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
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Military / 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 military biography work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Munich (marked as High-importance).

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

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)

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)