Talk:Night of the Long Knives/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

discussion of the article

There should be mention of those non-SA figures that were killed - ex-Chancellor von Schleicher and his wife, ex-Bavarian Premier von Kahr even the music teacher Willi Schmidt mistaken for the local SA leader Wilhelm Schmidt.

Removed questions and discussions from article. - Patrick 09:35 May 1, 2003 (UTC).

Previous version of the text parts:

The purge was the result of the political struggle between the Nazi leaders subordinate to Hitler - Hermann Göring, Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich and Ernst Röhm, the leader of the SA. Hitler encouraged political infighting amongst his subordinates, and the power of Röhm and his violent organization scared his rivals. Himmler had evidence manufactured to defame Röhm and presented it to Hitler. //source?//

While Hitler had been personally rather fond of Röhm he was under pressure to reduce his influence. German military leaders were unhappy with the proposal of Röhm that the German army be absorbed into the larger SA, and the industrialists that supported Hitler were concerned over Röhm's socialist leanings. Members of the Nazi party also viewed Röhm and some other SA leaders with distaste because they were homosexuals. //sources for all this???//

With all these groups arrayed against Röhm, Hitler decided to act. //According to...//, he ordered all the SA leaders to attend a meeting at the Hanselbauer Hotel in Wiesse, near Munich. On June 29 Hitler arrived with a strong SS force; he was present as Röhm was arrested, and in the following hours other SA leaders were also arrested, and many of these, //including/for instance LIST NAMES // were shot out of hand. Apparently Hitler intended to pardon Röhm, but eventually decided to have him die. It is believed that Röhm was offered a chance of suicide but was eventually shot.

Hitler announced the purge on 13 July, claiming 61 had been executed and 13 shot while resisting arrest. "I become the supreme judge of the German people. I gave the order to shoot the ringleaders". //source???//

\\"I become the supreme judge of the German people--this does not sound like an accurate translation. "I have become" -- perhaps. "I became" --perhaps. But not "I become". The truth is, that since we are not restricted by size/pages/paper, there's not reason every direct quote should not be in the original AND translation, with a cite to the source of the original. This supposed quote is an example.//

..it should be mentioned that not only SA members have been killed but also some SA-unrelated opponents of AH

• The article already mentions it, but perhaps it isn't clear enough: "The Night of the Long Knives (in German: Nacht der langen Messer, 29–30 June, 1934) was the Nazi purge of the Sturmabteilung (S.A.) leadership, and Hitler's political opponents; between 77 (official) and 400 people are believed to have been murdered." Have a go at making it clearer if you like. Motor 12:21, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

name?

What is the history of the name, does it reference any work of literature? When was the purge first called Night of the Long Knives? --130.161.31.140 30 June 2005 13:06 (UTC)

I have to say that in Germany nobody knows anything about "Nacht der langen Messer" or "Reichsmordwoche" its called only "(Ernst) Röhm Putsch". (Okay) After a quick search I found "Nacht der langen Messer" but "Reichsmordwoche" exist definitly not in the german language. So, please call it also Röhm Putsch and no longer "Reichsmordwoche"

That would be appropriate in the German Wikipedia, but here it should be under the name that most English speakers know it by. I think the name is fine, although we should note the other names in the intro and have proper redirects. --Dhartung | Talk 9 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

Hitler himself used the term Nacht der langen Messer in his speech to the Reichstag on July 13, 1934, wherein he justified the purge to the German nation. See the transcript of that day's Reichstag session (in German). The reference is in the right column, right above the marginal note (D). JonRoma 05:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hitler was not elected

As detailed quite nicely at [[1]] and contrary to popular belief, Hitler was not elected.

Here's my thumbnail summary of the info on the above-referenced page:

Sept. 1930: Reichstag elections, Nazis win 18.3% of seats, becoming second largest party in Germany.

1931: Chancellor Heinrich Bruning attempts to negotiate with Hitler in hopes of convincing Hitler to agree to an extension of President Hindenburg's term, and avoid an election in 1932. Hitler declines.

1932: Presidential election, Hitler comes in second in both rounds, receiving 35% in the second round.

Hindenburg dismisses Bruning as Chancellor and appoints Franz von Papen, who immediately calls for new Reichstag elections.

July 1932: Reichstag elections, Nazis win 230 seats, becoming the largest party in the Reichstag.

Reichstag votes no-confidence (by 84%) in the government, Reichstag dissolved, new elections called.

November 1932: Nazis lose seats but remain largest party in the Reichstag; Hindenburg dismisses Papen in favor of Kurt von Schleicher to try his hand at forming a stable coalition in the Reichstag. Schleicher fails, and Papen (along with a coalition of German businessmen, see [[2]]) convinces Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor.

So, Hitler himself was never elected to office, but was appointed Chancellor.

63.206.91.183 08:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, you didn't really need to argue in such detail, I don't think anybody would go to bat for what was essentially a very brief summary wording. It suffices, simply, that Chancellor was not an elective office; it was a role like Prime Minister. I took the opportunity to put more political context in the intro, and just a note that I removed the words mass murder because they just don't seem to fit -- this wasn't Jonestown or Columbine, it was a series of assassinations. --Dhartung | Talk 07:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

appy polly loggies, I'm a freshly-minted newbie here. I find it an important distinction, as the so-called "lessons of history" commonly derived from the commonly-believed, but inaccurate, version of events, when viewed in light of the actual sequence of events as outlined, are turned exactly on their head. But I'm sure I'm violating a dozen policies by mentioning this, so I'll shut up now. 63.202.176.181 21:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs just a tad too much. Prime Ministers are technically appointed, indeed the current incumbent Chancellor of Germany is appointed - to extrapolate from that the fact that most of the current world leaders (working within parliamentary democracies) are not elected is just a bit daft. I agree that the know-it-all "pop fact" that comes out all too frequently of "Hitler was elected into power by democracy", and those who say it are often ignorant of the wider context of post WWI Germany, its fractured, unstable political system, its dejected people and the extremist movements which meandered through all of European politics at the time. Nor do the know-it-alls say that in the days after coming to high office Hitler effectively installed himself as dictator by dismissing all opposition (in more ways than one) and eradicating the main democratic engine (by literally setting fire to the place). Obviously if the democratic process had been allowed to continue then things would have occurred differently - however the raw fact remains that Hitler got to that position of power through democratic means.

I would agree with you however in regard to the "mass murder" and I would suggest that the article be reworded. I only have Churchill's "The Gathering Storm" as my reference (which I am currently reading and the reason I browsed to this page) but he suggests estimates of those killed "between five and seven thousand" (P. 90) and his description of how the murders were carried out throughout the day certainly fits the mass murder horrors of Columbine

"All the afternoon the executions proceeded in Munich at brief intervals. The firing parties of eight had to be relieved from time to time on account of the mental stress of the soldiers. But for several hours the recurrent volleys were heard every ten minutes or so" (p. 90)

Churchill doesn't give the impression that these were just "a series of assassinations".

Perhaps there are contemporary sources which disprove Churchill's estimates, and I concede that this was written in the immediate aftermath of WWII when the mists of current events may have clouded the facts somewhat. But I though it was worth brining up since this is an obvious discrepancy between what I am currently reading and what wiki says! SFC9394 00:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Opening

I'm not sure that Reichsmordwoche should be translated as "Imperial Week of Murder." Reich can also mean realm, or more colloquially the German state itself. It appears that the translation was added by an anonymous user [3], and it really feels like the work of Google and whatnot. It was originally added by WHEELER back in 2004 [4]; I'd ask him for a source but I think that he has left the project. I'm loath to translate it at all–German compound nouns really lose something auf Englisch. I'm removing the translation for the moment. Ideas? Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with removing it for now. I think we should find an authoritative source such as William L. Shirer who wrote about it at the time and can give a contemporary translation. Guessing is just wrong. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This:

The Night of the Long Knives, also known as Reichsmordwoche or "the Blood Purge" (German, Nacht der langen Messer)

- is a bit of a mess, mostly because it separates "The Night of the Long Knives" from "(German, Nacht der langen Messer)", which since it's a translation should be right by it so that it's clear to the reader what means what. Having it two more terms apart is confusing. I am about to put that right, so it will say:

The Night of the Long Knives (German, Nacht der langen Messer), also known as Reichsmordwoche or "the Blood Purge"

- that's a bit better, but it's still messy because it still looks to the casual reader as if "Reichsmordwoche" and "the Blood Purge" could be equivalents/translations, and, unless my German has deserted me, they are not. Perhaps someone else would like a go at this? 138.37.188.109 10:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there a reference to back this up?

"It also provided a legal grounding for the Nazi regime, as the German courts and cabinet quickly swept aside centuries of legal prohibition against extrajudicial killings to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phecht7 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the reference "Macdonogh 2001" refers to?

Near the end of the article, some quotes by Kaiser Wilhelm II are supported by two shortened footnotes labeled "Macdonogh 2001, pp. 452–52" & "Macdonogh 2001, pp. 452–52". However, there isn't a full citation in the bibliography written by anyone with the surname Macdonogh (or any variations on the spelling of it). Does anyone know what book/work is being referred to here? Some cursory Google searches haven't been helpful. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 20:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems the editor who added those citations in 2015 didn't add Macdonogh to the bibliography. Looking at the Kaiser Wilhelm II page, there is a citation for Macdonogh, Giles (2001), The Last Kaiser: William the Impetuous, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ISBN 978-1-84212-478-9, which is probably the source. --Mikaka (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"Papen" vs. "von Papen"

An IP editor is edit warring to change references to "Papen" to "von Papen". In point of fact, the "von" in German names is quite often dropped in repeated references, and these names are usually alphabetized by the name which comes after the "von". Just looking casually through my library, I find that Kershaw, Fest and Bullock all follow this convention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, these names ar alphabetized by the name after 'von', not usually, but always at least in the country of origin, Germany, and in Holland with names after 'van'; not in the USA though where they think that Von or Van is should lead in the alphabetisation.

That others do something does not make it right; others take drugs, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.115.143.1 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Implying left/right ideological motive

I don't see why it's necessary to point out that the Strasserists were the left-wing of the Nazi party unless to insinuate that the Nazis were right-wingers and the killings were of a political nature relating to the left/right spectrum. Being the left-wing of the party was incidental; the killings were not motivated by right/left economic agendas but rather consolidation of Hitler's power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8DC7:3700:15EC:7100:5DC5:20E (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect. The tension between the Strasserites (and Rohm and the SA, for that matter) and the mainline Nazis was fundamentally about the "Socialism" in the "National Socialist German Worker's Party". The 25 Points which Hitler announced in 1920 (and which were never overturned as official party policy) had significant socialist ideas embedded in it, and the Strasserites wanted the party to fulfill those promises with more a socialist outlook. Rohm and the SA, on the other hand, were not satisfied with Hitler's ascension to power, and wanted a "Second Revolution" which would re-organize German political like along more socialist lines. Hitler -- who had socialist instincts regarding the organization of German public life (Strength Through Joy, for instance, and the Hitler Youth and BDM) -- never showed any real desire for a politically socialist-style Germany, which is not to say that the state didn't significantly control German industry, especially when it came to the war effort. So, while the purge was at one level about consolidating Hitler's control of the party and the state (and placating the Army about the SA), the divisions that in large part defined who it was who would be purged were signficantly formed by the socialist leanings of the "left-wing" of the Party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Figure of Speech

Arising in, one would surmise, the 1980s, a common figure of speech, especially in a business context, for a sudden clear-out of staff, particularly at a management level, is to refer to mass firings as the night of the long knives. Also quite common, often in a blackly humorous vein, is the night of the long envelopes (i.e., letters of dismissal), and (usually in Politics for some reason) the night of the long telephone calls.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

My edit: "Concerned with the legality of the massacre..." This means Hitler was concerned that whether people would see his killings as lawful, so right away, he passed a law that legalized his killings retroactively.

Beyond My Ken's edit: "Concerned with presenting the massacre as legally sanctioned..." This wording is problematic. Hitler was not concerned with presenting the massacre as legally sanctioned. That's what he wanted. In other words, Hitler wanted to present the massacre as legally sanctioned. Another proposal to rephrase it, "Wanting to present the massacre as legally sanctioned..." Both of my proposed solutions have better wording than the current statement. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Seriously? You offer no explanation or any argument to defend your edit except 1 word "nope" which doesn't prove anything. You do not own this article nor any article. The wording was a bit problematic, so I had the right to change it. Stop reverting it based on your own ego. You should offer a solid explanation instead. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

My explanation is quite simple: you are misunderstanding the clear meaning of the words as they currently exist in the article, and there is no reason to alter them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, I have a very strong command of the English language. My understanding is excellent. You offer absolutely zero valid argument to support your position. All you've done is exposing your weakness in semantics. Saying I misunderstood without evidence is meaningless. Anyone can say things, but making logical statements is a different story. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

My goodness, that's an enormous chip you're carrying on your shoulder, as you converse with a native speaker. You can't even imagine the possibility that your "command" might be a tiny bit less than you think it is. I believe it would be better for all concerned if you were to return to bossing people around on Wiktionary, since you're clearly not cut out to edit here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Native speaker doesn't mean jack. I know plenty of native speakers that have very poor grasp of grammar and literature. Vietnamese is my mother tongue, but how do you know I'm not a native speaker of English? Your argument doesn't mean anything nor does it prove your English is any better. Instead of arguing on the contents, you're continuously using personal attacks and 0 valid point so far. Now, I understand why you're still not an admin in En Wikipedia even after all those years because you're clearly not cut out to be an admin here. You're beyond help. I'm a crat in Vi Wiktionary and an admin (it's called eliminator) in Vi Wikipedia. Let me give you a head-up. I'll continue to edit here as long as I like. If you have a problem with that, you should stop editing Wikipedia. Lastly, hate to disappoint you, I'm not a boss, only a beloved servant of the free knowledge in Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Now you have 67 edits to English Wikipedia, only 33 of which actually contributed to the encyclopedia. Good show! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not even my main Wiki. As of now, my 67 edits are still a lot higher than your 0 edit in Vi Wikipedia. I've written some FA, GA and many other articles in Vi Wikipedia, probably more than you. Quality over quantity is my philosophy. Also let me enlighten you, edits in discussion space are still counted as contributions. Most of the time, my initiated discussion led to improvement to Wikipedia. The only way to resolve conflict is through discussion; conflict is inevitable in building the biggest enclypedia. I was careless on Hitler article, so I lost the debate. Though, that rarely happens through my 13 years of contributing. Your chance of winning a discussion against me is slim if we ever encounter again. At the end of the day, the only victor is Wikipedia. Your logical skill in argument is quite "good". All you can do was going off topics. Keep up the good work. Bravo! P.S.: this discussion has come to an end as I already got the change I wanted. Adios. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

FA concerns

This review is part of WP:URFA/2020. I am concerned that this article might not meet FA criteria anymore. There are multiple sentences and paragraphs that are uncited, MOS:SANDWICH throughout the article (especially in the "Against conservatives and old enemies" section), and a "Further Reading" section that should be consulted and either used as sources or removed. "Macdonogh, Giles (2001)." is listed in the bibliography but doesn't seem to be used in the article, and all book citations should be similarly formatted and listed in the Bibliography section. Is anyone willing to bring this article back to FA standards? Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Röhm scandal

New article, should probably be linked somewhere from this one but I'm not sure where. (t · c) buidhe 08:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)