Talk:Adolf Eichmann

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

Eichmann Before Jerusalem[edit]

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

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

Eichmann's nationality[edit]

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

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

Time of Eichman's death[edit]

This has been discussed before. Please look at the subject talk page, the time of death thread, and continue the discussion if you have new thoughts or ideas. Your colleague, Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Please give me good information about where to read relevant information, because nothing convincing was available at that place nor in the archive files.
If you do not agree with the "1 June" date, why do you leave that date in the infobox and on the first line of the article ?
Maybe it would be better to carry on that discussion on Eichmann's talk page.
Regards. --Gkml (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with that. I suggest a new discussion thread, highlighting any concerns about contradictions with the timing in the article there. You raise a good point if there are inconsistencies in the text. I will participate of course. Merci for coming to discuss on my page. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Irondome:, I transfer this short discussion thread to that place because it may be of more use. Since our last exchange, I've seen that Cliftonian did that edit, which is satisfactory to me. Best regards from France, not far from Crécy nor Azincourt. --Gkml (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Folks, we can't have the bizarre situation that the text says one thing but has a footnote saying that the text is wrong. The evidence from the best sources is that Eichmann died a few minutes into June 1. Does anyone deny that? Zerotalk 09:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, here is what the eyewitness Hull says. At 11:55, Eichmann was cuffed and with Hull leading the way (plus guards of course) he started the walk towards the execution chamber. Shortly the chief warden called out for them to walk slower, then soon another guard asked them to stop because the apparatus was not ready. So they stood waiting in the corridor. Then at 11:59pm they were asked to continue. When they reached the execution chamber, Eichmann went in while Hull went to a nearby room for "one minute". Then Hull was called into the execution chamber, where he made a last attempt to convince Eichmann to accept Jesus Christ, which Eichmann ignored. Then the press and officials were called in. Eichmann made his speech, then the lever was pulled at 12:02am. It really isn't possible to get a more definite source than this. Zerotalk 10:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I have rephrased slightly, retaining the footnote I added earlier, to say the execution was on 1 June. The footnote explains that it was supposed to be at midnight at the end of 31 May, but because of the brief delay was actually a few minutes into 1 June. I hope this is okay with everyone. Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Irondome, Cliftonian, and Zero0000:, considering that difference of versions, do not you think that "date of death" in Persondata (after line 373) should be put to 1 June 1962. Thanks for your opinion. Regards. --Gkml (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Eichmann's address in Buenos Aires[edit]

The address where Eichmann lived at Buenos Aires is listed in this article as "14 Garibaldi Street (now 4261 Garibaldi Street)". However, on the Simon Wiesenthal Center web site in the article "Wiesenthal Center Marks Eichmann Capture in Argentina Fifty Years Later" ( ) the address is listed as "6061 Garibaldi Street". Recent photographs of the adress are included in the article. When you confirm this address with Google Maps Streetview, the location and surrounding buildings match the photographs on the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Amsterdave (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Trial publicity[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing Nazi policies on the Jews[edit]

The article currently states: "As the Nazis began the invasion of the Soviet Union [meaning Poland?] in 1941, their Jewish policy changed from emigration to extermination." I personally appreciate Wikipedia's academic boldness to point out that the original policy was one of emigration, per the Wannsee Protocol, in agreement with the actual text. With that said, assuming there was a policy change (and it certainly looks like there was based on my general understanding of those times), surely some document can be furnished to exemplify if not (one hopes) solidly found this assertion? Thank you.

Johnpfmcguire (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The invasion of Poland was in 1939, while 1941 was the invasion of the Soviet Union. The Wannsee Conference of that year outlined the final solution for Europe's Jewish population, which historical consensus agrees was extermination, not emigration, and of course, the historical record shows that is exactly what happened. The question of whether they planned it at Wannsee or not has been historically resolved, so stating so is not really academic boldness, as it is mainstream academic consensus. Perhaps the sentence could be sourced better; certainly there is no shortage of reliable sources for that sentence. freshacconci talk to me 17:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Lede is too long[edit]

Surely this can be condensed? The main body should contain the more detailed information. (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine the way it is. It is almost identical to the version that passed GA review back in 2013. WP:Lead states that "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview" and "should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". It needs to cover all the main points in the article without going into too much detail. Many readers will look at nothing but the lead, so it needs to be comprehensive. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)