Jump to content

User talk:Kierzek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sh33pl0re (talk | contribs) at 21:40, 1 October 2010 (→Himmler: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, Kierzek! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! User:MrRadioGuy What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 23:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill [talk] [pf] 18:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Berlin

Please see WP:RETAIN, the English used for this article is Commonwealth English. "Hitler went into a rage", is stilted, "Hitler fell into a rage" is much better. Also it was not "(Zitadelle sector)" it was "sector Z (for Zentrum)" see Battle in Berlin for a citation for this, and details like this belong in the in Berlin article rather than this one. --PBS (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't agree that it is stilted. I will not argue about the whole American English vs. British English baloney I have witnessed by others on Wiki pages; the fact is the words are considered spelled wrong per standard American Dictionaries. So be it; not a big deal. There are problems with sentence structure that do need fixing such as run on sentences. This happens far too often on Wiki.
  • As for the name of the sector, I read the one cite and that is not what other cites state or what General Mohnke himself calls it in a direct quote (as to the area in question). He told author Thomas Fischer his sector was known as "Zitadelle" and he also wrote in the divisional history: "When I reported to Hitler on 23 April 1945 as the commander of Zitadelle and as the local commander for the Reich Chancellery..." See Fischer's book: "Soldiers of the Leibstandarte", pp 42 and 43.
  • Now author Ralf Tiemann refers to the government quarter as "Z-Citadel." Mohnke ,ofcourse, was appointed by Hitler as Combat Commandant; see page 335 of "The Leibstandarte IV/2" book. Tiemann goes on to quote Mohnke on page 336, "When I took up my post...as commander of the 'Citadel' and combat commander of the Reichskanzlei..." I could cite others but I don't think that should be needed. Furthermore, the article should have more detail as to the areas a commander covers. General Mohnke played a fairly important role in the battle and we are only talking about an extra line or two in the article; there is much more that could be said but I did not.Kierzek (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different editions of Beevor with different page numbers used in the Battle of Berlin article

  • Beevor, Antony (2002). Berlin: The Downfall 1945. Viking, Penguin Books. ISBN 0670886955.
  • Beevor, Antony (2003). Berlin: The Downfall 1945. Penguin Books. ISBN 067003041 (hc) 014 20.0280 (pbk).

So it is necessary to include in the citation which edition is being cited by including (year). BTW I suspect that as the centre was the area which as before inside the old city walls, the terms could be used interchangeably with most just using the letter Z without worrying about the origin of the letter. After all as most sector were A-H, Z could just as easily have a symbolic meaning of last. --PBS (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point, I will cite which edition as to Beevor's book.
  • As to "the sector" question, part of the problem is we are not talking about the exact same area. Things have to be viewed in context. You are talking about the larger Central District which was generally known as "sector Z" (Beevor) or "Defense Sector Z" (Hamilton, p.174). The inner part of that zone (or quarter) was the key government sector. As you know, Mohnke was put in command of the area by Hitler and it included the "heart of the Reich" at that point: The Reich Chancellery and the Führerbunker (and the 4 blocks around them). And as I stated above in our discussion, Mohnke in direct quote referred to his command area as Z-"Zitadelle" (see reference pages above for both Fischer and Tiemann's books). In checking Beevor's book, he either only uses "sector Z (for Zentrum)" or just "sector Z" when discussing action and events in the entire central area sector. Therefore, I surmise that when referring to the overall area, Sector Z would be correct but when referring (as I am) to the smaller central government quarter/district of that larger sector Z, it was known as (the) "Zitadelle". Footnote: Since writing the above, I further checked another book, author Le Tissier's: "The Battle of Berlin". While not as good overall (as the others books cited above), he does state that Mohnke was appointed "...in command of the central government area...'Zitadelle' " (page 74). Kierzek (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm flattered. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and earned it. Kierzek (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity

In following User:Wik90 from the edits he or she made on the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article five days ago, I noticed this revert by you of an edit he or she made to the John F. Kennedy article. You consider The New York Times a questionable cite source? Or were you talking about the editor of that The New York Times article? Yes, I am asking out of curiosity. Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to your query, the problem is the process and dissemination of what is being said or claimed. In my "day job" I must question all claimed facts and truth of matters; separate out the lies, exaggeration, the opinion and see what "spin" or POV the person or expert is pushing. In the study and/or writing about history it can be similar; unless the writer was there then it is always information coming from a secondary source. And even eyewitnesses can see the same thing and not state the same facts as to events.
So one must first look at what is stated; then look at the source; then look at the context and CROSS CHECK things. Truth in history is generally a matter of consensus and if available, based on physical evidence. Here you had surmise put forth with a journalist who wrote an article as the cite source on a matter where the physical evidence is not totally clear (and even then can be interpreted differently). The fact is journalists are not known for the prudent handling of details. And one could argue that is the job of the professional author or academic. For example, James P. O'Donnell wrote the book, The Bunker. The author was in the US Army Signal Corps. After being discharged (in July 1945) he took a job with Newsweek. He was assigned to investigating Hitler's death and obtaining information as to Eva Braun. Later he was a reporter for Life Magazine and in 1969 started work on this book. To his credit, he interviewed many more people then previous authors, (such as H. R. Trevor-Roper) on the subject. O'Donnell admitted in the prologue that he was not a historian and has been criticized for the use of a reporter's subjective judgment, intuition and speculation when he scrutinized the truth of someone's statement or events in question.
Now, even well regarded historians are not always correct and also write with a certain amount of POV imbedded in their statements or writings. Again, it should be remembered that all these writers, whether its Beevor, Trevor-Roper, Freedman, etc., are all "secondary sources". Further, none are going to be perfect or all agree, even when quoting the people who were there. However, some are more objective then others. And it is better and generally more accurate to have a direct quote from the person stating it, such as Freedman, than a paraphrase or what is said to be a statement as put forth by a third party as was originally the case here. Kierzek (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SS uniforms

Good edits, thank you. I never know how concise or expansive to be with these things. Solicitr (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have also been trying to add more cites to additions of late, as well, since many seem to prefer it. Kierzek (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ta daa! Tracked down and got permission for a pic of SS fulldress uniform- check it out Cheers! Solicitr (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solicitr-nice photo addition. One does not see the formal dress, very often. Keep up the good work. Kierzek (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book List

Got the list of books you promised to send. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I hope there are some books of interest therein. Kierzek (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Mohnke

Do you have a source for the "jazz saxophonist"? 80.221.43.22 (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry has been in the article for a long time, added by another. I do, however, recall reading the same information somewhere before. Afternote: I thought it may have been in the "Notes" section in "The Hitler Book" by Eberle and Uhl where it gives short bios, but it is not and so it must have been online on another website (which probably picked it up from Wikipedia). Kierzek (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The info was added by an individual who was vandalized other SS officer articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.189.142.251 . 80.221.43.22 (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GOOD CATCH on that. I should have known. Kierzek (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Replied on my talk page for continuity Fat&Happy (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kennedy in Palestine

Hi, Kierzek. Thanks for you comment at the deletion request. I responded there, but I am not sure you'd see it. Would you be so kind to point out POV you were talking about for me that I would be able to fix them. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, for now. I will look at it again when I have more time. Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the private message again. Thank you for the suggestion at the talk page of the article. I deleted the whole paragraph at all yesterday. I might implement what you suggested later on. Tiamut agreed to remove POV tag. Do you believe you could change your vote now? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to POV, yes. However, I am still not convinced it should be a seperate article for the reasons I stated before. Kierzek (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Himmler

Hi, I removed the bit about Göring losing favor and power from the introduction in the Heinrich Himmler article. That piece of information doesn't belong in the introduction, but feel free to add it to the body of the article. The intro should just tell readers who he was and what positions he held that made him who was -- it shouldn't try to explain the why's or how's. And even though Göring was designated as "successor" by Hitler in 1941, the majority of people, including those in high rank within the NSDAP knew that Göring was in no position to take power in case Hitler died because Himmler held numerous high rank positions that made him second to Hitler in actual power (also, Himmler's SS and police apparatus was unstoppable -- Göring would've stood no chance). Many within the Reich never took Göring seriously (his drug addiction, his over-indulgence, etc), while Himmler was immensely feared and known for his cunning, expert organizational and leadership capabilities. Also, remember that originally, the 20 July plot was not only a plot to assassinate Hitler, but Himmler also because those within the Party knew in the event of Hitler's death, Himmler would've quickly seized power and continued Hitler's work. The Allies believed the same. When talking of actual power, Himmler was superior to Göring by at least 1942. Veronica (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: What you have stated above was already known to me. I am very well versed on the subject matter. I only added the small part as to Göring because of the blanket statement of the sentence (without anything further) that Himmler was the second most powerful person in the Reich. This could lead to confusion to general readers as Himmler certainly, as you are aware, was not in that position until Göring lost favor and power with Himmler filling that vacuum. The sentence now changed, reads better.
As to when Himmler reached his zenith of power, the historians debate. I believe his national powerbase started in April 1934 when he and Heydrich took over the Gestapo (and was also named chief of all German police forces outside Prussia) from Göring but was not complete until after the failure of the "Battle of Britain". So I would say by the end of 1941, beginning of 1942. We agree on that. However, other historians look to August 1943 when Hitler removed Frick and made Himmler "Minister of the Interior". And certainly, right after the failed plot of 20 July 1944, Himmler's power of even greater. But with that said it was more the branches: the SS, Gestapo, RSHA, SS-TV, KZ camps and the Waffen-SS that were so greatly feared. Himmler, by himself, was not respected by the Waffen-SS commanders, nor by Bormann and Himmler could not control Sepp Dietrich, for example (who would not even let him in the LSSAH barracks). Himmler delegated much and did not have leadership capabilities of a serious nature. He did have drive, cunning and organization skills, I agree. As to editing articles I will do as I see fit and but do thank you for the comments as many don't take the time to do such things. Kierzek (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service record of Reinhard Heydrich

It is not incorrect to say that Heydrich was only subordinate to Himmler -- it is a fact. Heydrich had many qualities which Himmler appreciated (ie. his intelligence, his bravery, his loyalty to him the Reichsführer and to Hitler the Führer), which is why Himmler kept him at his side despite the fact that he was quite arrogant and he had a tendency to overstep his boundaries as a subordinate to Himmler, especially in the beginning of his service to Himmler. However, he was always put back in his place by Himmler (or even Hitler at times). He was well aware of his subordinate position, and although he was given a lot of power and control, he was still working to fulfill the orders and wishes of Himmler and Hitler in the big scheme of things. The Final Solution was almost exclusively masterminded by Himmler and Hitler, and all within Nazi Germany, especially those working under Himmler worked to achieve the wishes of Hitler (and Himmler). So of course Himmler had to delegate a lot of work -- he was immensely powerful.

Another thing is that Himmler realised that Heydrich was a great asset, but also a great threat: the way the the Third Reich worked was upon demonstratable loyalty to Nazism and by results. There were (unfounded) rumours about some Jewish ancestry in Heydrich's family, and it is believed that Himmler had this investigated as a possible lever over Heydrich. However, after Heydrich's assassination, there were plenty who believed that Himmler may have been behind it: the Czech assassins were not given the chance to surrender, apart from one, who was shot instantly by a senior Gestapo official. Himmler's ruthless (and successful) steamrollering of Göring (to get the Gestapo off him and to secure his position as successor) and Ernst Rohm (Night of the Long Knives) showed that he was perfectly capable of such underhanded tactics.

On a side note, if Germany would've won the war and Heydrich had not been assassinated, I tend to believe that he eventually would have gone to lead Germany. Himmler would have succeeded Hitler, Heyrich would have succeeded Himmler as Reichsführer, and then he would've succeeded Himmler as leader. Veronica (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence is incorrect, standing alone, as you wrote it. That is not just my opinion but that of many historians, as well (See: Max Williams, Peter Padfield, Heinz Hohne, E. Calic, G. Deschner, as examples). Their relationship in the 1930's has been described as a "partnership". All the major works of the last 20 years state that. They were known as the "black Diaskuren". A telling example of that "partnership" and the close connection of the two men as one force was shown in what Göring said in 1933, "Himmler and Heydrich will never get to Berlin." Of course, as you know, that was wishful thinking on Göring's part. Himmler "made it" there due to Heydrich's pushing, Hitler choosing his side and Frick being an ally (Frick backed H & H thinking he could handle them after Göring was diminished, but was wrong). As historian, Max Williams wrote, "He (Frick) had not reckoned on the powerful Himmler-Heydrich partnership which had allied itself with it's old foe Göring." The fact is, more often then not, H & H are spoken of together (as a "partnership") in the 1930's, then separately.
As for Himmler alone, indeed he had abilities and to dismiss he as merely a shield behind Heydrich would be incorrect. We agreed that Himmler could be cunning, a skilled organizer and had drive for power. However, to overestimate Himmler, as some early historians did, is also incorrect. The main reason that occurred is because Heydrich was not as well known as Himmler and not many writers for years knew the extent of his contributions, so to speak. As Kersten, Schellenberg and others observed first hand, Himmler was not in the same class as far as intelligence, influence over others and practical abilities. As for the so-called "Rohm Putsch", Heinz Hohne's classic work "Order of the Dead's Head" (that still holds up pretty well) stated it was Heydrich who long dreamed of the purge of Rohm and others. Heydrich and Himmler worked on bringing it about but Heydrich did the most to "engineer" the final event. By all accounts Heydrich was heavily involved in the "Rohm Putsch" A/K/A "The Night of the Long Knives". By all accounts, Heydrich was also heavily involved in the Final Solution, as well; but more on the application side of it.
As for Heydrich's assassination it is only wild speculation that Himmler was involved and none of the historian's I cite support that position; certainly I don't either. Charles Whiting, who is not that high on the list, mentioned it, but even he did not in a very serious way. Now there are quite a few who have put forth that Heydrich was on his way to being Führer and that even Hitler was considering him as a replacement. Some speculation therein but I think it is a reasonable theory to put forth. I agree with you there. The partnership I would best sum up in terms of a senior partner and a (somewhat) junior partner of a firm but one cannot say it was one of boss and "only subordinate". I will say, you know the subject pretty well and I appreciate your comments even though I don't always agree. Kierzek (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor edits to the article (Service record of Reinhard Heydrich). I explained my edits at the discussion of that article. Veronica (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will have to look at them later this week. Other duties call. Kierzek (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: I have now had a chance to review the most recent edits and I have to concur with OberRanks. As Secretary of State and leader of the police, Frank did pursue a policy of harsh suppression of the Czechs, however, these action's by Frank were countered by Neurath's "soft approach" to the Czechs thereby encouraging anti-German resistance by strikes and sabotage. This lead to a meetings with Hitler who was greatly impressed with Heydrich's knowledge of the problems and ideas to handle them. This led to Hitler's "de facto" dismissal of Neurath at that point and Heydrich was made the Acting Reich Protector. Frank had hoped to get the job but was passed over. Heydrich came in and ruled the area with assistance from Frank, only. Kierzek (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look

You might want to take a look over the pieces I'm assembling on my Talk page for an article on Wehrmacht Heer ranks and insignia. Cheers! Solicitr (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. Kierzek (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A fellow attorney-and-counsellor-at-law?
Do you have a copy of Angolia vol 1? I need a page ref for the rank of Stabsgefreter (I remember what he has to say, but don't have the book). I do know that there is a lot of misinformation out there both in print and bytes, and I'm inclined to trust JA in preference to most anyone else. Solicitr (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an Esq. I find Angolia's (R. James Bender Publishing) books to be excellent. However, that one I don't have. Ask OberRanks or try Googlebooks. Kierzek (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a new section on Litzen; piece by piece it's coming together.--Solicitr (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir:

Please try to take what I say at face value. I will try very hard to be clear. I’m not trying to sell you anything, con you, or maneuver you into anything. You clearly know all of this. If you spent some time on this article it would be great. Maybe it’s time, maybe it’s taste, maybe it’s a political or professional reason, or maybe it’s just to minor an issue for you. I don’t know and don’t judge. If you want to fix this, you will. As the article is written, I feel that it is poorly sourced. I do not dispute “last nazi” fluff, but maybe it should come after something good? There are plenty of sources out there, I would guess that it is just a matter of taking the time to do it. I do not get the Trevor-Roper angle. I do not mean to insult him or his cult, but he has clear problems, and I sort of feel that he is obsolete as written. Plus this Hitler’s Diary stuff. I’m not really interested, and make no judgment, but isn’t that conflict that you don’t really need behind a source. Should Kershaw take his place as a starting point? I think that cyanide poising should be an option, not a fact. I have not gotten the Russians yet, clearly they matter, but the article as written doesn’t have them, either. More info needed. I believe that Dan has identified a system problem. My view is that someone has become possessive and defensive of work which needs improvement, and is letting a P.O.V. interfere with the article. My #1. was just fine detail on what you generally knew. Is that useful to you, and would you want other stuff like that, or should I go away? Thank you for your time.Wm5200 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wm5200, I have spent some time both on the article and discussion page of "The Death of Adolf Hitler". I agree it still needs some work and it is true several editors have "locked horns" over the wording in the article, at times. Kershaw is a great source for Hitler's life overall, but he does not go into great detail as to Hitler's death; he gives more of a summary of the events. You state to have read Joachimsthaler's book, good; when you get the two Soviet/russian works I recommended (that you state you have ordered) then read and compare. Then think about additions or changes you think should be made. I don't have a lot of time right now to focus on that one article but will be around to check edits to it. Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.Wm5200 (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting your time and thank you

I realize I am now wasting your time. There are only two of you, and neither of you need me to moderate a discussion. When I realized that I was reviewing books for you, well, that’s clearly backward. You don’t need to answer my questions, you have better things to do. Thank you for those you did answer. If some one else sees what I left and thinks, good, either way, thanks to you and Dan.Wm5200 (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look at it as "wasting time" at all. Dig into the issues and see for yourself what is there. My interest is in the history of the matter. Wanting it presented in an objective and accurate way. Kierzek (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got your link, wow, thank you. I’m proud of some of my amateur judgments. I read first, then maybe a best and worst review or two to see if I’m missing something big. I need to smooth out this procedure, reviews are a resource I don’t use right. I recognize parts of your stuff, both from here and there. I hope you get the mental thing, I can come back fast with a lot. Relax, take your time, whatever I get, whenever, I appreciate. Again, thanks. Now, sort of in order of importance:
The problem with the article is clearly not lack of knowledge or sources, you guys clearly have both covered. It appears to be simply lack of editor man hours, you don’t have a very large community on this article. Possibly politics. I also suspect that, like Kershaw, the actual death is a minor detail, hardly worth a footnote. Much of this Wiki stuff is incredibly complex, do you guys realize how smart many of you are? Of course you do, but some of us readers aren’t.
Goebbels is the path to Hitler’s remains, isn’t he? He’s so distasteful to me, I try to avoid him. Hitler is an assumed evil to most of us, but his “Little Joe” seemed so effectively evil to his last day, and dragged his family into his degeneracy. P.O.V., worst of the worst.
Scholarship is not my world, but I get neutral. Jesus Seminar is scholarship, correct? I lean towards TIGHAR.org. Daughter a teacher, son-in-law a youth librarian, I would be more pro-active, but I know that is P.O.V., and trouble. I would try to use O’Donnell as a source for fluff, then sell him as “3/4 good”. He has a very readable story that the general public can follow, and I try to promote the library. The source softness and P.O.V. doesn’t seem very controversial, if you are aware of it. I would read this as fiction, the “characters” come to life. Lance corporal? Hentschel’s job interview? How often do you laugh while reading a Hitler book? I like Speer, but the Fegelein stuff seemed a reach. But this is sort of a P.O.V. of a P.O.V. Is influencing sourcing the same as manipulating? Could be. Is O’Donnell References, or only Further reading? I haven’t read Lehmann yet, but I suspect he will be a junior version of the O’Donnell case. Can you push reading this way? Can the article somehow rate the sources at all? Probably not, I guess.
Is it proper to immediately refer someone to a source? Example: “Records kept by...1947” in the introduction (first paragraph in article). If you are not familiar with either the “Records” or Trevor-Roper, this is meaningless. Could be me, though.
Totally a personal question. Anything to Fegelein and the leak? No way I can figure out spies, just a little curious for a general idea.
Glad you liked the link. As for your query, I don't believe it was SS General Fegelein. He was a social climber and a womanizer. The book, "The Death of Hitler: The Full Story with New Evidence from Secret Russian Archives" (I reviewed this one on Amazon, as well) is based on the "Myth" investigation files, (but not complete). It has a chapter stating there was a Soviet spy posing as a German soldier that was a courier who was in fact "the leak" in the Führerbunker. But who knows if or who. I am sure it was not Fegelein. Kierzek (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may post more on the discussion, pretending others may read. I would expect one of you to slap me down if I get too crazy. Again, thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article now has a cast in concrete solid foundation. Thank you. Wm5200 (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.Y.I., I have posted some AH death myth stuff at my place, I think I will hang out there more. Should be less O.R. and P.O.V. problems, more control, right? I won’t push this stuff, if someone wants to, they can come and get it. Thank you. Wm5200 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SA

Hello,

why the reverts on the SA article?[1]

my intention is to reduce the opinion being expressed. On the first point, National Socialism can be seen as Socialism, and so mentioning specific policies that specific persons championed would be informative here, while unnamed leaders wanting socialism is overly vague and potentially misleading.

On the second issue, homosexuality was an accusation thrown around quite a bit, and led to some of the killing on the night of the long knives. It is unfair to state point blank that these men were homosexuals, rather than citing specific accusations or evidences.

Proper citation would solve these sorts of issues neatly. However rather than inserting Wikipedia:Citation needed (which I think makes articles ugly) I tried to move things towards a Wikipedia:NPOV until citations can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.210.148 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought for clarity, what was written before was better. The SA leadership clearly did not feel the socialist revolution was over with Hitler gaining power, but one would have to agree that the NAZI party coming to power was necessary for the continued "second revolution" to take place. As you probably know the SA leadership wing was not in lock step in their views with either the Hitler wing, nor the military leadership (nor the conservatives of the country, for that matter). As for being homosexuals, that is a clearly known fact, both then and now. It was used then as one of the main reasons to get rid of the SA leadership. So if you want to add that fact, that it was used as an excuse, I agree, that is a valid point; and it could use a minor re-write in that regard. Kierzek (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: I have now made edits to the SA article and added book cites for support. Kierzek (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.210.148 (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Himmler

Hilarious to throw VERIFY and FRINGE at me. I assume you are blind (literally or ideologically), else how could you fail to notice the source and even links to the relevant pages cited at Google Books?? The source was Martin Bormann's son, cited by Gitta Sereny. Admittedly, David Irving doesn't like her, so perhaps that explains your dislike of her. Sereny's book is praised by any number of literary review magazines, mass media and reputable historians like Cambridge's Richard Evans. None of that seems to interest you. Well, I have better things to do with my time than trying to get a verifiable source onto Wikipedia past people like you, so you win.Sh33pl0re (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kierzek&oldid=388170612"