Talk:Heinrich Himmler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Heinrich Himmler has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 18, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
July 16, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Ethnicity of Those Killed in Holocaust[edit]

I was a little stunned to see in the introductory paragraph the statement that of the millions of civilians killed in the Holocaust, "most of them were Polish and Soviet citizens." I don't see how this claim can be made. It could be true that "many" of those who were killed were Polish or Russian but there were also Ukrainian, Germans, Romanian, Czech, Hungarian, Belgian & French civilians killed along with Russian and Polish. I think this sentence should either be qualified or removed. (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The total includes 3 million Polish Jews, 2 million other ethnic Polish civilians, and 2 million Soviet Jews. This already adds up to 7 million out of an estimated eleven to fourteen million civilians, so most of them were indeed Polish and Soviet citizens. -- Dianna (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request, a minor layout one[edit]

On the "Rise in the SS" section, the "Main Article" link comes after the first paragraph, rather than at the start of the section as per normal Wikipedia custom. Should it be changed? If this has already been discussed though, my apologies. (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason it was done that way is because the link applies to material from that point below. I'm not sure it should be moved up, because it doesn't apply to the whole section. -- Dianna (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Lacks of citations in the introduction[edit]

I notice a bold lack of citations to any kind of reference whatsoever in the opening paragraphs, while there are plenty in the following sections that expand on the same arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Normally for good articles and featured articles there are no citations in the lead. That's because the material in the lead also appears in the body of the article. This particular article is a Good Article. All the material in the lead is sourced, but it's not required to insert the citations twice. Please see WP:CITELEAD for our Manual of Style guideline for citations in the lead. -- Dianna (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Did Himmler vomit when he witnessed the mass firing squad?[edit]

Re: this passage: In August 1941, Himmler attended the shooting of 100 Jews at Minsk. Just after the event, he vomited. After regaining his composure, Himmler decided that alternate methods of killing should be found.

This cites Longerich's Heinrich Himmler, and this is what it says about the executions:

It was probably during his visit to Minsk in mid-August or shortly thereafter that Himmler issued his instructions to find a method of killing that exposed his men to less stress than the massacres. A few days after Himmler had witnessed a mass shooting there, von dem Bach-Zelewski from mass murder to the ‘final solution’ tried—probably in vain—to get Herbert Lange, the chief of the SS Sonderkommando that for some time had been murdering patients in the Warthegau in gas vans, to give a demonstration in Minsk.

It doesn't mention vomiting at all. (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Kierzek added this from a different source, but he is on holidays, so I will amend it to remove the mention of vomiting. We can re-word it again once Kierzek returns -- 11:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Per Karl Wolff: "He wasn't actually sick, but he was heaving". So, I don't think Himmler know. -OberRanks (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was originally reported by Wolff; he wrote it in his diary after the Minsk shooting. I can check it when I return home from vacation and let you know what I find. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I checked and Gilbert, Martin, The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War on page 191 states, that Wolff recalled, "...he got a splash of brains on his coat, and I think it also splashed into his face, and he went very green and pale...he was heaving and turned around and swayed and then I had to jump forward and hold him steady..." So "heaving" is more correct but the sentence is fine the way it is now. Kierzek (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind including more on the incident, if you could provide details of the edition you have in hand (publisher name, ISBN). We could add that he was nauseated or shaken by the experience. -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, its: Holt Paperbacks; Reprint edition (May 15, 1987) ISBN 978-0805003482. Kierzek (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014[edit]

Update entry in Further Reading to include 2013 ebook, from Frischauer, Willi (1953). Himmler: The Evil Genius of the Third Reich. Odhams ... to read as follows: Frischauer, Willi (1953, ebook 2013). Himmler: The Evil Genius of the Third Reich. Unmaterial Books. ebook ISBN 978-1-78301-254-1. A P Maud (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)signed A P Maud A P Maud (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -- Diannaa (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

lapsed catholic nonsense[edit]

Seriously? There are thousands of articles about notable individuals that should feature "lapsed Catholic" as a valid entry. Himmler was a Nazi, a neopagan, whatever you like. Let's not be too transparent here. (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why the "neo pagan" label? Did he ever resign from the Catholic Church? Over it's history the Catholics have absorbed many features of paganism anyway. -- (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph needs tweaking[edit]

"Himmler was a main architect of the Holocaust, using his deep belief in the racist Nazi ideology to justify the murder of millions of victims. Hitler and the Nazi regime had similar plans for the Poles; intellectuals were to be killed, and most other Poles were to be only given a fourth-grade education."

The sources state not only Poles but all non-Germans in the east were only to be given fourth-grade education, count to 500, etc. - would rewording the word "Poles" to "non-Germans in the east" or "non-Germans in eastern territory" since it included many more ethnic groups besides Poles.

Just a suggestion.--Windows66 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's on page 451. Longerich is talking about Himmler wishing to control the educational opportunities in the General Government and the conquered territories, not just in Poland and not just for Poles. How about "Hitler and the Nazi regime had similar plans for the Poles; intellectuals were to be killed, and most other Poles were to be only given a fourth-grade education" becomes "Hitler and the Nazi regime planned to kill Polish intellectuals and restrict non-Germans in the General Government and conquered territories to a fourth-grade education." -- Diannaa (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it was actually Himmler who organised this not Hitler himself but Hitler did approve of it:

Translation of Document No-1881, Prosecution Exhibit 1313.

The Reich Leader SS, Special Train, 28 May 1940, Top Secret.

On Saturday, 25 May 1940, I handed my memorandum on the treatment of peoples of alien race in the East to the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer read the six pages and considered them very good and correct. He directed, however, that only very few copies should be issued; that there should be no large edition, and that the report is to be treated with utmost secrecy. Minister Lammers was likewise present. The Fuehrer wanted me to ask Governor General Frank to come to Berlin in order to show him this report and to tell him that the Fuehrer considered it to be correct.

It could be changed to "Hitler and the Nazi regime planned to kill Polish intellectuals and restrict non-Germans in the east to a fourth-grade education." or eastern territories instead of just east.--Windows66 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not very happy with your edit as you removed the information about the killing of Polish intellectuals. You introduced the name of Himmler's paper to demonstrate that the idea of restricting educational opportunities was Himmler's idea. The name of the paper is unimportant, so I took it out. Telling the reader which ideas were Hitler's and which were Himmler's is not necessary and would not improve the article, as Hitler insisted on personally approving all major decisions regardless. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies I only removed the word "kill" from the piped link, its fine the way you tweaked it now anyways. Agree --Windows66 (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason for changing the wikilink is so that it will be clear at a glance that the wikilink leads to an article about killing Polish intellectuals (Intelligenzaktion), rather than to one about Polish intellectuals in general. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, its no problem Diannaa.--Windows66 (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Material about Allen's theory[edit]

I have removed material sourced to the Guardian that gives details about a theory that Himmler did not commit suicide but was murdered by the British. I don't believe this fringe material belongs in the article, and am posting here to open discussion. My opinion is that this is not a significant minority view but a fringe view of one guy. The view is not considered credible by serious historians and should not be in our article, per WP:Fringe. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your talk article so I will revert my last edit and merge my talk statement below into this. Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware of Allen's claims until recently and they sound plausible. As he has been effectively accused of forging documents by the British government, but in a manner which does not allow him effective defence by commissioning his own tests I don't think the accusation can be held proven.

I think it does no harm to know on what evidence the offical British giovernment view is based - how many witnesses are there to him having died of cyanide poisoning and how many witnesses to the self-administration.

I think it does the reader no harm to know of the controversy regarding these forgeries, why shound Dianaa want to deprive any reader of the cahnce to make their own judgement. I do not think to say that he was murdered is in itself outlandish as Chruchill himself suggested it would be a reasonable thing to do. Some people may indeed come across Allen's book without knowing the subsequent controversy about the documents Dianaa's edit would deprive them of the chance to know about the controversy.

To my knowledge Allen was a respected author before this controversy Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In addition to my concerns about WP:Fringe, the material is more about Allen than it is about Himmler; so it's off-topic for the Himmler article. What happened is someone planted forged documents in the archives and Allen used these forged materials to write a series of books about WWII. Martin Allen is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article so I don't see the value in including the information in the Himmler article. It's off-topic and gives the story undue weight imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful as a starting point to have something on Longrich's sources, which are presumably British government statements. I have read that those who witnessed it are not allowed to talk about it under the Official Secrets Act, so all we have is an official government version. Why can't it be seen as such?

Would you agree that there could be a separate article on alternative theories regarding Himmler's death and a link to these. After all there is a Hitler Diaries entry. The story of planted documents in the National Archives is surely noteable.Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a RS for the following statement "The view is not considered credible by serious historians and should not be in our article," Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The so-called murder rumor is nothing new and the documents which were planted and used were proved forgeries. This is not only a fringe theory but a disproved one at that. It has no place in this article. To quote: Prof M R D Foot, the SOE official historian, said: "This story was twisting history and it will not do.
"It was obviously bogus, but I am very grateful that it has been proved to be so."
The findings of Dr Giles's examination were put yesterday to Martin Allen, the book's author. There is no suggestion that he was anything but a fall guy for the forgers.
"I think I have been set up," he said. "But I do not even know by whom. I am absolutely devastated."
He denied having anything to do with the creation of the documents. Kierzek (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's one historian, is there another? Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues, one of notability and one of academic respectability (i.e. fringe). Virtually every disappeared or deceased leading Nazi has generated "theories" of this sort. Also, there would be no point on murdering Himmler, given that he had no chance of not being executed and we would have deprived ourselves of valuable potential information. But I'm sure King has some elaborate explanation of why he had to be got rid of. We don't need another historian. The real question is whether this story has been taken seriously by anyone. Paul B (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
If it's not taken seriously by mainstream historians - plural - we need more than one. I currently spend much of my time in Russia and can suggest one extremely good motive for killing him - if we had made peace offers, even if they weren't serious, and he had mentioned these at Nurenberg it wouldn't have gone down very well with our Soviet Allies. As a Brit I have had it rhown at me that Churchill did a deal with Hitler so that he would attack Russia. BTW in reply to another editor Martin Allen does have a wiki entry in German. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Why not include this newsreel? BTW - Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The fact that none of the main stream historians include it in their books are evidence enough. As to Himmler's "peace offer" to Western Allies, no one took it seriously, and Germany was already in its death knell; and Himmler had too much blood on his hands, as Paul said; he was a dead man walking. Kierzek (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately you cannot cite silence. It's a bit like the statement that Holocaust denial is anti-semitic which appears in wikipedia. Of course you can find quite a few reliable sources which say that it is but there may be many which do not say that it is and none which specifically say that it isn't. Say 10 votes to 0 can win with a hundred abstentions.Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Silence does not have to be cited. If someone writes a book stating that Himmler is alive and living on Mars the very silence of historians is enough to exclude the material per WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTE and WP:ONEWAY. Paul B (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail may not be 100% reliable but it is definitely prominent "Due to the level of secrecy involved, there have been various speculative accounts of Himmler's death over the years, with one being that he took cyanide while being examined by a British doctor." [1] Clearly the 'one speculative account' is the official version but the secrecy aspect of this quote seems justified. So here we have a claim which says it was suicide but not quite as described. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source on this wiki. Please see
Furthermore, the Jones story reported in the Mail has already been discussed. See Talk:Heinrich_Himmler/Archive_2#Edit_request.. Paul B (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see anything in the three links above to suggest that the Daily Mail had been ruled out as a reliable sourcve, in the second I made the voting to be 5 to 4 in favour of keeping it, with one abstention. Yes I agree it should be used with caution, in the specific question I think it is likely to be reliable as to the existence of the diary and the broad points of the story. Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for opinions: External Link[edit]

I recently added an "External Link" to a page at the Spartacus Educational website:, on the grounds that it contains a number of useful primary sources and photographs. Editor Kierzek has reverted the edit without explanation, although he has previously made it clear that he does not, personally, consider Spartacus Educational a WP:RS source. It strikes me that this particular page meets the criteria for Wikipedia (error free, references etc). A discussion of the notability and reliability of the Spartacus website was recently conducted here:, and the decision was in favour of the site. I would be grateful for other opinions on this. Tartarusrussell (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You know why I reverted as this was discussed by us at length on my talk page; you discussed it on another editor's talk page (who separately reverted your addition on another article page) and it was discussed on the talk page of Talk:Nazi Germany [2], which you were involved. There was no consensus to add it there and I was not the only one who stated it does not meet RS standards. Spartacus is the personal website of one man with no editorial oversite. The discussion you mention was as to whether the article page should be deleted or not; that is different. Kierzek (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Its an interesting website, but per WP:RS-SP, we generally avoid private or single source internet material to source an article. So yes, I agree with Kierzek. -OberRanks (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


I think that this wording:

"Himmler insisted on a daily massage and a lengthy nap afterwards"

is non-neutral. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that the "daily massage" refers to the abdomen massages Himmler had by Felix Kersten. When referring to this, it's important to notice that when Himmler approached Kersten with his chronic stomach pains, they were so intense that they prevented him from even walking or sitting down, and by writing "Himmler insisted on a daily massage" you make it sound like he insisted on having massage for pleasurable purposes by some hot, young woman as a form of escapism, when in reality he was totally depended on these treatments by Kersten to be able to walk and sit down, which is kinda' required for a military leader. I don't have a strong opinion about the "lengthy naps", but I think the part about his daily massages could be better formulated. Opinions? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The statement was sourced to Duffy's Red Storm on the Reich: The Soviet March On Germany, 1945, which was very blunt in its criticism if I recall correctly. (I can't access it on Google Books unfortunately.) Perhaps re-word to "Himmler seldom left the train. He only worked about four hours per day and received a daily massage for his stomach cramps, after which he took a lengthy nap." -- Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Much better wording, but all this is only relevant if the "daily massages" indeed does refer to Kersten. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
We could omit the phrase "for his stomach cramps", or I could get the book in on inter-library loan, which could take six to eight weeks. New suggested wording: "Himmler seldom left the train. He only worked about four hours per day and received a daily massage, after which he took a lengthy nap." -- Diannaa (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Nick-D specifically mentioned " incompetence and laziness" in the GA review (search using the author name "Duffy" to find the relevant comments on the GA review). It's probably best to bring in the book and have a look, if no one else has access to it. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I say change to "Himmler seldom left the train. He only worked about four hours per day and received a daily massage, after which he took a lengthy nap", as it's not that big a deal. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just re-checked the source, and tweaked the wording. Duffy argues, powerfully, that Himmler was a complete military incompetent and dilettante and his "obsession" with his personal health during his period as army group commander "dictated his daily routine". He prioritised receiving his morning massage (after waking late) ahead of performing his duties. Duffy is a leading military historian, so I can't see how reflecting his description of Himmler's working arrangements can be non-neutral... Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Nick-D, perhaps we should just clarify that it was not "Oh boy, I would love to have some massage every single day right after waking up", but "I need this abdomen massage in order to walk and even sit down"? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not in the source. Also, please remember that people who accept military appointments (especially very senior ones during periods of national crisis as was the case here) are expected to be physically and intellectually capable of performing their jobs. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It might not be in the Duffy source, but it's included in the Kersten dairies and it's a relatively well-known fact that Himmler employed Kersten due to chronic stomach problems which only worsened towards the end of the war. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)a
Duffy is a historian and a good secondary RS source; the Kersten diaries are a "memoir" and not very reliable at that, frankly. Nick-D is correct in this matter. Kierzek (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm still in favor of using Diannaa's version. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 07:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That phrasing is not factually correct (which is no reflection at all on Diannaa as she doesn't have access to the source and it looks like I goofed a bit when I added this a few years ago). Duffy says that Himmler's workdays in his period as army group commander involved waking at 8 or 9, receiving a massage before starting his duties, working for an hour, taking a lunch break followed by a sleep until 3 PM and ceasing work for the day in a state of exhaustion at around 6:30 PM. This "work" was conducted from a luxurious train which lacked basic military command and control equipment as radios and detailed maps. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't question that Himmler was a lazy douchebag, I'm just stating that his massages, once again if we are talking about Kersten, was totally necessary for him to walk and even sit down, and not done out of pleasure, but out of need. Also, many historians support the fact that this is how bad Himmlers pain was since the start of 1945. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Military leader ?[edit]

I think te opening lead sentance ought to be a bit adjusted - from

"Heinrich Luitpold Himmler (German: [ˈhaɪnʁɪç ˈluˑɪtˌpɔlt ˈhɪmlɐ] ( listen); 7 October 1900 – 23 May 1945) was Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel (SS), a military commander, and a leading member of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) of Nazi Germany." - to
"Heinrich Luitpold Himmler (German: [ˈhaɪnʁɪç ˈluˑɪtˌpɔlt ˈhɪmlɐ] ( listen); 7 October 1900 – 23 May 1945) was Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel (SS), a leading member of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) of Nazi Germany and in the very end of the Second World War also a military commander."
Himmler wasn't involved in military strategy, tactics or leading troups. The only exception was a minor Waffen-SS unit which he might have commanded during the final weeks. (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the suggestion above was made by me Boeing720 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Further in "Relationship with Hitler" , according to the British (?) TV-documentary series "Hitler's Bodyguards" , it was stated that although "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler" formally was a part of the SS, they were not subordinated to Himmler but to Hermann Göring. Hence Himmler attempted to get rid of Göring around 1933, but didn't succeed in his lies about Goering was about to overthrough Hitler. It was also stated that Hitler originally had no thoughts to assassinate Ernst Röhm, and the reason for what happened in June -34 infact was based on Himmler telling lies about Röhm to Hitler aswell.
Also - Himmler crated a Nazi funeral ceremony (used at the National Funeral of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel) , and in secret attempted to create a Nazi-religion as well. Without Hitler's knowledge. Boeing720 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the lead to read "briefly a military commander". The rest we can't add without good sourcing -- Diannaa (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Boeing720 and Diannaa: From looking at the article info box, Himmler was the Reichsführer-SS from 1925 to 1945. Reichsführer-SS being a "special title and rank... for the commander of the Schutzstaffel (SS)." So as long as the Schutzstaffel is considered part of the military, the first version of the lead sentence mentioned, would not be incorrect (while the latter including briefly would). Just because someone wasn't "involved in military strategy, tactics or leading troups" doesn't mean they didn't hold the title of commander. While it might make more sense if that were the case, there isn't necessarily a correlation between the two. Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
First the questions from "Hitler's Bodyguards" was just ment as a kind of "any one else that's watched this , or has read about it" ?. A call for (written) soures.
What the SS or Schutzstaffel might have thought about themselves doesn't make all of them soldiers. Only the Waffen-SS can be regarded as military, from a common global perspective. "Fighting" to exterminate imprisoned human beings based on race and religion usually doesn't count as military matters, and this was also one reason to why also the Waffen-SS was separated from the Wehrmacht. And in any case hasn't Himmler gone to history as primary a "military leader". I apporove totally of Diannaa's change of the lead. Boeing720 (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I originally planned to further clarify my statement, but I trimmed it down and it didn't make the cut. "as long as the Schutzstaffel [SS] is considered part of the military", I didn't mean for my comment to reflect that they were indeed military, simply that if the SS were part of the military then the statement the Himmler was a "military commander" would be true. The SS either falls under the definition of military or it doesn't. The SS seems to fit the dictionary definition of military. defines the Military as 'the military establishment of a nation; the armed forces." So what would differentiate an armed citizen or an organization (e.g. the police) from "the Military"? I assume it would fall to what the government of the time deemed to be military. So if the Third Reich considered the SS a military organization (I'm not saying if it did or didn't as I do not know), would they not be military? Just throwing an idea out here, as the backing behind my point on the wording seems to boil down to whether or not the SS were military. Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Himmler personally led an army group (very badly) in early 1945, as well as the reserve army in 1944 (with a degree of success), so he can be fairly described as a military commander. Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Briefly is open to interpretation, perhaps a better qualifier could be found. Do we even need to "quantify" the length of Himmler's tenure as a commander in the lead? Perhaps not. Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Diannaa and Nick-D. As to another point raised, Hermann Göring was never a member of the SS, nor had anything to do with the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler (LSSAH). The LSSAH was under Josef "Sepp" Dietrich and answered to Hitler; it did have a certain amount of autonomy outside of Himmler (which he hated) but was part of the SS. Where the confusion most likely lies is in the fact that Göring did form the Gestapo in April 1933 and in April 1934 turned it over to Himmler and Heydrich in a facing saving ceremony. There are many RS sources to support these facts. Kierzek (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Both me and Kierzek have watched Hitler's Bodyguards: How Hitler's Bodyguard Worked and we can easily agree that it never once claims that Göring was in charge or nominal head of the LSSAH. Nor does it claim he was a member of the SS! Don't know where that statement came from. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The "briefly a military commander" glued on the end of the first sentence reads really badly. We surely wasn't the opening sentence to be clear. Do we really need this stuck right up front? He was lots of things. His brief military career is pretty unimportant, but even if it should be in the lede, can't it have a sentence of its own a bit further down? This need to pile things as far up-front as possible does not produce good prose. Also, "the Nazi Party (NSDAP) of Nazi Germany"? Really? Paul B (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked it. Kierzek (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


How does the sections about the 20 July plot and Himmler as a military commander relate to the Holocaust? I think we should make the two sections of their own instead of subsections. Any objections? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No objection; it reads better. Kierzek (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

I propose replacing the current infobox image with this one, any objections? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No objection from me. I think it's a fine image. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I just think we should included an image of him wearing his SS hat with the deaths head insignia on it, which very many people associate with the SS. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
No objection from me. Kierzek (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Replaced! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Photo as a child taken in 1907?[edit]

If that year is true, his younger brother would only have been one year old since he was born in December 1905. It seems unlikely that he was only one in that photo.

@Jonas Vinther: The image has inadquate source information. Where did you get the image, and how did you determine what year it was taken? -- Diannaa (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
A photo from Gebhard Ludwig Himmler is said to be dated 1906 and clearly the ages are different then the "1907" photo in this article. Kierzek (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Diannaa: I found the image via a Google search. I determined the year was 1907 because this image, which was in the article before, is dated 1907 and Himmler is seen weaning the exact same clothes and the background is the same, so I assumed it was taken the same year. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you please add a link to the source website to the file description page? The current sourcing is inadequate. The source for the File:Himmler7.jpg is this website, where the photo is undated. I am taking out the date from the caption. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Committed suicide"?[edit]

This seems a bit old-fashioned and judgemental because it (wrongly?) implies that it was a crime; I think it more accurate and more neutral to state that he killed himself with poison. --John (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, John. How is this "old-fashioned"; further, the taking of his own life is the act and action he chose; it has nothing to do with being or implying a crime; it is a self-chosen action and the way it is presented is more accurate then what was written as a replacement. I also don't see how POV applies. With that said, I await input of others herein. Kierzek (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The word "commit" is usually associated with crimes. From our article on suicide,

The word "commit" was used in reference to it being illegal, however many organisations have stopped it because of the negative connotation.[1][2]


  1. ^ Holt, Gerry."When suicide was illegal". BBC News. 3 August 2011. Accessed 11 August 2011.
  2. ^ "Guardian & Observer style guide". Guardian website. The Guardian. Retrieved 29 November 2011. 
On style matters, the BBC and the Guardian are good guides. Do you have any modern style guides which make a point of recommending "committed suicide"? --John (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kierzek: For context on the terminology, see Suicide#Definitions or a longer version at Suicide terminology#Controversy over use of "commit" and "committed" where it explains why it is no longer considered politically correct and suggests using "died by suicide" or "killed himself". I don't have a comment on the wording for this particular article and will think about it. — Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Committed suicide is what the historian RS sources state; including Kershaw, Weale and Longerich, the latter who is probably the most recent one and as an attorney I can tell you in the area where I practice, the wording is not seen as a loaded statement, so to speak, just a factual action. But if consensus is to change it (awaiting Diannaa), I would agree to "died by suicide". Kierzek (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about this, but Oxford says "commit" means to do something bad or illegal, so I suppose we should change it. I would prefer "killed himself" as being the more straightforward and common terminology. — Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
'Commit' used in the manner in question is still commonly used and there is no hard and fast rule which is in place which has changed that. With that said, I can tell you that I will "commit" to going with consensus, even though I disagree with a change in the descriptive wording used. Kierzek (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


On 22 October it was claimed that Himmler had been apprehended, on 21 May 2945, by Lance Sergeant Patrick Mannion and four other named British soldiers [3], [4]. I don't suppose this is particularly notable unless you were the descendant of one of these men. It seems this was also covered on local BBC News: [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should list the names of the men who apprehended him. It's an unnecessary detail, not of general historical interest. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't believe it should be included as its trivia. Kierzek (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


Isn't it true that nobody else on the German side could have had military success in 1945? (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:485F:F7FB:DD1F:D6F2 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC))

Do you have a source for that? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Germany had lost the war and was on the verge of total collapse in January 1945. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:485F:F7FB:DD1F:D6F2 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC))
No, a real source, like you might find in a public library, for instance? Martinevans123 (talk)