Talk:Albert Speer

Armaments miracle

There is a dispute over the third paragraph of the lead, so I have removed it. It is unacceptable to proclaim this miracle in Wikipedia's voice if RS state it is a myth (this is the lead section of a Featured Article). It is equally unacceptable not to debunk the myth, if RS have done so.

Miracle:

In February 1942, Hitler appointed Speer Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production. He was fêted at the time, and long afterwards, for performing an "armaments miracle" in which German war production dramatically increased; this "miracle" contunued until late 1944, with production consistently increasing every year until that time. This despite sustained Allied bombing

No miracle:

In February 1942, Hitler appointed Speer Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production. He was fêted at the time, and long afterwards, for performing an "armaments miracle" in which German war production dramatically increased; this "miracle", however, was brought to a halt by the summer of 1943 by, among other factors, the first sustained Allied bombing of 1943.

References

• Richard Overy (2015). The Bombers and the Bombed: Allied Air War Over Europe, 1940-1945. Penguin Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-14-312624-9.
• R. J. Overy (1995). War and Economy in the Third Reich. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-164737-6.
• Tooze, Adam (2006), The Wages of Destruction: The Making & Breaking of the Nazi Economy, London: Allen Lane, ISBN 978-0-7139-9566-4 zzz (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest trying to lay out the dispute for the reader and let them decide for themselves, with a mention of same in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The history of German economics during WW II is a complicated and debated issue. Many accounts rely upon de:Rolf Wagenführ's figures of industrial production and mobilization. Wagenführ was Albert Speer's chief statistician and published Die deutsche Industrie im Kriege 1939-1945 (written in early 1945, published 1954; 2nd ed., 1963). Adam Tooze has reexamined the data and Wagenführ's figures in particular (No Room for Miracles. German Industrial Output in World War II Reassessed. In: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 31, (2005), Nr. 3, pp. 439-464. ISSN 0340-613X) The abstract of that article is easily accessible, so I do not need to go into details here. His argument, that Allied bombings had an impact on German economy and armaments production as early as 1943 is, to my knowledge, supported by other researchers. Jonas Scherner, for example, underlined Tooze's findings, when he edited the „Bericht zur deutschen Wirtschaftslage 1943/44“ for the German Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 55 (2007), pp. 499-546, here p. 507. This report was part of the evidence of the Nuremburg trial, but since then four alternate versions have been found in the archives. Thus the version Scherner edited provided new information. Overy's book on the German war economy was published in 1994 and reprinted in 2002. His work is therefore somewhat dated and has been explicitly criticized by Tooze. It might be feasible to outline the discussion in the article, but the results of the more recent research are not to be removed altogether.--Assayer (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC) P.S. I might add that this edit[1] is not supported by the source given. On p. 343 Overy (2002 repr. ed.) talks about rational production in Britain and the US. --Assayer (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for explaining, Assayer. I would be in favour of restoring your version, assuming no one is aware of a source disputing Tooze's findings. zzz (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A quick review of any wartime production statistics shows that production in 1944 was significantly higher than 1943, which contradicts the claim that strategic bombing reduced German industry from 1943 onward. The wikipedia article on German production cites several reliable references to back this up.

In addition, US forces stopped daylight bombing raids from October 1943 until February 1944 because losses were so high. They then turned to bombing oil production with P-51 escorted raids, which was wildly successful.

And most importantly, General Doolittle, the head of the 8th Airforce admitted that production continued to surge, and that strategic bombing continued as a way to draw German aircraft into the air and destroy them in a battle of attrition. He also stated that thanks to cracking the Enigma, they discovered that the Germans were vulnerable to oil deprivation, which became the most important target after they discovered that attacking industry was essentially completely ineffective.

There is no evidence to support the claims that strategic bombing was anything but a failure until 1944, with the arrival of the Mustang, and the crippling of German oil supplies.

DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems fairly straightforward: research shows that the miracle is a myth, and this should be clearly stated. If there is no reliable source disputing the findings, in the 10+ years since publication, then I don't know what else there is to discuss. I suppose someone could start an RFC if necessary. zzz (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As I JUST SAID, both statistics AND Allied Commanders both agreed that German production SOARED despite strategic bombing. You didnt even read what I just said.

If you cant put the effort in to even read what I wrote, you are in no position to be judging what is proven or not. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Both official wartime production statistics and General Doolittle are primary sources and thus prima facie unreliable sources. I have referred to the report „Bericht zur deutschen Wirtschaftslage 1943/44“ by Speer's ministry and its various versions dating from February to July 1944. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey used the first version, Wagenführ the last one. Burton H. Klein from the USSBS used both versions. Jonas Scherner edited another draft version which, according to him, presented facts hitherto unknown. He explicitly notes that the official version of the report glossed over the effects of the Allied bombing raids, most likely not to demoralize the prospective readers. (p. 504) Wikipedia relies on third party sources, i.e. historians like Scherner, to deal with primary sources. --Assayer (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Nobody is "glossing over" the effects of bombing raids and pretending production continued when it did not. They numbers are official numbers that were produced DESPITE being bombed.

Not only that, your claim that the other articles are not properly sourced is blatantly dishonest. They do not use primary sources at all, and are all properly referenced. One single source does not override dozens of others that use official numbers.

You also do not get to pick and choose which official numbers are acceptable or not. Your opinion on the matter does not override references simply because you feel like it.

Refrain from making any further changes (Personal attack removed) or else you will be reported DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I consider your remarks, particularly your first and your last sentence, to be uncivil and strongly suggest that you remove them. Secondly, I do not think that you competely understood my argument. I did not comment on other Wikipedia articles, but on the United States Strategic Bombing Survey,The Effects of Strategic Bombing on the German War Economy, Overall Economic Effects Division, October 31, 1945, vol 1, New York 1976, Rolf Wagenführ's Die deutsche Industrie im Kriege 1939–1945, Berlin 1954, and Burton H. Klein's Germany’s Economic Preparations for War, Cambridge/M. 1959. All these publications are based upon primary sources. Official wartime production statistics are primary sources. As I said, Jonas Scherner edited a major primary source, a draft version of Bericht zur deutschen Wirtschaftslage 1943/44 himself and commented on it. His work is accessible online, so anyone interested may have a look.(PDF)--Assayer (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: I removed personal attacks above. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

For the third time, you are completely ignoring everything I am saying and responding to an argument nobody has even made.

I am not quoting primary sources BUT THE ARTICLES ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS WHICH PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SOURCES. Your entire argument relies on ignoring dozens of Wikipedia pages with hundreds of sources.

Your single source that disagrees with almost every other source on the subject is not sufficient to disprove countless sources on numerous pages on the subject of war production. Your source makes claims which none of the data supports, and provides no data to back up its claims. It lacks any actual production numbers or reliable sources to back up its claims about production. I cannot find a single source on production numbers which shows a reduction of production during the timeframe your source claims production fell.

We cannot ignore pages apon pages of sources because you have one source that does not have any sort of reliable information to back it up.

Lastly, if you do not wish for others to discuss your behavior, please avoid behaving in such a way. Misquoting and misrepresenting members or references is against Wikipedia guidelines.DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I made the argument, referring to Adam Tooze in particular, that Allied bombings had an impact on German economy and armaments production as early as 1943. By that I countered claims that Speer performed an "armaments miracle" until late 1944 and that There is no evidence to support the claims that strategic bombing was anything but a failure until 1944.

But since you do not believe me, let's hear Phillips Payson O'Brien doing a review of the literature: Only a few surveys tend to say anything positive about strategic bombing in 1943; these include Weinberg, and Murray and Millett. There is one book that takes a different line from almost any other, and that is Adam Tooze's "The Wages of Destruction". In this book Tooze argues that the British area bombing of Germany in 1943, which is almost always seen as failure by those with a detailed knowledge of the air war, did real damage to German production. (How the War was Won, Cambridge UP 2015, p. 9)

What is Tooze's line of argument? Let's hear it from Keith Hartley: The strategic bombing of Germany in the Second World War. An economic perspective. In: Derek L. Braddon & Keith Hartley (ed.): Handbook on the Economics of Conflict. (Cheltenham, 2011):

However, the US Strategic Bombing Survey had its limitations: it failed to consider the counterfactual and it failed to allow for 'other influences' in increasing arms production. These 'other influences' included increasing German mobilization reflecting the need for greater arms production, especially following defeats of the German Army (Moscow, North Africa, Stalingrad); and the increased hours worked by the German labour force and the use of additional labour from the Occupied Territories and prisoners of war (under harsh regimes to maintain productivity). Assessments of the economic effects of strategic bombing cannot ignore the counterfactual: what would have happened to German output and its military forces without such bombing? (p. 468)

Tooze himself wrote: Reading contemporary sources, there can be no doubt that the battle of the Ruhr marked a turning point in the history of the German war economy, which has been grossly underestimated by post-war accounts. [...] In the Summer of 1943, the disruption in the Ruhr manifested itself across the German economy in a so-called 'Zulieferungskrise' (sub-components crisis). All manner of parts, castings and forging were suddenly in short supply. And this affected not only heavy industry directly, but the entire armaments complex. Most significantly, shortage of key components brought the rapid increase in Luftwaffe production to an abrupt halt. Between July 1943 and March 1944 there was no further increase in the monthly output of aircraft. For the armaments effort as a whole, the period of stagnation lasted throughout the second half of 1943. As Speer himself acknowledged, Allied bombing had negated all plans for a further increase in production. Bomber Command had stopped Speer's armaments miracle in its tracks. (The Wages of Destruction, 2006, p. 598)

Williamson Murray says of the Battle of the Ruhr: These attacks came perilously close to breaking the Reichs's war economy, particularly by damaging the German ability to transport coal to the rest of the economy. He then proceeds: As the foremost economic historian of the Reich, Adam Tooze has noted and so forth. (A Whale Against an Elephant, In: James Lacey (ed), Great Strategic Rivalries, Oxford UP 2016, p. 411f.)

G.C. Peden, Arms, Economics and British Strategy (Cambridge UP 2007) puts it: The fact that German production of strategic goods such as steel, petroleum and synthetic rubber, and also aircraft, rose in 1943 might suggest that Germany was not much weakened by the strategic air war offensive in that year, but increased output was possible because the German economy had had spare capacity earlier and production would have been even greater in the absence of bombing. (p. 221)

That's only a selection of what has been written in English.--Assayer (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That is an Opinion. A quick look at the production numbers of ANY source shows that production SOARED until 1945 and that bombing did not have any effect. As I have repeatedly stated. Do you or do you not have numbers that disagree with EVERY SOURCE AVAILABLE? Show at least one source of production numbers where they did not increase. You cant. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Some of Nazi Germany's war production took place in the Occupied Countries, which the Allies (or the RAF at least) did not bomb for fear of hitting friendly civilians. In addition, the Germans had reserve stocks of materiel which served to 'tide them over' while supplies were disrupted.

BTW, in 1940-41 the British had undergone what was at the time the heaviest bombing offensive in history, and they thereafter knew damn-well what disrupted industrial production, and what didn't. Presumably after 1942 the Germans knew too, as they started to build underground production complexes such as Mittelwerk.

Perhaps the USSBS should have asked themselves why the Nazis went to such considerable time and trouble to construct such places if the bombing was having such little effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Additions to lede

Regarding this content, these do not accurately state what Speer said. There is no consensus to add them and that or similar content has been reverted multiple times for good reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I think this is my error. My intent was to restore the status quo version of the lede, and I didn't notice the additional edit between Diannaa's restoration and your revert. I've fixed that now, and I understand now why you called that version the consensus version, as indeed it is. I offer my apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is about time, however, to incorporate the findings of more recent scholarship into the lede/article. A sentence like: Following his release in 1966, Speer published two bestselling autobiographical works, Inside the Third Reich and Spandau: The Secret Diaries, detailing his close personal relationship with Hitler, and providing readers and historians with a unique perspective on the workings of the Nazi regime. is outright distorting, because the "unique perspective" is actually a highly unreliable one. I may quote from Paul Jaskot's review of the recent Speer-biography by Martin Kitchen: Speer never did come to terms with his own criminal activity, either as an architect or a minister, and this heavily marked his writings after he was released from prison. In these works, he played the role of the “good Nazi,” particularly appealing to certain conservative segments of the Federal Republic in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, as Kitchen emphasizes, “throughout his life, Speer was a consummate role player” (p. 287). Recent German scholarship, notably Magnus Brechtken's biography of 912 pages, strongly reinforces that critical approach. This article is a FA since 2008, but at some point it should rely on more recent scholarship, if it is supposed to still meet the criteria.--Assayer (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This is absurd. He literally admitted to full responsibility and indirect responsibility for the actions of others while he was on the stand in Nuremberg. It seems like many of the sources being quoted in this talk section are based on fantasy and completely ignore even the most easily verifiable facts. There are transcripts that state he took full responsibility while on the stand. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Not quite correct. His testimony was very nuanced. He admitted to moral responsibility in connection with his position in the regime, without taking actual personal responsibility for any specific acts. Although he qualified this somewhat after getting pout of jail, he never did publicly admit to his own actual responsibility, and the evidence that he was culpable didn't become public knowledge until after his death. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Another recent book on Speer, based on a Ph.D. thesis, is Albert Speer. Aufstieg und Fall eines Mythos by Wolfgang Schroeter (2019) (link to publisher) It deals explictly with the Speer-myth that Speer created by himself with his autobiographical works.--Assayer (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Then go ahead and provide this evidence. You keep quoting this and showing absolutely none of the proof. The production numbers agree with his claims that production soared. They absolutely do not agree with any of the claims being made here. You need to provide sources THAT DO NOT RELY ON OPINIONS. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image size

The current size*-

The default size

I believe that the aspect ratio of the infobox image in this article is such that presented at the infobox's default value it is too large, the visual equivalent of SHOUTING. I suggest that the current size is more appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this the argument that pictures of Nazis should be shrunk?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what it says, that if a size parameter is not provided, the infobox image at the default size is the visual equivalent of SHOUTING; it overwhelms the page, therefore a size parameter is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear that you answered my question.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I see by the discussion here that this is so. There is further discussion at AN/I, [2]/ I could see your point were Speer in uniform in a posed shot, bursting out of the frame with swastikas and iron crosses rampant. But the infobox image is just a young man in a suit. I do not see that it glorifies Naziism to go with the standard image formatting. So as a general rule, we should not be doing this, and there is nothing in the specific picture of Speer that would cause us to shrink it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I find Peacemaker67's comment, here, to be very apt, "The logical extension of what you are suggesting is that we should have a really small thumbnail of Adolf Hitler in his article, but a really big photo of Nelson Mandela in his."--Wehwalt (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

How this image size glorifies Nazism is beyond me. He isn't even wearing a uniform or any Nazi symbols. It is just a guy in a suit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Nazism is not simply and not only uniforms and symbols. Besides, in the case of Speer just a guy in a suit very nicely expresses how Speer liked to see himself and reinforces his strategy of downplaying his own role.--Assayer (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have not mentioned "glorifying Nazis" in this discussion. I have simply said that the image is too large for the page, and is the visual equivalent of SHOUTING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

User preferences are sufficient to control image size. You did start identical discussions on 24 or so pages on the Nazi topic, some within seconds of another, so possibly actions speak louder than words.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Of xourse, I did, how is that relevant? I started discussions on article talk pages about an issue specific to that article. There's no policy that says the solution to a problem must be one size fits all -- there may be a different consensus for each article/. BTW, the general rule of the is that the artilc eremains in the status quo ante;; while discussion is going on, and the status quo ante had the image sized, not at the default. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed that above. Please stop edit warring across various articles to get your way.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think the difference is pretty minimal. Sorry, BMK, but I don't see much shouting in this one. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Have you looked at others? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I find that hard to say. I just looked at Georg Strasser. I don't see a big difference there either (I'm now looking at my laptop, not my desktop like earlier today). I like your version and the sizing fine, and I don't quite understand this rationale: user preferences don't change picture size relative to text size, do they? And Wehwalt, the two are three I looked at don't show "real" edit warring yet--I see BMK reverting Meepmeep, but what applies to the one applies to the other as well, at least for now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
      • This particular issue hasn't arisen before to my knowledge, and it seems a little odd to me. I think this has the potential to become disruptive if it is going on with dozens of articles, as Wehwalt has noted. I think the suggestion of some centralised discussion about it is a good one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

First paragraph

Should this stay in the first paragraph?

"As "the Nazi who said sorry", he accepted moral responsibility at the Nuremberg trials and in his memoirs for complicity in crimes of the Nazi regime, while insisting he had been ignorant of the Holocaust."

Can the discussion of Nuremberg all be in one paragraph (whether the first or the third)? I found it confusing that the first paragraph discusses his apology but his conviction is discussed in a separate (third) paragraph.Zaki Naggar (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Other surviving works?

The architectural legacy section lists only a few remaining works survive. However, there could be others not mentioned.

The 'Trafostation' or 'Transformatorenstation' on Regensburger Straße, Nuremberg may have been built by Speer. This site claims it was based on his plans, but the source may not count as a 'reliable source' so I have not added it. It was built to power the rally grounds but it exists today as restaurant. Is there a more reliable source that states this?

Also, I read from another site of a building designed by him that still exists. But again, the source may not be reliable:

"A model community called Mascherode for 6000 workers of the Deutsche Arbeits Front (DAF) was built in the southern part of Braunschweig from 1936-39. The complex included housing units, shops, medical offices, schools, sport fields, and a huge community center building designed by architect Albert Speer, all arranged around a central square named for Dr. Robert Ley. Most of the buildings retain their period exterior appearance today."

Zayer265 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "rewriting with third-party sources". --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

While I see that, could you not have found sources, say contemporary newspapers, that keep the level of detail? The reader now has less information at his disposal. There is no reason to doubt that Speer accurately put the date the he and the others were transferred.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The date is important in this case because the reader may want to know if he actually spent 20 years at Spandau He didn't. It was a bit over 19, with the remainder of his sentence spent at Nuremberg. Your edit fudges that point.--09:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• I addressed the concern about the date of transfer by citing van der Vat:

On October 1, 1946, Speer was given a sentence of twenty years in prison, and on July 18, 1947, was transferred to Spandau Prison in Berlin to serve it.

References

I made further rewrites with third-party sources. Here's the diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• More edits which I'm preserving by providing this link; my rationale was: "c/e section name -- not part of legacy, nor controversy; undue commentary by Speer and / or OR". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC) I further streamlined one of the sub-sections, as the punchline ("In 2007, The Guardian reported...") was being lost in extraneous detail: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I'm not sure I agree with this edit summary: "Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed". Not really, no. WP:RS says sources should be reliable, independent and secondary. Speer's own writings are not independent, not secondary, and in several important respects not reliable. It's a matter of Wikipedia practice that disputed content should be supported by independent sources, or that self-serving content is excluded altogether. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY provides a more nuanced and less absolute position than you are advocating.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me be more direct then. Speer's writings are a WP:FRINGE source and are not suitable for a substantial portion of content in an FA article. Further, there's no current controversy about Speer's role in the Holocaust. The controversy perhaps existed while Speer was still alive, but not at this time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think WP:FRINGE can be read to say that in a biographical article, the subject's views about himself, clearly labeled as such, should be excluded.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Feature article reassessment

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC) [3].

---

Albert Speer

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Germany,WikiProject History, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Jewish History, Wehwalt

The article was promoted to FA status in 2008; it does not reflect the most recent scholarship and utilises sources that are not independent of the subject, dated, and / or questionable. Specifically, it relies heavily on:

• Speer 1970, 1976, & 1981 (28 citations), and
• Fest 1999 (55 citations)

It largely ignores a full-length biography by Martin Kitchen published in 2015, after the article had been promoted. FAs are expected to maintain required standards and this article has not kept up with the times. The FA criteria that are the focus of this nomination are: (1.b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (1.c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ...; and (1.d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias. Here are comments on Speers memoirs, as well as on Fest. I'm borrowing in part from Assayer's analysis posted on the TP here:

• From a review of Germany and the Second World War: "In his exquisitely self-serving autobiography Inside the Third Reich, Speer presents himself as a mostly apolitical architect who was brought under Hitler’s spell and laboured greatly in the interests of the German people, while missing out on the most horrible atrocities committed by the state in which he played such a crucial role."
• From de:Magnus Brechtken: Speer's image was shaped "by his own writings and interviews" and "by a small number of mainly journalistic biographies that became highly influential in the public mind. These key texts were written not by academic historians, but by journalists, most notably Joachim Fest and Gitta Sereny. (...) Significantly both [Fest and Sereny] failed to recognize the fundamental corrections available that should have informed any critical biography."
• From Martin Kitchen: Fest's biography of 1999 is "a rehashing of Speer's memoirs, which was their joint effort. (...) Fest's admission of guilt was every bit as circumspect as Speer's. In many ways, they were kindred souls. Both found it exceptionally hard to admit to any wrongdoing."

References

In other words, not only is it a problem to rely on Speer's memoirs, it is also problematic to rely on Fest's account. Moreover, that Speer's writings themselves have become an object of historiographical analysis is not reflected in the article; it does not meet the requirement for being comprehensive and placing the subject in proper context. Here a sampling of prior discussions:

• May 2017: Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 2#Over-reliance on Speer's memoirs
• November 2017: Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 2#Revisiting FA status
• March 2019: Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 3#March 2019 edit

Parts of the article reproduce the Speer myth and it is thus non-neutral. I have attempted to resolve the issues by editing the article to remove Speer's self-serving POV. However, some of my edits were reverted on the grounds that "Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed". Based on the inability to resolve the issues of sourcing, neutrality, and context, and because the Talk page does not appear to be well-trafficked, I'm bringing the article to community review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review

I'll probably have more to say later, but these do not seem to be valid grounds, nor that this is a good use of FAR's limited resources when many old FAs have long swathes of unsourced material. If every time a new bio came out, we FAR'd an article, we'd have no FAs left. This seems to arise directly from the content dispute here. You favor Kitchens, who denigrates the author you do not like, so it goes, that's academia for you. Regarding Speer's books, many of the remaining Speer citations deal with direct quotations, statistics, Speer's youth or old age, or matters where Speer was the only surviving person in a conversation to write about it. Where I think you could be most useful with your use of Kitchens is during the WWII/Armaments Miracle section.

The bottom line is that FAR is a poor way to establish the principle you are espousing, that we should not use Speer's books at all. Remember, there was a very widely participated in FAC, and at the time, there were many more cites to Speer; the community found it met the criteria and the criteria are more or less the same today. I would suggest a RFC to try to establish the principle you seek, then try applying it to articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

One thing more. K.e.coffman states that they have brought the matter here because the talk page is not well trafficked. This indicates nearly 400 page watchers, of whom 55 viewed recent edits. I would suggest that if you are not minded to start an RFC on removal of Speer's books, that a good course of action to follow would be to add some of Kitchen's conclusions to the war sections (it is there, after all, that he is being most revisionist). I just don't think you've exhausted the resources of the talk page, or if you have, that FAR should not serve as an appeals court for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not realise that there were so many page watchers. I transcluded the review to the talk page; hopefully, more editors will see it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Agreed that there are many in FAs in far more need of review. This article is comprehensive and well-written. There is no requirement that an article use every available source, or that it be updated whenever a new book is published. If Kitchen contained some ground-breaking research requiring a reappraisal I might be more sympathetic; but to quote a typical review:

  In truth, there is not much that is genuinely new about Martin Kitchen’s Speer; he draws liberally on the work of other historians, closer to the coalface, who have published partial accounts and micro-studies. He is not even the first English-language biographer to challenge Speer’s lies; that honour fell to Dan van der Vat in 1997.

Dan van der Vat's The Good Nazi: The Life and Lies of Albert Speer (1997) is used extensively in the article. And I wouldn't have given him the honour of debunking Speer either, when there is Gitta Sereny's Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth (1995). Or, to go back further, Matthias Schmidt's Albert Speer: The End of a Myth (1984). All of which are used in the article. Kitchen uses the same sources as the article, so I'm doubtful that much could be garnered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. About 10% of the article is using a WP:Primary source. The FAC don't preclude there use, however I don't see Mein Kampf being used to source 10% of Hitler's article. Granted it is a reasonably well written article. Szzuk (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. If this article has issues, they should be addressed by improving the article and, where appropriate, seeking consensus on the talk page. I'm worried that this may be just part of an unbalanced, ongoing campaign to discredit, downgrade or remove articles on German people connected with the Second World War. Bermicourt (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I was about to initiate a FAR review by myself, because the article does not meet the criteria for featured articles, in fact, it never did. It is neither comprehensive, nor well-researched. During the last four decades major research has been conducted and published on Albert Speer, including Magnus Brechtken’s seminal biography Albert Speer. Eine deutsche Karriere, in 2017.(review in German) Further recent works include Isabell Trommer, Rechtfertigung und Entlastung. Albert Speer in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main 2016; Sebastian Tesch, Albert Speer (1905–1981), Wien 2016; Wolfgang Schroeter, Albert Speer. Aufstieg und Fall eines Mythos, Paderborn 2019. These works, particularly Brechtken and Trommer, have conclusively shown, that the works by Joachim Fest, including his bio from 1999, and Speer’s memoirs, both of which have been extensively used in writing the article, are unreliable sources. Brechtken also takes issues with the book by Gitta Sereny, arguing that Sereny ignored much of the available scholarship, including Matthias Schmidt’s work. He concludes that the book was a psychological mosaic of quotes and memories rather than a biography and should not be confused with historical scholarship. (p. 550) Brechtken has mixed feelings towards van der Vat’s work. He praises it for its critical approach, but states that it mainly follows Schmidt’s work.

That said, it has been argued that Matthias Schmidt’s and van der Vat’s works have been used for the article. But for what? There are now two references to Schmidt’s work. The first is for the sentence: He wanted to become a mathematician, but his father said if Speer chose this occupation he would "lead a life without money, without a position and without a future". The second is for another quote: Goebbels would note in his diary in June 1943, "Speer is still tops with the Führer. He is truly a genius with organization." That's it. In other words, Schmidt’s work is merely used for quotes by Speer’s father and by Goebbels. But Schmidt’s research is mainly about Speer’s leading role in the eviction of Jewish tenants in Berlin and about Speer's knowledge of the Holocaust. The chapter "Actions towards Jews," however, is mainly based upon Fest’s biography and thus it seems that Speer was merely “aware” of the activities of his (own) Department. Susanne Willems, who has written another study about Speer’s policies (Der entsiedelte Jude. Albert Speers Wohnungsmarktpolitik für den Berliner Hauptstadtbau, 2002, 2nd ed. 2018) argues that Speer was responsible for 90% of the deportations from Berlin. [4] Why is Speer quoted that Himmler tried to have him physically isolated and so forth, but Schmidt's debunking of this legend is not quoted? Van der Wat’s bio is equally exclusively used as a reference for trivial information. That Speer received a twenty years prison sentence, for example, is not the kind of information van der Vat’s work is about. So the whole chapter "Assessment" is at best a lukewarm representation of the current historical scholarship. The chapter "Imprisonment" presents a detailed account of what Speer read. His role in the Holocaust, however, is relegated to a few sentences under "legacy and controversy". That’s completely out of proportion and not comprehensive.

I could go on and on, but it would lead much too far to discuss all the myths and mystifications by Speer that are retold in the article. Just one example, sourced to van de Vat, may suffice.

"Following the publication of his bestselling books, Speer donated a considerable amount of money to Jewish charities. According to Siedler, these donations were as high as 80 percent of his royalties. Speer kept the donations anonymous, both for fear of rejection and for fear of being called a hypocrite." (van der Vat, 1997, p. 348)

Brechtken discusses “Speer and money” at length (pp. 492-506). He argues that it was part of Speer’s strategy to indicate that he would donate money to Jewish charities. In 1971 Speer told the Daily Express that he had donated 200.000 Marks. In fact, he repeatedly donated only three up to four-digit amounts, but, as Brechtken argues, by strategically presenting numbers and spreading rumors Speer effectively won writers over for himself. (pp. 501f.)

Some of the problems have been named in Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 2#Over-reliance on Speer's memoirs of May 2017. I rewrote a section myself, [5] It is true that Martin Kitchen did not present ground breaking new research in 2015, but he summed up German scholarship, previously overlooked in the English speaking world, and made it easily accessible to the English speakers. As my difflink clearly shows, historical scholarship had not been used for major parts of the article. The article rather fell and still falls for Speer’s tricks, lies and mystifications. Thus it is biased and not well researched. To try to improve it, would mean to completely rewrite it.

To use the bio by Martin Kitchen would certainly be a good starting point but will not suffice. One last example: Speer came up with the idea of "ruin value" while working on a Spiegel interview in October/November 1966. He reiterated it in his memoirs. It has been debunked as early as 1981 by Angelika Schönberger. (Brechtken, pp. 542-544), and there are a couple of German articles about the legend. Kitchen buys it (pp. 34-5), it is presented in the English Wikipedia as fact and there is even a whole article on it. But it is still a legend.--Assayer (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Over-reliance on some sources is neither here nor there; errors of fact are another matter entirely. That is of great concern. Now, you are within your right to say that you are not a Speer specialist and I do not find his biography particularly appealing. (Although personally I think you are ahead of everyone else here.) Spending a year reading through books on Speer, some of them in German, holds little appeal for me too. So what do we propose to do? As Koffman said, the goal should not be to get the article delisted, but to improve it through the normal editing process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The point is not Over-reliance on some sources [my emphasis], but heavy reliance on unreliable sources, which necessarily means over-reliance. Consequently, the article is full of distortions, mystifications and lies. These are not simply errors of fact, but willfully misleading obfuscations by Speer. Wehwalt claims, Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed. Is he? Speer is quoted at length claiming that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. Next, historian Martin Kitchen is quoted, that Speer had intimate knowledge of the Holocaust, as if KItchen was stating an opinion, while historiography has established beyond doubt that Speer did not only know of the Holocaust, but was actively involved. This is false balance. Wehwalt insists on keeping that Speer quote[6] and a problematic lede section.[7] So the problems go well beyond factual errors.

I was assuming that there would be a consensus to maintain the highest standards in terms of information. Thus, I assumed that, once the problems were named, there would be an attempt for improvement at some point, i.e., that the article would be cross checked with the most recent biography (at least that one available in English). If that would not happen, the article could not be kept on FA level. I contributed my share, but I am not an expert in architectural or economic history. So, this is where we stand now, and given some of the comments made during this review, it is about time to put the finger on the problems. --Assayer (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say that as more than one editor feels similarly, obviously, I think I can work with that. I would like to keep this as a FA. Shall we try and see?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to add the third party tag to the page. He's a very interesting character so I'd prefer this to stay at FA too. The tag may encourage editors to WP:BOLD because it needs a lot of work. Szzuk (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I will read through the WP:PRIMARY refs and note those that aren't being used with care. I share the grave misgivings noted above however. Szzuk (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Ref 31: Speer surrounded the site with 130 anti-aircraft searchlights. Speer described this as his most beautiful work, and as the only one that stood the test of time.[31]'

Ref 54, 55, 56: As the war progressed, initially to great German success, Speer continued preliminary work on the Berlin and Nürnberg plans.[54][55] Speer also oversaw the construction of buildings for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.[56]

Ref 59: On February 8, 1942, Minister of Armaments Fritz Todt died in a plane crash shortly after taking off from Hitler's eastern headquarters at Rastenburg. Speer, who had arrived in Rastenburg the previous evening, had accepted Todt's offer to fly with him to Berlin, but had cancelled some hours before takeoff (Speer stated in his memoirs that the cancellation was because of exhaustion from travel and a late-night meeting with Hitler). Later that day, Hitler appointed Speer as Todt's successor to all of his posts. In Inside the Third Reich, Speer recounts his meeting with Hitler and his reluctance to take ministerial office, saying that he only did so because Hitler commanded it. Speer also states that Hermann Göring raced to Hitler's headquarters on hearing of Todt's death, hoping to claim Todt's powers. Hitler instead presented Göring with the fait accompli of Speer's appointment.

Ref 69: On December 10, 1943, Speer visited the underground Mittelwerk V-2 rocket factory that used concentration camp labor. Speer claimed after the war that he had been shocked by the conditions there (5.7 percent of the work force died that month).[68][69]

Ref 71: In January 1944, Speer fell ill with complications from an inflamed knee, necessitating a leave. According to Speer's post-war memoirs, his political rivals (mainly Göring and Martin Bormann), attempted to have some of his powers permanently transferred to them during his absence. Speer claimed that SS chief Heinrich Himmler tried to have him physically isolated by having Himmler's personal physician Karl Gebhardt treat him, though his "care" did not improve his health. Speer's case was transferred to his friend Dr. Karl Brandt, and he slowly recovered.[71]

Comments I agree that this is no longer of FA standard, and substantial work would be needed to restore it to this standard. The article is not neutral or accurate, as it repeats the now long-discredited "Speer myth" about his role in the war and makes little use of the current standard works. It also does not fully cover Speer's life and career. I'd suggest moving to a FARC discussion in the near future. I have the following comments

• I agree that the failure to update the article after Kitchen's biography was released is a serious problem. Kitchen's work is a major reassessment of Speer's life.
• The article also makes very little use of Adam Tooze's 2006 book The Wages of Destruction: The Making & Breaking of the Nazi Economy, which is the standard work on the German war economy and has extensive (and highly critical) analysis of Speer's role and performance.
• When reading this article after reading Kitchen, I was particularly struck by how little attention is given here to Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg. The use of slave labour was perhaps the single most important reason Speer was convicted, and explains why the Allies refused to release him.
• It's very concerning that Speer's autobiography is regularly cited - modern historians treat this work with great scepticism (Kitchen argues that Speer deliberately falsified key elements of it, for instance), so I don't think it's a RS. From some spot checks, some of the statements cited to the book are highly dubious - for instance:
  • "During his testimony, Speer accepted responsibility for the Nazi regime's actions." - an autobiography cannot possibly support such a statement about its subject, and Kitchen and other historians argue that Speer actually dodged responsibility for many of his actions and those of the regime, most notably in regards to the Holocaust.
  • The account of Speer's appointment to armaments minister is cited only to the autobiography. This is totally inappropriate. Kitchen and several other historians provide somewhat different accounts, with Kitchen expressing doubts over the accuracy of Speer's accounts and suggesting that Todt may have been murdered.
  • The first para of the "Consolidation of arms production" section is referenced only to this work, and presents only Speer's account of the power struggle which occurred when he fell ill in early 1944. Speer argues that his weak position was due to him being sick and receiving bad medical care but, from memory, Kitchen also argues that it was due to Speer's incompetence as a manager.
• "Speer stated he was apolitical when he was a young man, and he attended a Berlin Nazi rally in December 1930 only at the urging of some of his students" - why is only Speer's claims being presented here? Kitchen argues that he was fairly (though not strongly) political in his youth. A central theme of Kitchen's work is that Speer's post-war claims to have been a technocrat rather than a committed Nazi were falsifications. Other historians have reached the same conclusion.
• The para starting with "Speer placed his department at the disposal of the Wehrmacht." is wrong-headed. It suggests that Speer was selflessly offering his department for the war effort, despite Hitler trying to stop him. In reality, Speer was a very active participant in the bureaucratic empire-building and duplication which was a key feature of the Nazi regime. Like the other senior Nazis, he ended up with a sprawling and utterly incoherent range of functions, which he was ultimately unable to manage.
• "Speer also oversaw the construction of buildings for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe" - he also oversaw the construction of some of the facilities used in the Holocaust, but this isn't mentioned here. When it is mentioned, it's under a claim that Kitchen only "indicates" this - from memory, he explicitly states this at multiple points in the book. Given Speer's sprawling responsibilities, it's entirely credible.
• The account of the improvement in armaments production repeats the "Speer myth" of him having revolutionised the war economy. Tooze utterly demolished this myth in his book, demonstrating that Speer inherited a rapidly improving armaments industry and then falsified figures to exaggerate the scale of the further improvements. Kitchen confirms this, and also states that Speer emphasised the production of obsolete weapons to keep production numbers up despite these weapons often being useless. Both Tooze and Kitchen argue that Speer was competent during this period, and helped guide further improvements, but that the expansion in output was not due to him.
• The positive account of the system of central management and committees Speer instituted in the para starting with "Speer overcame these difficulties by centralizing power" was also demolished by Kitchen, who demonstrates that Speer's ministry was actually quite weak, and the vast numbers of committees which ended up being established were unworkable.
• "Rather than increasing female labor and taking other steps to better organize German labor, as Speer favored, Sauckel advocated importing more slave labour from the occupied nations – and did so, obtaining workers for (among other things) Speer's armament factories, often using the most brutal methods" - this implies that Speer was opposed to the use of slave labour. Quite the opposite was the case - while he was not as an enthusiastic a slave lord as some of the other Nazis (for instance, he intervened to have some war production take place in France rather than enslave the French civilians needed for these factories), he was a central figure in this vast crime.
• "On December 10, 1943, Speer visited the underground Mittelwerk V-2 rocket factory that used concentration camp labor. Speer claimed after the war that he had been shocked by the conditions there " - Kitchen demonstrates that he was not actually shocked, and did nothing substantial to improve conditions.
• "By 1943, the Allies had gained air superiority over Germany" - this is incorrect. The Allies gained air superiority over Germany in early 1944.
• "However, the Allies in their strategic bombing campaign did not concentrate on industry, and Speer was able to overcome bombing losses" - also false. Tooze and other historians have demonstrated that the Allied bombing substancially suppressed German war production (e.g., that it would have been much higher if the bombing had not taken place). This claim is a central element of the "Speer myth".
• "production time for Kriegsmarine's submarines was reduced from one year to two months" - not sure that the scale of this improvement is correct, but both Tooze and Kitchen demonstrate that the "improvement" to the speed of submarine construction was largely a statistical mirage - Speer had submarine production moved to facilities which had no idea how to build submarines, and the completed boats were often unseaworthy, with many never entering service or being rapidly destroyed when they did. Speer was also a key player in the fiasco that was the development of next-generation submarines, by pushing an immature design into mass production in inexperienced facilities: almost none of the hundreds of these submarines entered service. The story of German submarine production is actually one of failure.
• "with allied bombing destroying just 9% of German production" - 9% of economic production being destroyed in a month is actually rather a lot. More importantly, the Allied bombing in 1944 crippled the German oil and transportation industries, which crippled the rest of the war effort soon afterwards.
• " Production of German fighter aircraft was more than doubled from 1943 to 1944" - also part of the Speer myth. Multiple historians note that Germany emphasised quantity over quality during this period, and this had disastrous results - the huge number of aircraft which were produced were largely obsolete, and were slaughtered by Allies (which were turning out even larger numbers of better aircraft). The scale of the production also came at the cost of the production of spare parts, which meant that the Luftwaffe had a low serviceability rate.
• "The task force oversaw the day-to-day development and production activities relating to the He 162, the Volksjäger ("people's fighter"), as part of the Emergency Fighter Program" - this project was a fiasco, but this is not noted
• More generally, there seems to be much too much emphasis on the production of aircraft. Other elements of the war economy performed even worse, with Kitchen arguing that Speer never paid enough attention to the production of ammunition (leading to frequent shortages).
• The article repeats Speer's account of his efforts in stopping the "Nero decree". This is also part of the "Speer myth", and Kitchen demolishes it by demonstrating that Hitler soon rescinded this directive, and it was largely ignored by local commanders anyway (modern historians tend to stress the collapse of central command and control in Germany in 1945, with experts such as Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans arguing that Hitler was largely irrelevant by the end of the war)
• "Eventually, 75,000 Jews were displaced by these measures" - they were then sent to concentration camps, something not noted. Kitchen argues that Speer was aware of this.
• "Much of the controversy over Speer's knowledge of the Holocaust has centered on his presence at the Posen Conference on October 6, 1943" - Kitchen takes a different approach, and demonstrates that Speer was both aware of and actively involved in the Holocaust from an early stage. Kitchen dedicates relatively little attention to Posen as a result.
• "The debate over Speer's knowledge of, or complicity in, the Holocaust" - I don't think that there has been a "debate" over this. Rather, the claims Speer made were initially believed, but were demonstrated to be false. I don't think that any historians argue that Speer was not aware of and involved in the Holocaust, though they do differ over the timing and extent of this.
• The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
• It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
• There's nothing on Speer's private life. Kitchen covers this usefully, demonstrating that he pretty much deliberately alienated his wife and children. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I can work through the ones re Kitchen now that I have it, is anyone able to put in material from Tooze?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually a central thesis by Tooze has been deliberately removed from the article by charging that this was an unreliable source.[8] I have quoted some sources at Talk:Albert Speer#Armaments miracle.--Assayer (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I have used that language in my work on the WWII section. I've also gotten hold of a copy of Tooze though I have not yet looked at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I may as well get this show on the road so I've downloaded the e-book of Kitchen and will be reading it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment much of Kitchen's work is available as a free preview on Amazon UK. It is rare for a new bio on an old subject to add much, but this one does. Szzuk (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I added a little on his joining the party. I'm not a FA writer so it could probably do with some copyedit.Szzuk (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I made some deletions today and took out what I think is POV, fabrications or undue weight content. There are several paragraphs I can see which need reworking, they just can't be deleted because there is too much content and it would unduly affect the readability of the article. They will have to be looked at later, perhaps by someone else. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm going to remove the third party tag, many of the refs have been updated so it is no longer valid. Szzuk (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, yes. I've removed the last of the Speer sources, we no longer use any of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop misquoting sources

Certain members have been quoting the book "Speer: Hitler's Architect By Martin Kitchen" as proof of some conspiracy, but not listed pages or proof from the book. After reading the book I have found that it says almost none of the things being claimed in this article. In fact, it portrays Speer as someone who routinely fought with other leaders in order to protect slaves and to avoid killings.

Unless someone can provide actual sources I will remove these claims. Provide actual page numbers and details. Just naming the book is not acceptable.

DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Kitchen uses the exact words "By the time that Sereny and Fest had published their biographies of Speer, in 1995 and 1999 respectively, historians had provided ample evidence that Speer had lied through his teeth". It is on p.361. Maybe it would be better to attribute that statement to him rather than deleting it altogether as you have done.
• Kitchen uses the words "It was not until the journalist Heinrich Breloer presented his biographical film on TV in 2004 that the process of public demystification began." I don't really understand why you've added the "examples" tag because the reference uses the word "demystification" and discusses the topic.

• You added a "who" inline tag after the statement the myth has been discussed at length by historians. The section uses Kitchen, Schmidt and Tooze so that can be attributed to them too.

• You added an "example needed" tag after the statement Speer lied to Fest. It needs a reference to Kitchen for page 360. He uses these exact words "Fest failed to mention Schmidt’s startling revelations in his biography of Speer published in 1999, in his notebook he wrote that while Schmidt’s book was ‘prejudiced,’ the evidence he produced was ‘considerable’. It showed that Speer had kept secrets from him and Siedler."

• As the content I added was a first "draft" I really have no problem with additions, deletions or changes. However I'm not convinced your tags and deletions are improving matters. Szzuk (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• I have copied this recent discussion from the talk page because it pertains to the FAR. I added content and changed the section heading to The "Speer Myth" a few days ago. Szzuk (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This characterisation of Kitchen is not the slightest bit correct. Nick-D (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a single one of the claims posted above actually have examples or proof or documentation of his assumptions. These kinds of claims must have sources, yet it seems the only sources are his opinions. This does not meet wikipedia standards.

Kitchen provides no actual examples and just states these things as if they are fact. For instance, how could he have know what Speer was thinking? There is no way, and yet he believes he can read Speer's mind. His mind reading abilities are not an acceptable source.

It is completely clear that his assumptions do not meet wikipedia standards, as he provides no evidence whatsoever except his own opinion, and does not name a single source for his information. Even his examples he simply lists events and then makes statements of those events with no actual evidence or documentation to back his claims.

For instance, his war production claims blatantly disagree with all other available sources. If he cannot even agree with very well accepted production numbers then everything he states is in question. Especially since he cannot provide any actual examples to prove his claims. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we're not going to dismiss a very well reviewed book written by an academic historian who specialises in the World War II era and was published by Yale University Press. You appear to have missed the 49 pages of citations at the end of the book in your haste to dismiss it. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Its not well reviewed at all. Its one of the worst written books Ive ever read. It reads like an opinion piece from a tabloid. This clear does not meet wikipedia standards.

The book is filled with overdramatic statements that are physically impossible to even know. It repeatedly claims to know the mental state of not just Speer, but everyone around him, and even strangers. It rarely sticks to facts and relies instead on his personal opinion.

He often makes claims such as "Speer's Audience was obviously bored by his low key delivery" and "Speer then played his Trump card by mentioning "vengeance weapons" that would soon turn the tide", or "the men at the front knew this was untrue". The men at the front didnt even know the conversation was even taking place. They arent mind readers, unlike the author. Or at least his claims. It is completely clear from his writing style that he is exaggerating everything he says for dramatic effect, and that THEY ARE HIS PERSONAL OPINION. 174

Literally everything in the book is overdramatized and unprofessional. Not a single page does not have some dramatic overstatement. This clear does not meet wikipedia standards. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. Unless you can find others that agree with you then the changes you want to happen won't. Szzuk (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Continued discussion

• Comment. I've re-read all of the comments above and everything has been covered apart from the things noted below. I don't think there is much to add, a few sentences dotted around. The only other things to do are polish and copyedit unless more changes are specifically requested. Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
• It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
• There's nothing on Speer's private life.
• Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg

Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I can add stuff on most of that over the next few days, though I'd like clarification on when private life, that is, are we talking post-Spandau? Or about his basically unhappy marriage? But first I'd also like to hear from everyone, how they feel with respect to answering the concerns that prompted this FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Regarding private life, I'd suggest covering his unhappy family life - his marriage before and after prison and Speer's relationship with his children. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with the gaps identified above (use of slave labour; Speer's enriching himself during the Nazi era). I would add that Speer's activities as the head of Organisation Todt are not covered; in fact, Organisation Todt is not mentioned in prose at all. Also, since the article has been largely rewritten, the lead needs to follow suit. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to get a response to what Szzuk and I were talking about, since you initiated the FAR. I'd like to get a sense of what is needed to close it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• If I were reviewing the article for GA, I would be close to passing it (with the lead re-write, which I assume is coming). Checks for close paraphrasing should probably also happen. I generally don't participate in FA reviews, so I'm not as familiar with the FA procedures, MOS requirements, etc. I would like to hear from others as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I will do the lead rewrite over the next few days. I'm not bothered if someone else does it. If it were done quickly an un-involved editor might hop in unexpectedly or I might err too much. I'd be happy to leave close paraphrasing checks to Wehwalt. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would like to see if there would be consensus to close the FAR if we do these things, as set forth in the FAR procedures. The goal of such a review of this is, if possible, to maintain the article as a FA. I am simply enquiring as to procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I inquired at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Speer/archive1. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Since you indicated your view it did not meet the criteria, I do not see any reason you cannot opine on that further, if your concerns as to the criteria have been addressed, or would be by the proposed work.==Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I"d also like to, if possible, hear from Assayer as well. I'm trying to see if we have broad agreement where we are so we may move to consensus as to what remains to be done. Szzuk, myself and others have done considerable work on the article and I'd like to see if it made a difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• My understanding of the general rule of thumb is that every issue brought here should be addressed. So everything mentioned (even inadvertently) should be done. This gives editors the opportunity to change the goalposts and forever find new things that need to be done. Szzuk (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Wehwalt: I see what you mean. My npov & sourcing concerns have been largely addressed by the recent rewrites. The comprehensiveness concerns can be addressed by adding content identified in the bullets above by Szzuk. With these items addressed, I would not object to closing the FAR at this stage, with the FA status retained. But it seems that other participants need to weigh in as well, so it's not completely up to me as the FAR nom. That's in part why I inquired at the FAR talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. I'm hoping to finish the additions in the next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I should be able to add the final paragraph of the lead later today. I also created Speer: Hitler's Architect. Szzuk (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To do list

• The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
• It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
• There's nothing on Speer's private life.
• Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg
• Rewrite lead
• Mention Operation Todt
• Copyedit and paraphrase spot checks

Continued discussion (2)

• I updated the lead and made a to do list above. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• I note another user has copyedited the lead and this version was reverted to my original. I prefer the copyedited revision and will put it back in place. Szzuk (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I plan to do the remainder as soon as possible but I've been under the weather. Someone else should do the close paraphrasing since I've added things though I would be happy to do that for others--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I am happy for you to look for close paraphrasing in my additions, and I will reciprocate for your additons. Szzuk (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It isn't practical to go through all of your additions because there are so many. However I spot checked half a dozen and there is none. Szzuk (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That's about what would be expected at FAC, at most.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. On his anti-semitism, neither Kitchen, Tooze or Schmidt have direct quotes or specific writings from Speer that I have seen. We are left to understand his anti-semitism from his actions. I think the article reflects this. Szzuk (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Comparing the article history before the FAR and now I estimate 35% of the article has been updated. I can't see much of anything left to do. Szzuk (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if people would look it over and also take out any remaining prose issues. In the absence of specific requests, I think we're done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The concerns that have prompted this FAR have been largely addressed. It would be fine with me to close at this stage, retaining the FA rating. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Assayer and Nick-D: what are your impressions so far? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

If there are no objections against a source in German, I would use the bio by Brechtken to add his perspective.--Assayer (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Is the bio available in English? Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No, unfortunately it is not. It is a 900+ pages long biography published in June 2017 by Siedler publishing house.--Assayer (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I've translated some of the newspaper reviews. It appears he follows on from Kitchen and pretty much says Speer was a fabulist and that Fest and Siedler were co-fabulists. I think the bare minimum is to mention the bio and the fabulist angle. I could probably patch something together but it is a far from ideal to use translated newspaper reviews for this purpose. I would obviously have no issue with the book being used for sourcing of other material but...we'd need someone on en.wiki being able to speak German, having an interest in the subject, access to the book, spare time and the skill to write FA material. It is possibly setting the bar too high. Szzuk (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, is there any connection between Wolf Jobst Siedler and Siedler publishing house? Szzuk (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, Brechtken is quite picky about Kitchen and offers some cutting remarks, namely that Kitchen did not research central documents in the archives and mainly summarized already well known arguments. He even thinks that the title Hitler's architect is misleading and downplaying Speer's role in Nazi Germany. Siedler has been Wolf Jobst Siedler's publishing house. Nowadays it is part of Random House. Its current CEO, Thomas Rathnow, who previously directed the publishing program of Siedler publishing house, liked the idea to publish a book critical of Wolf Jobst Siedler, and Thomas Karlauf, who had co-authored political memoirs for Siedler publishing house in the 1980ies, served as a literary agent for Brechtken. --Assayer (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand now. I wrote a big chunk of the speer myth section so I may aswell ask you if you can assist with quotes from Brechten and page numbers. You could copy and paste from a pdf the odd paragraph and drop it into the talk page associated with this archive page and I will sort through it, if you prefer. Szzuk (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• I had a problem defining the "speer myth" - I had to rely upon Tooze's concept when I'd have preferred something more global
• are there any quotes along the lines of "fabulist" that succinctly describe his extensive lying, relying solely on Kitchen for that is POV
• I'd like a simple refutation of speer as the "good nazi", Kitchen has a whole chapter called the "good nazi" but doesn't summarise well

There are more recent monographs explicitly on the "Speer myth" by Isabell Trommer and Wolfgang Schroeter, both PhD. theses (I mentioned them elsewhere). From my reading Brechtken is more critical than Kitchen and goes at great lengths to demonstrate Speer's lying. In fact, recent German scholarship has been very critical of Speer and his biographers (Fest, Sereny). It is Kitchen's acchievement to make those findings more easily available to the English speaking world.--Assayer (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw a book by Trommer a while ago, but as it is in German I couldn't assess it. As a featured article pretty much every sentence has to be sourced directly to a book with page number or reputable website. I'd be more or less aware of much that is written in Brechtken, but I can't just go and write it into the article because someone will say what I've written is WP:OR. And perhaps without the source I might accidentally cross into OR. Is there a German wiki project we could ask? I'm not sure how to proceed with the language barrier. Or do you know where I could get hold of the Trommer/Schroeter theses? Szzuk (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably English language sources, academic book reviews and so forth, would be acceptable, if they are out there. While these theses sound useful, they do not sound game changing in the way Kitchen is.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Bretchken's book was released in 2017, Trommer's in 2016, Schroeter's in 2018. Kitchen in 2015 does predate them. Szzuk (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think they should be added through normal editing, as they become available, and need not be through a FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we should add un-sourced or poorly sourced material - even though I'd agree with most of it. Szzuk (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Largely agree. I have some ideas for further development (outside this FAR), which I will post to the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

To do list (2)

Based upon the above conversation we are still too uncritical of Speer. What other instances of speer lying do we need? Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• defining the "speer myth" - preferred something more global
• succinctly describe his extensive lying
• a refutation of speer as the "good nazi"
• mention the money myth, i.e. he was poor when the opposite is true
• include references to Brechtken
• create Magnus Brechtken on en.wiki

Towards closure

• Comment: key portions of the article have been rewritten since the FAR opened and I'm confident that further edits can be accomplished through normal editing. I believe that the FAR can be closed. Thank you to the participants for a collegial discussion and constructive editing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I have updated the speer myth section to complete the to do list. I've struck the money myth, someone else can unstrike and add that if they wish. Szzuk (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Coordinator comment: Looks like we're getting close to closing this, but I'd appreciate if someone could do some reference cleanup first - lots of harv errors and general inconsistencies at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've checked all of the references and cleaned where necessary. Some of it was accumulated leftovers, some needed moving. All of the remaining references and external links are usable and useful. Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• There are still 10 harv ref or citeref errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Nikki: I think that's fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Minor notes. A whole lot of the page ranges in citations use hyphens rather than endashes. Please do a check for the overuse of however. Could "note a" not be cited? Could some of the images be removed? The images overwhelm the text, and text is sandwiched between images in multiple points.

  It is so nice to see FAR working to save featured articles ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• This has a hyphen where it needs either an WP:ENDASH or an WP:EMDASH:

  through his actions - which were Anti-Semitic.

  I would fix it myself, but one place in the article uses an EMDASH, while another uses ENDASH; please pick one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is grammatically awkward-- can it be recast? "Rumor has it" is a cliche; can that be improved?

  Rumor has it that the remains have been used for other building projects like the Humboldt University, Mohrenstraße metro station or Soviet war memorials in Berlin, but none of these are true.

  Rumor is the subject, singular, but none refers to the plural rumors; one gets tangled in that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is missing a hyphen (an issue that happens when using the convert template):

  The 46-foot (14 m) high concrete cylinder

  It wants to be "the 46-foot-high concrete cylinder, but the convert template messes that up. The way to fix that is to re-cast the sentence.

  The concrete cylinder, 46-feet (14 m) high, ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• There are multiple instances of both labor and labour ... what spelling does the article use? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Zeppelinfeld can be linked-- check linking throughout? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• This is incorrect punctuation; perhaps a check throughout is needed:

  The armaments miracle was a myth, Speer had used statistical manipulation to support his claims. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Isn't "headquarter" a verb?

  and Wilhelmstraße as a headquarter for the SA, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I started at the bottom and just did a very few, random checks, but this list indicates a thorough going-over might help. This, for example, indicates a copyedit, or independent set of eyes, could help:

• Speer denied he knew they were going to their death and claimed that those displaced where "Completely free and their families were still in their apartments".[46]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• A lot of single pages are labelled as "pp." in the cites. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fixed. Also found a few with the opposite fault, also fixed. I've standardized the multiple page number formatting as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I've reduced the picture count and deleted note (a) as it no longer had any context in the article. I think we're waiting on a copyedit for grammar/punctuation and someone to sort out the hashes/hyphens (That isn't something I can do). Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work. Isn't there a script for fixing hyphens?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I put the text into microsoft word and did a find and replace, it was a lot easier than i'd imagined. The article has been switched to en-dash only and the hyphens in the cites are now en dash. I also fixed a few others so as far as I know the hyphen issue is done. Szzuk (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Good thought, that was basically how I did the p vs pp thing, though I went through manually. A copyedit is always useful but I'd question whether that really needs to be done prior to closure because is there really much chance of demotion now?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this could close. A user above has requested an independent copyedit from a fresh set of eyes. I note K.e.coffman has requested a copyedit from the guild of copyeditors who will adjust grammar/punctuation, howevers etc. It could be several weeks before that happens and I can't see anything else to do. Szzuk (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. @Wehwalt. Do you have any plans to send this to WP:TFA? I note you are a coordinator there. Szzuk (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Not of my own initiative, but if someone nominates it for a date once it's clear of FAR, I imagine it would run.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I copyedited the article. I found a program which greatly automated the process. Szzuk (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  Szzuk, concerned that this (which I noted above) is still present:

  • ... claimed that those displaced where "Completely free and their ...

  so it's not so much that a copyedit is needed, but that someone just needs to read through the entire article with a fresh set of eyes. I think most of my quibbles are addressed, except that someone unfortunately altered the page ranges in the wrong direction. (Where the article earlier had, for example, 324–26, it now has 324–326. This is not a big deal, just unfortunate that what was there before was better and the page ranges were unnecessarily changed, but at least they're consistent.)

  My policy is to not enter a declaration on articles I promoted, so I am unwatching now, quibbles addressed, but do suggest a read-through to pick up minor issues like the typo above. Happy to once again see FAR saving stars! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment The work put into re-writing this article is very impressive, and it now reflects the tone of the modern literature concerning Speer. I don't think that the balance is right though in the "Minister of Armaments" section though - there's too much emphasis on aircraft production, and no discussion of the collapse of the war economy and the decline in Speer's powers over 1944. The article seems to no longer note that Speer was on medical leave for a month or so during a key period or the impact of Allied bombing, for instance. Speer's key role in the fiasco that was the production of a new generation of submarines (which was a major effort whose total failure crippled the Navy) could be noted. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• I was aware of this so I will try to add material. I'm not sure who deleted mention of his illness. Perhaps it was me because I can remember reading coverage in the article and the importance wasn't apparent. My interest is more in the myth and the Holocaust, the politics leaves me cold but the weaponry can be interesting. So it will be a lot slower. Szzuk (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I will try to get to it but given the review commitment's I've made it may take a few days. Is there any particular source that would be best for this?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added a para covering both Speer's expansion of powers and the submarine building fiasco. Kitchen is probably the best source on Speer's illness and subsequent loss of authority, and Tooze is good on the collapse of the economy. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Further conversation

• Comment. I checked the diffs to see about his time in hospital. It was referenced to Speer himself so that'd be why it was deleted. Basically he said Himmler tried to kill him. Kitchen buys it but I don't want to. It just looks myth-like. I wouldn't object to someone else adding it if they want, because it is interesting. It is possible he was in hospital at another time and I've misunderstood the timescale.Szzuk (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It was me who removed the 1944 illness when I was culling the Speer POV from the article: [9]. I will have a look in Kitchen. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I've now added the material in question: [10]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I added some material on the rocket program but it doesn't seem to fit in the section properly. Maybe the sections need renaming? Szzuk (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• I've re-worked the material on the war's final months, and added material covering both Speer's opposition to the 20 July plot and his false post-war claims to have been sympathetic towards it. I've also trimmed the material on aircraft production from 1944, but it's still too long and unfocused: it would probably work best as about 2 paras focused on Speer's role, especially in regards to the expansion of powers and his role in the extensive use of slave labour and the brutal working conditions. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think you are right about the length of aircraft mention, 2 paragraphs is fine, it would also leave room for more material to go in there. I think the rocket mention should be in there rather than the section above. I will try to pare it down if i think i can do so sensibly. Szzuk (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've added more instances of slave labor and working conditions, and trimmed the fighter staff somewhat. I also added rockets and tanks, so as far as I can tell all the big weapons are mentioned. Szzuk (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've re-done the armaments and increasing power section to include his political impetus. The defeat of Nazi Germany already has the politics. So there's just a better explanation of the politics needed in the consolidation of power section. Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• OK that is done. I re-worked the section. His time in hospital was more important than I initially thought so I added a bit more detail. Szzuk (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

GOCE Copy Edit

A copy edit requested from the Guild of Copy Editors has been completed. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: that you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Fest & more

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "reducing Speer's POV, and also Fest; c/e section names; intricate detail, ext links & non-RS". --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Further edits; pls see diff. I reduced Fest some more, including the anecdotes that Kitchen treats with scepticism or debunks, such as the circumstances of the final visit to Hitler, Speer's countermanding of the Nero Decree, and submarine production being "reduced from one year to two months". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)