Talk:Hermann Göring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hermann Göring 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.
June 2, 2012 Good article nominee Listed

Role in the Reichstag[edit]

This article contains nothing about Goering's position as Speaker of the Reichstag -- and HHitler's apparent fear of his control of the Party.

Nor is there anything about his personal cruelty to the left members of the Reichstag after they had been thrown into the camps.

-dlj. User talk:DavidLJ [1]

Battle of Britain section[edit]

I believe it is essential the Battle of Britain section should mention Goring's advice to Hitler to ignore the UK altogether, and instead overrun Spain and North Africa. There was never any chance at all of Operation Sea Lion being a success, since the German navy had been badly damaged in Norway and the Luftwaffe was not in a position to defeat the RAF. If Hitler had followed Goring's advice Germany could have won the war. (92.10.136.62 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC))

I have reverted your addition again. The website you used is a tourist website for Gibraltar. It doesn't say where they got their information, and it doesn't list an author. This is not a good enough source to use to add material to a Good Article. And it's not fair to put the onus on me to find a source! I don't have access to the Goring biography here that I used to bring the article to GA; I can do that, but I would have to bring it in on intra-library loan, and it will take 4 to 6 weeks to get it. Looking through my other main sources (Evans, Shirer) this material is not mentioned. It's up to you to provide a good source, not me. By the way, the date of 17 September 1940 cannot possibly be correct for the postponement of Operation Sealion, as the Blitz was ongoing until May 1941. -- Dianna (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Shirer (1960) says "diversions in Africa should be studied", but the idea came from Hitler, not Goring, as noted by Raeder and Halder after a meeting with Hitler in summer 1940. Shirer, pages 764–765. -- Dianna (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Blitz was used by Hitler in an attempt to break the will of the British people to continue the war. It is likely that he never intended to invade as it would have been impossible. (92.7.19.93 (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

That's not true. Extensive planning was undertaken for an invasion, including the selection of landing points, commanders, troops, and targets for the first day and the first week. Troops were moved into positions along the coast and engaged in training for amphibious warfare. The invasion never took place, as the air superiority which was considered to be a prerequisite was never obtained. Evans 2008, page 136-145; Melvin 2010 page 186-193. -- Dianna (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Air superiority would not have been enough, as Grand Admiral Donitz admitted. The Germans had lost too many ships in Norway to get the men across, and the much larger Royal Navy would have destroyed the German fleet before it reached Dover. If anything the troop build-up was designed to keep pressure on the British government. (92.7.19.93 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

Aside from the terrible source used, the IP is right. S-L was indeed postponed on 17 September 1940 and its chances of success, with air superiority or not, were slim. It is debatable whether ignoring Britain and going for North Africa and the Middle East/Med. could have won the war. That would assume the British were the main enemy of the Reich. I would say it was ultimately the Soviets, followed by the Americans. A success against the British Empire would not have diminished the enormous (and arguably greater) threat of these two nations. Dapi89 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The USA were still neutral at the time. If the UK had been invaded, the effect would have massively prolonged the war (having no base of operations to launch Overlord). Also, you are discounting the technological developments that would have been stifled - Tube Alloys (started by UK & Canada, later renamed Manhattan Project) the ongoing development of RADAR, jet engines and the cavity magnetron, to name but a few examples. Also, with the emptying of the UK coffers, the USA economy would not have been kick-started into a war economy (the transfer of wealth is what helped drag the USA out of the economic doldrums of the 1930's). 135.196.157.83 (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC) FW

The United States was NOT neutral at this time - Roosevelt had been giving material support to Britain for years. The Americans were not technically at war, but they had definitely taken sides at this point.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nephew was US Bomber Pilot in the European Theater[edit]

I was just reading[1] that Hermann Göring's nephew, US Army Air Force Captain Werner Goering, was a bomber pilot flying missions over Nazi Germany and that the FBI placed a copilot in his crew with orders to kill him if the plane was shot down because of the propaganda value if he should be captured.
Dick Kimball (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Frater, Stephen; Hell Above Earth; New York; St. Martin's Press; 2012
See [2], apparently Werner Goering wasn't related to Hermann, although at the time US military intelligence thought he was, hence the kill order Mztourist (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert deletions[edit]

I have reverted deletions of very relevant images of Luftwaffe aircraft. 217.43.225.6 (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Since your edit has been challenged, per the WP:BRD cycle, you should not re-add the images unless there is a consensus to do so. Sorry I don't agree with the addition of these photos, which I don't think are very relevant at all. The Supermarine Spitfire and Boeing B-17 (which are not Luftwaffe aircraft) are certainly outside the scope of an article on Goering. Flight Lieutenant J H G McArthur, named in the caption of one photo, is definitely unrelated to the subject of Goering. If people want to know what Heydrich looked like, they can visit his article. Per the Manual of Style, there should never be so many images that they spill over into the next section. Also, there should never be images on both side of the page with prose in between, as the prose gets squished. That doesn't work at all on a narrow display such as a laptop or tablet. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Aircraft pics have no use for an article on the MAN - not the Nazi-German air force of the time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

World War II[edit]

I'd rather this section be covered, briefly, in his leadership of the Luftwaffe and his contributions, or not, to the German effort in the air war. At the moment it is a brief summation of World War II and his Luftwaffe's involvement in it. Dapi89 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Remains[edit]

The article states: "Göring's body was displayed at the execution ground for the witnesses of the executions. The bodies were cremated and the ashes were scattered." Which bodies are meant, and where were they scattered? Concerning Göring, the German article claims that his ashes were scattered in a branch of the Isar.--Hubon (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"The bodies" refers to all the people sentenced to death as a result of the Nuremberg Trial. Those receiving the death sentence were Goering, von Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Sauckel, Seyss-Inquart, and Jodl. (And Bormann, in absentia.) We can't add unsourced information to a Good Article; that's why I removed it. The German wiki is not considered as a reliable source. But I was able to source it to Overy 2001 page 205, so I have added it back in. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Dianaa! One more thing: Now it says "The bodies were cremated and the ashes were scattered in the Isar River." But wasn't it only a branch of the Isar? Sorry I can't help with proper reference, otherwise I would do the editing by myself... But maybe you can verify the aspect with your literature at hand. I'd be glad to hear from you. Best regards,--Hubon (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That bit of info was not present in the source I used, so I did not include it. It doesn't matter to Goering's story whether it was a branch, anabranch, or the main river. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think it still should be stated correctly – irrelevant whether it matters in the aggregate or not. By the way, the branch usually stated (cf. German article) is the Ehle. I just would like to avoid citing a German source here... Best regards,--Hubon (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of comparison with Communists[edit]

I have several times removed this edit, because I don't think it's important enough to include in the article. The citation is from a paper presented at a 2012 conference. I don't see why the mention is notable enough to be included in the article. Comments are welcome, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Trivia and if added would carry WP:UNDUE weight. Just because something is stated and can be cited does not make it notable. Kierzek (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: I advise you not to write tales (I write this without offenses). And nobody forbid you correct existing text or even title of the new section. You can make neutral point of you - including (instead removal of information of the EU level). Dr. Jan - developer (one of) of different international legal acts against communism (by the way). Super expert! If somebody creates damage against this - I never can understand. You simply never was born in the USSR. We hailed Lenin as Chinese people currently. We were slaves till 1985. But Chinese communism is fake currently (capitalism instead be hungry). My thinkings have no relation to this article (I respect neutral point of view and related rules of Wikipedia). I saw that you love Paul McCartney (he sang about USSR because he never was in this hell).

"Karl Marx is the ideological father of communism. Although history has refuted communism, the quotes of Karl Marx can still be found in intellectual newspapers across Western Europe, even on an ascending scale. I emphasize that these are concurring quotes. Even references to Leon Trotsky are not exceptional, also not in negative connotation. This is much the same as if they were references to Hermann Goering in a positive connotation." (the same - "paper").

Was symbolic comparison with the great meaning: Goring is almost Hitler as is known, including. New section can be supplemented gradually (related materials about Goring and other known communists). Encyclopedic info must be represented in this article.

If we include this opinion and no others, it makes it seem like Čarnogurský is an authority on this topic, and he is not. He is a politician, not a historian. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • He is reseacher and expert on different issues (related to totalitarism - including). He is world known politician. He say so and we must display this fact. His knowledge in many times more than at any historian. See his powers (he was used for these issues - including). And section will be developed.
First, use four tildas (~) to sign your posts, or log in under your UserID. Secondly, we "must" nothing. We are writing an amateur online encyclopedia, and if this source is deemed unsuitable, then it won't be used. 98.67.1.123 (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Carpet bombing[edit]

Closing discussion resulting from edit warring by a HarveyCarter sockpuppet

The RAF was carpet bombing German cities by 1942. (81.159.6.5 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC))

The RAF were still lucky if they could get a concentrated area attack at this stage. Hardly Carpet bombing. In fact, if you look at Carpet bombing, you will see that it is a very unsuitable description. Bomber command only achieved a handful of concentrated bombing successes throughout the entire war. The situation by 1945 was the result of 4 years of cumulative attacks, numbering in the thousands. The hundreds of 1942 raids carried out by B.C were scattered pinpricks apart from Cologne and Lubeck. Irondome (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Goering's art collection[edit]

During his trial Goering was able to prove that his personal art collection was purchased legitimately at usual market value through an art dealer.

He was Minister for the Arts and therefore responsible for protecting significant cultural artifacts according to agreements made in the Hague after WW1. Goering did precisely as he was required and the works that are often mentioned as having been 'looted' would have likely been destroyed, especially by the allied deliberate carpet bombing of civilian dwellings (seven German cities were destroyed before the Blitz began three months later.

The Germans are accused of stealing because they did not allow artworks to leave Germany during the war. Does anyone believe that it would have been possible for anyone to have taken similar important artworks from within Britain into Germany during WW2? In this identical case has anyone accused Britain of stealing (other than the Greek/Turkish 'Elgin Marbles"?

Compared with the looting of Germany after WW1 and the looting of Germany after WW2, the artworks seized by the Germans during WW2 is miniscule/microscopic. in 1945 the USSR seized 450,000 rail freight cars of German property including 800,000 artworks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.220 (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Year of joining the Nazi Party[edit]

The "Early Nazi Career" section indicates he joined the Nazi party in 1923 but the "After World War 1" section indicates he joined in 1922. Could someone more knowledgable on this topic and on the editing procedures of Wikipedia please help clarify the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.45.177.98 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I will check tonight after I get home. I have RS sources for same. Kierzek (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The version that passed GA shows 1922 only; the content from the USHMM was added later. I think we should go with 1922 (sourced to Manvell) and remove the other, unless further citations can be found that support 1923 as the date. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked its 1922. Sourced to Miller, p. 426. Kierzek (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)