User talk:Obenritter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Matters for Discussion[edit]

Presently co-authoring a college textbook chapter on Eugenics and the Holocaust with a colleague - will only be periodically available.

Million Award: Thanks for your work in this important article[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Schutzstaffel (estimated annual readership: 1,700,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Diannaa:. Wish I could be more active but this college textbook project I am engaged with right now is involved. It would be easier if I could catch up with Richard Weikart but that guy is super busy and pretty prolific in authorship these last few years. His expertise on Darwin, eugenics and the Nazi endeavors with racial hygiene is without precedent. I've also been trying to get in touch with Wolfgang Bialas and Lothar Fritze to no avail as their joint high-profile project on Nazi Ideology and Ethics was sponsored by the Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft which sent their stars sailing. Both are in such high demand as lecturers across Europe, Australia, and the U.S. that pinning either of them down is next to impossible. Anyway, such is life. Be well. --Obenritter (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

National Socialist Motor Corps[edit]

Hello: between my sources at home (McNab, Hamilton and Littlejohn) and two others from Google Books, I have done what I can to improve this article. When you have some time, can you have a look and punch it up with some detail and RS cites? Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Greeting Kierzek. Now that we've gotten the meat of our sources together, my colleague and I are making steady progress so I should be a little more active around here. The National Socialist Motor Corps is an interesting phenomenon. Seems like books on Ferdinand Porsche might contain some revelations about this organization. I'll see what I can find. Mach's gut. --Obenritter (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kierzek: Hopefully I've added enough to improve the article a bit. Unfortunately, there's not that much out there in English and I just don't have time to read through all the German sources since I am still engaged in that textbook project. Also, ordering books and articles from German language academic organizations is not cheap. Some I can get through the university - many others require paid subscriptions. The Seidler article certainly brought up the general academic quality of the page, but I have little to nothing on the French NSKK - and my French is too elementary to trudge through French language sources. When I run into French, I hit-up my French capable colleagues - none of whom would ever help with a Wiki-article, sadly. --Obenritter (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it much improved and I covered the French NSKK adequately, I believe. You are right that the organization gets little attention in the book world. Thanks again, Kierzek (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for the improvements to this article (including sfn of cites). I believe redundancy in part of the "History" section and "Organization" section should be dealt with through edits for concision. See what you think; I don't have time at the moment but it is on my list of things to do. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe a fresh set of eyes would be helpful @Diannaa: and/or @K.e.coffman: --Obenritter (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I try to give it another look tomorrow; if no one else does before then; now off to bed for me. Kierzek (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I took a stab at it. And I know Diannaa is on a short Wiki-break and K.e. is busy with other articles. Kierzek (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks better - certainly less redundant. Right now I am just playing hooky from that textbook project I am otherwise engaged with at present. Sometimes coming here to edit is a nice break. Hopefully this project will be over by the close of the summer. Starting in the early part of 2017, I have some post-grad research projects that may pull me a way for a couple years or more. I intend on occasionally Wiki-editing, just less than usual. Many of the articles we've been concerned with are shaping up thanks to our combined efforts over the past two years. Be well. --Obenritter (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. If you ever get back over to Germany, maybe you can do a wee little research into those little nagging questions I have, such as: the date of death for Günther Schwägermann and the total membership number for the SS for the year 1945. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nagging thing...[edit]

I have over the last few years read different start dates for the WVHA. Several have the start date as February 1942; but what bothered me was one or two which had a start date of the 1930s for the WVHA. Well, after your latest edits to Pohl, I did some more checking and it is clear that the VuWHA and the related/expanded and consolidated main office of the WVHA were being mixed up. In the further cross-checking, from what I have found, it was the Verwaltung und Wirtschaftshauptamt Hauptamt (VuWHA) which was set up under the control of Oswald Pohl in 1939. Then in 1942, Himmler consolidated all of the offices for which Pohl was responsible into one, creating the SS Main Economic and Administrative Office (Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt; WVHA). Have you found anything different? Kierzek (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Over the many years of studying this era, my understanding accords yours. Himmler merged the offices in 1942, but it was Pohl who provided the framework for the creation of the WVHA by building up the predecessor orgs from which it emerged. No sources I have encountered indicate anything otherwise. In 1939, there were already multiple SS business ventures and they only continued to grow (quarry, construction materials, foodstuffs, forestry, textiles, fisheries, soft-drinks and mineral water, furniture manufacturing, cement, lime, brick, printing, ceramics, even shale-oil and alternative synthetic products) - so Himmler was looking for a way to consolidate them (making it easier to oversee them). Hence the creation of the WVHA by 1942.
If I run across something that contradicts this basic understanding, I'll let you know. BTW - When I looked at the original Pohl article, it was missing so much significant information, that I felt compelled to take the article to task. Feel free to clean up/organize my mess.--Obenritter (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh by the way - I picked up Ben Shepherd's new book, Hitler's Soldiers: The German Army in the Third Reich. It's not bad so far. --Obenritter (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Unused sources[edit]

Deleting unused sources is a good thing to do when you come across it, so thanks for the clean up. Some books which you believe are important to the subject can be moved to "Further reading". Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I was thinking about adding a Further Reading segment on this since some of the sources I originally used that were important ones got deleted by the overzealous editors who tried to delete the Ideology page. Your comment has motivated me accordingly. --Obenritter (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, and big thanks for getting rid of the book by Terry Goldsworthy. We don't need that one re-appearing. :) Kierzek (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Kierzek: Agreed -- we need to pay attention to that one in particular as it is unfortunately cited by a lot of amateur historians on Wikipedia.--Obenritter (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I was not aware of that. I will replace it when I come across it. Kierzek (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Less so these days as I have replaced a number of them already.It will require a team to police such use however. --Obenritter (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that you are done with Wilhelm Canaris...[edit]

...Ernst Kaltenbrunner could use some more work and cites and Karl Hanke, as well; if you are interested and have the time. I am sure you have the books needed. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually - I do not own Peter Black's Ernst Kaltenbrunner: Ideological Soldier of the Third Reich -- somebody who possesses that work is better suited than I to edit that particular page. --Obenritter (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Here another article which could use some more work: Walter Schellenberg. Something to consider. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
While I don't own his autobiography, as I have never believed him on a number of things, I'll take editing the page into consideration when I have a little time. You always seem to find work for me to do. Do you know my wife? lol --Obenritter (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I have a nice HB 1st edition from 1956 of his autobiography which I picked up about 27 years ago. But really, using Gerwarth, Weale and Browder should be fine for good objective information to beef up the article; all of them I have, just my problem is time. Kierzek (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Same problem I have - time. That's great that you have copy at least. While I am fast at beefing articles up, it's only when there is a lull in my normal activities or when I need a mental break, that I edit Wikipedia.--Obenritter (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
And another which needs work and some good RS citing: Geheime Feldpolizei. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how much will be out there in English works on this. The only place I recall seeing this unit/org was in German sources. If I run across something, I'll see what I can do.--Obenritter (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, something RS is better than nothing. I saw Williamson on the subject on Google Books preview but I did not want to use him. Kierzek (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
That depends upon which Williamson you are referencing, as David Williamson is a well-known and respected scholar.--Obenritter (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Kierzek: So I took a stab at beefing it up a tad. See what you think and what you might otherwise add.--Obenritter (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I meant Gordon Williamson. Thanks for the work on it. I will done a little clean up/ce work and reorganized it; see what you think. Have to go off-line for now; real life is calling. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kierzek: - This looks much better but it obviously still has a ways to go. --Obenritter (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The articles above are much improved. Thank you for your diligent work. Another I would suggest, in the same vein as the others above, which could use some RS work is: Heinrich Müller (Gestapo). Kierzek (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Danke Dir für die Empfehlungen. When I get a moment here or there, I'll start chopping at it.--Obenritter (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kierzek: OK --- I think I've done my damage again to another one with the Gestapo chief, see what you think.--Obenritter (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Its in much better shape now; gives general readers a more detailed and RS cited article. Kierzek (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kierzek: OK -- so I thought I was done with Müller before -- I am now, I think. Do your thing brother.--Obenritter (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks but it needs very little from me. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)