrepancies here. Rohm did not start the SA nor was he a member of it. Please check out Kampfbund and we need to coordinate the information accordingly.WHEELER 20:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just a heads up - some of the images of Ernst are now broken links, and have empty picture boxes. Anyone know what the story was there? --NightMonkey 01:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Roehm in Prison

There would appear to be some conflicting factual information in this article. If Röhm spent fifteen months in prison after the abortive Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923 he could not have formed the Frontbann in April 1924. Also the suggestion here is that he spent his time in prison in Landsberg alongside Hitler. Can this be correct? White Guard

Improper usage of terms

This article is swarming with inapplicable contemporary american political terms such as 'leftist', 'lefty', 'conservative', 'president', 'commander in chief', etc etc. This really has no place in this historical article, a general cleanup is required.145.97.223.119 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Please see my comments concerning the terms used to describe his sexuality-they are completely out of place. White Guard 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul von Hindenburg, until his death, was both "president" of Germany and "commander-in-chief" of the army, or Reichswehr. Communists and even Social Democrats in 1930s Germany may fairly be described as "leftists," although not "lefty." Historical figures such as Hindenburg, Von Papen, and Blomberg, may fairly be described as "conservatives." Nazis may fairly be described as "rightists" or "right-wing," but probably not "conservative," as the Nazi vision of society is more properly described as "radical."

In any article about the era, the text should use English-language equivalents. Hitler in 1933 should therefore be described as "chancellor," not "Reichskanzler."--Mcattell 17:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have removed vandalism from this page, I suggest this article should be semi-locked for the time being to stop blatant and anonymous vandalism. Neil Evans

Fair use rationale for Image:EarlyRohm.jpg

Image:EarlyRohm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Excusing Hitler

I've been intently working on the article Night of the Long Knives, and some of its ancillary articles. As I initially found them, these articles seemed to share a common myth: that Hitler was hoodwinked by others in the party, including Göring, Himmler, and Heydrich, into believing that Röhm was planning a putsch against him, and that Hitler only very reluctantly ordered Röhm's arrest and death.

This is most emphatically not the case. Hitler was an shrewd political operator. He gained control of the movement, kept control of it during his time in prison, and used it to seize absolute power in Germany by remorselessly calculating the usefulness of his subordinates, and had no compunction about eliminating them if they had become a hindrance to him.

This is precisely what he did in ordering the purge that became known as the Night of the Long Knives. Röhm and the SA were very useful to Hitler during the years of his ascent because they could be counted on to terrorize political opponents. Because of that, Hitler tolerated the notorious reputation of the SA and its leadership for drinking and brawling. He also therefore tolerated Röhm's homosexuality.

One Hitler had seized power, however, there was no longer a need for a private militia that could smash up political meetings. He now had the full apparatus of the modern state, including the police forces, jails, and concentration camps to take care of that.

Röhm and the SA had outlived their usefulness to Hitler. That alone might not have resulted in a purge. However, Röhm's politics and especially his insistence that the SA supplant the Reichswehr was direct threat to the traditional army, including Hindenburg. By 1934, Blomberg, Hindenburg, and the rest of the army leadership made it clear to Hitler that if Röhm and the SA were not immediately brought to heel, they would declare martial law.

Once Hitler knew he had to act, he did so relentlessly. Hitler ordered Himmler and the rest to fabricate evidence implicating that Röhm was involved in a plot, so that he could later show this "evidence" to a grateful nation. It is very similar to Hitler's modus operandi when he fabricated evidence of a Polish raid on Germany, in order to create a pretext for the invasion of Poland.

Every serious history of the era, by reputable historians, agree on this: Hitler wanted Röhm eliminated because he was a threat to the army and, to a lesser extent, the Nazi's principle supporters among the wealthy and the middle classes. Hitler did not reluctantly order the purge because other Nazis had fooled him. Let's get our facts straight. --Mcattell 16:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, AH may have not been thrilled about having ER killed, but he was nonetheless ruthless about his wider goals. Gwen Gale 20:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Article length and proper sourcing

Parts of this article are too long. The section marked "downfall' that describes the months before the purge in great deatil -- probably too much detail. It needs to be edited for length, but otherwise contains good writing. Also, references to historian Shirer, or any other historian, do not belong in the text. The text should contain individual facts that are properly sourced.--Mcattell 17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate section on Rohm's sexual orientation

This section should be removed, and its information interwoven with the body of the text where appropriate.--Mcattell 17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. It's meaningless unless described in context anyway. Gwen Gale 19:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Although I've flowed the text, much remains to be done.

• The longish narrative about the SA's socialist and working class origins is very helpful in leading readers to an understanding of how ER (somewhat cluelessly) got himself killed, but needs much more personal detail. For example, towards the end he did half-heartedly undertake a public campaign to counter attacks on his moral leadership: For example, I've seen publicity pictures of him posed in a domestic setting with his mother.

• Likewise, more detail about his early life would be more than helpful.

• Although I think the text is accurate, sourcing is lacking and needed. The mention of Shirer and Toland in the body of the text is but a stopgap. Please help.

Gwen Gale 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Occupation

Is professionnal pedophile an occupation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.94.248 (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)