Talk:Heinrich Himmler/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this article. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks! That's awesome. -- Dianna (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Great. Kierzek (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

review

• "It was at this time, via his rifle club, that he first met Ernst Röhm" - kind of a teaser as to why this is important. There are just a few mentions later on in the article. Is the reader just supposed to know?

  I have added some identifying information.

• "Himmler was antisemitic by the time he went to university, though not yet radically so." - this doesn't explain anything.

  Re-worded

• "Nanette Dorothea (born 1944 at Berchtesgaden). Margarete, by then living in Gmund with her daughter, learned of the relationship sometime in 1941" - what was the sequalae?

  Nothing, really. They were already separated. She decided to tolerate it for the sake of her daughter. I will add a bit.

• "*don't really get this:

• "Himmler oversaw cases of obstinate Germans, and gave orders for deportation to concentration camps, or separation of families, or forced labor, in efforts to break down resistance."

I will put it into plainer, more direct language.

• His declaration that "it is in the nature of German blood to resist" led to the paradoxical conclusion that Balts or Poles who resisted Germanization measures were regarded as more suitable material than more compliant ones"

I will put it into plainer, more direct language.

• "he wanted to "bury the hatchet" with the Jews - he used an American expression that is linked?

  Google search proves the phrase does not appear in the quoted work, so I am removing that sentence.

Yes, it does. See [1]. I'll re-add the quote. Mvaldemar (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it again. It is unlikely that he used the expression "bury the hatchet", a United States idiom; I don't think he spoke any English. The new biography by Longerich does not mention the quote, though it does mention the conversation. It says he misrepresented the deaths in the camp as being from cholera and other diseases. He misrepresented the number of people still alive at Auschwicz and Bergen-Belsen. He tried to minimise his own role, saying he had been the victim of bad press. And finally he offered to hand over a thousand Jewish women from Ravensbruck to the Red Cross. (Longerich, pp 727-728)

The quote seems to come from Kersten. Here is the original German wording: "Willkommen in Deutschland, Herr Masur! Es ist Zeit, daß ihr Juden und wir Nationalsozialisten die Streitaxt begraben"[2]

• This article makes it sound like Hitler was relatively uninvolved, in fact rather a minor character in all this. Is this really the case? How did this man gain so much power if he was so lacking in social skills, in fact, any skills? Events are gone into at great length, but only (what seems to me) amateur psychologizing to explain this man.

• e.g. "Despite an active social life, Himmler struggled to gain the acceptance he craved. He was unable to fully connect with people, and found his interpersonal relationships unrewarding."
• "While he was able to form good friendships with women, he had little success in terms of relationships and clung to antediluvian, prudish views regarding men, women, sex, and marriage." - yet he had a wife and mistress and an affectionate relationship with his daughter.

Well he was pushed upwards by Heydrich and was shrewd enough to not get pushed aside. Given his high position it was easy for him to gain a mistress and with the power for people to treat him with favor. (look at Nixon, for example.)

It's true that Himmler had little training for the positions he was asked to assume. But Speer was an architect, and wound up being Minister of Armaments, and a genius at it. Hitler tended to place a lot of importance on personal loyalty, more so than training or education. I will look through Evans and Shirer and come up with something sourced to say about this. Hitler also tended to trust the most the people who had been there from the very beginning; Himmler was one of the people manning the barricades during the failed Beer Hall Putsch. I have found some material by Speer that covers your main point, and am adding it to the Historical Views section.

His marriage was unhappy, and little is known about his relationship with the mistress. Do you recommend any changes regarding the family life section?

• "Himmler was named Chief of German Police on 17 June 1936 after Hitler announced a decree unifying police services throughout the country." - why the passive voice - who named him? Hitler?

Re-worded

(will continue - the article loads so slowing that its hard to edit.)

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(starting from the top to "Consolidation of power" - sorry for being disjointed)

• "He remained a devoted Catholic while a student, but enjoyed drinking with members of his fencing fraternity," - is there evidence that devoted Catholics don't drink? (I really don't know.)

re-worded, see what you think.

• "In 1920, when Count Arco—the man who had murdered Bavarian Prime Minister Kurt Eisner—was sentenced to death, Himmler was immediately ready to work with right-wing elements to protest" - what is the significant of being "immediately ready"? - was Count Arco a Catholic? Or what's the connection?

It looks like the far right hated Eisner and wanted him dead. So Arco was therefore a hero and must not be put to death. I have re-worded and added some more information.

• "furthering his interest in the occult and antisemitism" - is there a connection between interest in the occult and antisemitism? Is there a strain of antisemitism in Germanic mythology?

There's definitely a strain of Nordic superiority about it but I don't think it's specifically antisemitic. I am re-wording the sentence to emphasise that the occult and antisemitism are separate concepts.

• "Under Strasser, Himmler was made deputy propaganda chief in January 1927." - this is out of time sequence - the next section starts with "Himmler joined the Schutzstaffel (SS) in 1925 as an SS-Führer (SS-Leader)."

re-worked for chronological order.

• "By early 1934, Himmler, Hermann Göring, and General Werner von Blomberg agreed that the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, posed a threat to the Heer (German Army) and the Nazi leadership." - what is the importance of this particular event, given the overall narative? Is this a "sign" of something?

Has to do with the lead up to the Night of the Long Knives. The SA was decapitated and the SS emerged out from under the SA; gained independence and power.

I have added a {{main}} template to make it clear that this event is going to be summarized.

• "On the other hand, his attitude to his superiors was obsequious, and he often cited his communications with Hitler and other top party officials as justification for his actions." - is this suggesting that he didn't have communication as purported?

No, he did. I have re-worded the section so hopefully this will be clearer.

reply

• that the "burying the hatch" remark was in the article at all, and then reintroduced when removed makes me wonder about the POV of this article. (If that is the level of the sourcing of this article, that would account for a POV feel I'm starting to get.)

It turns out the quotation actually was in the book; I searched for the word hatchet instead of the full phrase and it was there after all. It is unlikely he used the exact phrase; as far as I know he spoke no English.

Reply - this is the problem with using POV sources. This is a red flag. Translations are not neutral. Anyone with common sense knows he didn't use that phrase. I'm distrustful of editors who would accept that sort of wording, never mind quote it as Himmler's wording. Remember, Longerich was using translations, I assume, or he translated himself? Whatever, translations are not neutral. Need to get opinions from more neutral sources who don't try to make psychological characterizations. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I did not notice this problem should not throw the credibility of the whole article into question. I did not add the phrase, and neither did Kierzek, the other nominator. It was added in 2010 with this edit. The only two biographies of Himmler available in my town are sitting here on my desk, so there are no further available resources, not in my town. Besides, all biographers will inject their own analysis into their work; it's part of what they do. So I'm unconvinced that you will find a biography that is totally neutral. I have to say I do find it upsetting that you find me to be without common sense and unworthy of your trust. -- Dianna (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No historian ever (even Kershaw) writes from a completely neutral POV; especially if conclusions are being drawn. But one can't throw the baby out with the bath water for that reason. As for Longerich he has a good reputation in the field. Since you have the main two bios, Diannaa, I would cross check the two and cite both where needed. Kierzek (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Himmler was antisemitic by the time he went to university, but it was not a main focus of interest." - I notice this sentence has not improved.

I am removing the second half of the sentence.

reply The sentence doesn't explain anything e.g. how he became antisemitic. Or why this is important. What were the ages of others who became antisemitic? Hitler was responsible for the anti-Jewish policy.[3]

Hitler's anti-Jewish policy was not the beginning of antisemitism in Europe. It goes back over a thousand years. I will add some material specifically about Himmler.

Reply I don't see why it's necessary. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the recently added section "Antisemitism has existed in Europe for over a thousand years.[...][A]ntisemitism grew in Germany and other parts of Europe during this period" is overly long. It very much detracts from the subject of this entry. I do not think it's necessary or helpful to have an exposé of the origins of antisemitism in this article. I suggest to remove this section. Sorry to jump in here — please feel free to move my comment elsewhere.Malljaja (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• "His health was poor, with lifelong stomach complaints and other ailments." - this is never followed up on, even though it sounds like a major lifelong factor.

I have been unable to find anything substantial to add. For example, a mention that his fencing club exempted him from having to drink beer because it gave him indigestion; a mention that he had to cancel his initial meeting with Heydrich as he was ill. These seem too trivial to insert into the article. I will keep looking.

• "Despite an active social life, Himmler struggled to gain the acceptance he craved. He was unable to fully connect with people, and found his interpersonal relationships unrewarding." - the text should say the opinion of historian Longerich.

• reply Hard to believe that this was Himmler's wording or that he had the psychological sophistication to phrase this in his diary. The is what Longerich thinks.

• "He was critical of himself and his perceived social inadequacies, which included a tendency to talk too much,[19] and made efforts to compensate for them, in part by learning to control his emotions with his strength of will." again this historian Longerich.

• reply Hard to believe that this was Himmler's wording or that he had the psychological sophistication to phrase this in his diary. The is what Longerich thinks.

• "Despite an active social life, Himmler struggled to gain the acceptance he craved. He was unable to fully connect with people, and found his interpersonal relationships unrewarding." again Longerich gives his view of Himmler's psyche.

• reply Hard to believe that this was Himmler's wording or that he had the psychological sophistication to phrase this in his diary. The is what Longerich thinks.

• "While he was able to form good friendships with women, he had little success in terms of relationships and clung to antediluvian, prudish views regarding men, women, sex, and marriage" more Longerich. This is POV: "clung to antediluvian (before the flood!), prudish views" - this is characterizing the views rather than just telling the reader what the views are.

I am removing the"antedeluvian" bit. Pretty much all of the material listed in the above four points is from Himmler's own diaries: "miserable chatterer"; "My behaviour still lacks the distinguished self-assurance that I should like to have"; of his family he says, "I like them but there is no intellectual or emotional contanct between us"; and so on. I will re-work the paragraph to make it clear that the information comes from the diary, and not Longerich's interpretation.

reply Quote the diary, not Longerich's take on it. Longerich has a POV it seems to me.

Proposed text:

Hitler's diary entries from university show he thought of himself as a "miserable chatterer",(54) "someone who comes out with empty phrases and talks too much".(56) Of his interpersonal relationships, he remarks of his family, "I like them but there is no intellectual or emotional contact between us."(56) He notes of his acquaintances, "I haven't cultivated people, and so I'm not well liked."(47) He states, "I still lack to a considerable degree the naturally superior kind of manner (die vornehme Sicherheit des Benehmens) that I would dearly like to possess"(Manvell, 7) and calls writing in his diary "an exercise of the will".(56) When he was involved in an early romantic relationship, he told his diary he intended to "be friends to my friends, do my duty, work, battle with myself, and never let it happen that I lose control of myself."(36) He remarked of a book expounding the virtue of chastity: "A book containing the highest ideals. Demanding, but achievable."(43) He found a book about homosexuality to be "strange ... with ghastly pictures."(38) He described the ideal woman as "a dear child who must be admonished, ... though she must also be protected, ...because she is so weak".(Manvell, 7) On one occasion he notes that a prostitute "tried to attach herself to us"—"unsuccessfully, of course".(38) Historian Peter Longerich notes that interpersonal problems, and his attempts to counterbalance them, would plague Himmler his whole life,(41) and were the key reasons—along with his craving for order—for his enthusiasm for the military.(40)

reply

• Unless you have a neutral source (i.e. not Longerich) who has translated the German, there is no such thing as a direct quote. You are quoting the translator wording, and if you've ever translated, you know that different translators will translate the same wording differently. Especially, when they use idiomatic wording, you know something's up. I think Longerich is POV (has an agenda) and would prefer if you could find support for his characterizations. Remember, historians these days tend to take liberties for the sake of readability. If you insist on relying so heavily on Longerich, back him up with other sources. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have amended the proposed text so that two of the quotes are from Manvell. Manvell calls Chapter 1 "Chaste Youth", and notes Himmler was likely a virgin until the age of 26 (page 9). -- Dianna (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I am still not sure about inserting this edit, as it moves us away from using a secondary source to using a primary source. Should we ask at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as to whether or not Longerich is considered reliable? Most biography articles do tend to rely on one or two texts for material, and we have sourced to other texts wherever possible. -- Dianna (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Current text:

Himmler's diary reveals that in spite of an active social life, he struggled to gain the acceptance he craved. He was unable to fully connect with people, and found his interpersonal relationships unrewarding.(39, 48, 55) While he was able to form good friendships with women, he had little success in terms of relationships and held prudish views regarding men, women, sex, and marriage.(Breitman,11)(Longerich, 35–43, 48–54, 56) He was critical of himself and his perceived social inadequacies, which included a tendency to talk too much,(54) and made efforts to compensate for them, in part by learning to control his emotions with his strength of will.(40) Peter Longerich notes that these interpersonal problems, and his attempts to counterbalance them, would plague Himmler his whole life,(41) and were the key reasons—along with his craving for order—for his enthusiasm for the military.(40)

Please let me know if changing this would actually be your preference; it is certainly not mine. I find the one that relies exclusively on paraphrasing rather than direct quotes to be more readable. Longerich's actual analysis of Himmler is that he suffered from attachment disorder, but this analysis has been omitted from our article.

reply

• Attachment disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis. Is Longerich a psychiatrist or a psychologist? Even then it's unethical to diagnose individuals without interviewing them and evaluating them. Longerich seems way too involved in (ultimately unknowable) psycho-dynamics rather than Himmler's role in history. (To me this seems really out of place for a historian to write - unless he has access to psychological evaluations of Himmler by professionals.) From our article on Attachment disorder:

Attachment disorder is a broad term intended to describe disorders of mood, behavior, and social relationships arising from a failure to form normal attachments to primary care giving figures in early childhood, resulting in problematic social expectations and behaviors. Such a failure would result from unusual early experiences of neglect, abuse, abrupt separation from caregivers after about six months of age but before about three years of age, frequent change of caregivers or excessive numbers of caregivers, or lack of caregiver responsiveness to child communicative efforts. A problematic history of social relationships occurring after about age three may be distressing to a child, but does not result in attachment disorder.

So you're saying this was Himmler's early childhood? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The day after the verdict, Himmler began to work with right-wing elements to protest. He was both pleased and disappointed when the sentence was commuted to imprisonment, as a group of students had by then formulated rescue plans and a possible putsch." more reporting on Himmler's inner thoughts by Longerich.

This is also from the diary. "However pleased we were, we were equally sorry that the business had passed so uneventfully. Oh well, there will be another time." (Longerich quotes from the diary, page 32). I will say so.

some general comments

• you mention Albert Speer. His article might be a good model to follow, especially the way it is organized (chronologically) with the rest set out concisely at the end under "Legacy and controversy". And the article goes into just enough detail but the detail doesn't overwhelm the article and mention of relatively obscure issues, organizations etc. are minimized. It doesn't make it sound like Speer, although very powerful, was responsible for all. Also, quotes about his personal views are taken from his own writing, diaries etc. Other opinions, when given, are attributed. In this article on Himmler, for example, a historian's opinion of his personality is given without attribution in the text, making it seem like it's true, rather than an opinion.
• it seems the view of this article is that Himmler was the worst of all, and there's no sense of him as a human being. Anything possible humanizing is rationalized away. In contrast, Reinhard Heydrich seems human, even though it is said in the lede "Historians regard him as the darkest figure within the Nazi elite; Hitler christened him "the man with the iron heart". And it's clearer who appointed who. With Himmler, much seems in the passive voice, and he seems to rise to power on his own, and the antisemitism, the death camps etc. seem all his doing. But common sense tells me that a rather mediocre man (as described in the article) could not have overpowered a nation with his views and caused the Holocaust on his own. Albert Speer was a genius and very powerful, and was involved in the mistreatment of the Jews and the Holocaust; the general belief seems to be that he knew far more that he ever admitted. The article on him gives many conflicting views.
• but with Himmler, no such perspective is offered. And the motivation for his "peace" offering, his suicide etc. is not used to offer a view of a complex man. Maybe he was just a cartoon bad man. But usually historical figures are more complex than that. And examining the complexity doesn't relieve them of their guilt, or reduce the horror of what they did. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Towards the end of the war, Himmler attempted to blackmail the Allies using human lives as bargaining chips; he attempted to trade Jewish prisoners for armaments with which to continue fighting the war (Longerich 707); he made a secret order suspending court-martial proceedings on 30 July 1944, ordering resistance members to be summarily shot (Longerich 705); his purpose in attempting to open peace negotiations with the Allies was so that he would be in charge of the country, after which he intended to continue to pursue the war against Russia. As late as 15 April 1945 he was urging villages and towns to fight to the last man. If anything he was even worse than the article demonstrates. If there's some human side to this guy, it's not in the available sources, and therefore cannot appear in our article. As far as obtaining and holding power in the Third Reich, there was a lot of behind the scenes infighting, for example between Speer and Himmler, between Goring and Speer, between Bormann and everyone. Having the trust and faith of Hitler was the key to obtaining and holding power. Orders were given by Hitler in secret, and contradictory orders were given to different people to encourage in-fighting and keep everyone in fear.

The article is at present only 200 words longer than Speer's. I have snipped out some material that I feel is only peripherally related. I am hoping you have some suggestions for overly-detailed sections that you think should be modified or cut. -- Dianna (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

reply

• Oh dear! More of Longerich. I can see you are emotionally invested in this. I have asked Wehwalt, the writer of the Speers article to weight in. I'm not used to dealing with editors with such emotional investment. I don't think discussing information that that you can't source is useful. In fact, I think you should retract it or delete it or whatever. This is not what I'm used to in reviewing articles. I certainly don't think that Himmler was a virgin until the age of 29 26 is moving in the right direction. How is this related? It is more POV. Good grief. Why do writers need to resort to such personal descriptions to prove some point? Isn't there no evidence otherwise? So if I've been a virgin until I was 29, then I'm perverted or something? (Please show evidence that people virgins at 29 26 are somehow more deviant than others. In fact there is a Asexuality group that are defending their choice of sexuality, and now I'm seeing they are right - there is a prejudice.) There seems to be an attempt to judge his personality rather than a NPOV approach. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not emotionally invested; I have no emotional attachment to Longerich or to this article. I am merely getting stressed out. We can leave out the whole paragraph under contention, and the article would be no worse for it. I will be interested to hear what Wehwalt has to say. Thank you for your help with the article so far. -- Dianna (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, I think a new pair of eyes is a good idea; especially an editor with knowledge in this particular area, as Wehwalt has shown to be. The fact is that if one is citing WP:RS, especially if cross checked, then it is acceptable even though all historians write with some POV inserted. During the review clear decision, direction, without emotion is needed and together we can get this article to a point of being in the best presentation shape it has ever been to inform the general reader; just as we all did on Heydrich a few months ago. There is no need to hurry, we can get it done in due time. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with everything you say, Kierzek. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading ... Am on my iPhone so expect brevity--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not greatly concerned by the translations, languages often have equivalent idioms. Obviously it would be worth looking at the original German, if available, and getting an opinion from German-speaking editors on a translation. My difficulty is that the article needs more grounding against historical events. Hitler's accession to power, which presumably transformed Himmler from a leader of a party's paramilitary to a government official, goes unremarked. Was Himmler's Posen speech, at the Posen Conference, really to a secret SS group? ... Was the advance ordered by Himmler in December 1944 anything to do with the Battle of the Bulge? ... You have him leaving Flensburg but never arriving. People need the context of events to measure Himmler's actions against. Also, I would have a section on his relationship with Hitler. People always want to know about Hitler. I say this with the experience of Speer, Chamberlain, and Brundage behind me. Also, some of the events seem a bit undertreated, like the 20 July plot. Especially with that movie out, it would be worth mentioning that not only were lots of people arrested, but quite a few of them were killed. In general, it should pass with some work, but it needs that work. The timeframe, by the way, where the article speaks of the post1936 police merger, seems a bit muddled. Did Germany have any territories pre1939 that were not incorporated into the Reich? I regret I will not have time to work more on this, I am departing soon and will have minimal internet access for 12 days. Also, take great care with Speer's opinions on Himmler. I would not consider Speer a completely unbiased source on Himmler. You might do well to read Sereny's book on Speer if you can conveniently get hold of a copy, or at least the parts involving Himmler, including Posen. Good luck. Also I agree, the Holocaust section should be moved up or better yet moved into the chronology.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

comments

• I think Wehwalt's comments are on the money. Regarding translations, look at the original German, if available, and get an opinion from German-speaking editors. Reading the Sereny book on Speer that Wehwalt suggests might provide some perspective on how authors who focus on particular historical figures can become obsessed. See:Albert Speer: His Battle With Truth.[4] MathewTownsend (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read Sereny's book and have it right here; it is already used as a source in the article. I do not have access to Himmler's original diaries in German, and have already removed the paragraph that was under contention. Longerich's diagnosis of attachment disorder is not in the article, and I have no intention of adding it, so I am not going to research your inquiry as to how he arrived at this conclusion. Longerich is being used as a reliable source for basic facts, and none of his analysis appears in the article any more, except where specifically attributed to him. Presently I am adding some general background material on WWII and reorganising the material into chronological order. Then it will be more obvious what further events need to be added to the article per Wehwalt's advice. Kierzek will be working on the article this evening. -- Dianna (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

reply

• I urge you to read Wehwalt's comments above. He says: "Also, take great care with Speer's opinions on Himmler. I would not consider Speer a completely unbiased source on Himmler." This applies to the extent Sereny's book relies on Speer. See: Albert Speer: His Battle With Truth.[5] an article from the Journal of Foreign Affairs which which portrays Sereny's book as less that impartial and driven by her own agenda. I'd suggest you follow Wehwalt's suggestions regarding Sereny and Speer. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sereny's book has been used to source the contention that Himmler was building a parallel economy under the auspices of the SS, but this contention also appears in and is sourced to Evans' third book (2008), pages 343–344. Sereny's book is also referenced in the "Historical views", where the material is clearly labelled as Speer's opinion. Just to reassure you, I would like to tell you that in addition to Sereny, I have read all three of Speer's own books and own two of them, plus I have read the biography by Fest. I certainly don't believe everything Speer has to say; before the Nuremberg trials he was mostly motivated by a desire to present himself in the most favourable light, in order to avoid being hanged. --Dianna (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's what's been happening so far:

1. We have been unable to find/add any material that is downright positive, so we have added some details that show his more human side. For example, he had a good relationship with Heydrich and they saw each other socially; he gave the eulogy at the Berlin funeral. And more details about his wife were added.
2. We don't have enough material for a separate section on Hitler; instead, a generous sprinkling of mentions have been inserted throughout.
3. The material is now, with a few exceptions, in chronological order, and background material has been added about the big picture—the seizure of power, World War II, and so on.
4. I was unable to find any further details on his health issues, but I will keep looking.
5. Wehwalt's concerns have been addressed, I think. -- Dianna (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

reply - my view of Wehwalt's main concern

• Wehwalt's main concern was that Hitler's role was underplayed, and that Himmler's rise was not placed in the historical context of Hitler's role. The massive use of the passive voice in this article contributes to this. From the lede only:
• The lede makes it sound like Himmler was responsible for all. For example:

• "As Chief of the German Police and the Minister of the Interior from 1943, Himmler oversaw all internal and external police and security forces, including the Gestapo (Secret State Police). Later appointed Commander of the Replacement (Home) Army and General Plenipotentiary for the entire Reich's administration (Generalbevollmächtigter für die Verwaltung) - who appointed him? All of this was his idea? Hitler played no role?

The lede can be tweaked. Understand that Hitler appointed Himmler as Chief of German Police and decreed the unification of all police force in 1936; after that it was all Himmler and Heydrich. As long as they were loyal and carried out his "programs", Hitler gave a lot of latitude to men under him to have their own little fiefdoms.

• "Appointed Reichsführer-SS in 1929, he developed the SS into a powerful group with its own military, and, through ownership of businesses and control of the Nazi concentration camps, its own sources of funding. - who appointed him? He rose on his own to these positions? He implemented only his own ideas?

As it states he was already deputy leader. And he took over that position with Hitler's tacit approval. You must understand that Hitler was not a micro-manager; he would give verbal orders; many times in a general sense; it was up to the underlings to figure out what he wanted in detail and how to do it (the exception being military orders); further if one showed great loyalty to Hitler and followed his general principles of: nationalism, racial programs, order, Eastern expansion, strong economy, strong military; he did not really carry who held the reins but again cared, were they loyal and committed; the ends justify the means.

He was appointed Reichsführer-SS by Hitler, but yes, the concentration camps were his idea, and the way he developed the SS was his idea, and buying up businesses under the auspices of the SS was also his idea. Hitler did not tell him to do any of these things. -- Dianna (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• who appointed Himmler "As overseer of the concentration camps, extermination camps, and Einsatzgruppen in World War II"?

He was not appointed to create them. Their creation was his idea. Hitler told him to solve the "Jewish Question", and as was typical for Hitler, he was not told how to solve it. -- Dianna (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Late in World War II, Himmler was given command of the Army Group Upper Rhine and the Army Group Vistula" - was given? Y fixed -- Dianna (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Hitler is mentioned only twice and that is at the end of the lede: "Shortly before the end of the war, without the knowledge or permission of Hitler, he attempted to open peace talks with the western Allies. Hitler, hearing of this, dismissed him from all his posts in April 1945." He is now mentioned seven times in the lead. -- Dianna (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• This use of the passive voice regarding Himmler's appointments and his obtaining certain positions through out the article give the impression all this was happening only because of Himmler. Hitler may be mentioned more now, but rarely in a way that puts Himmler's actions in context. Mostly, Hitler is mentioned in sections that are not about Himmler. There are two places where it's mentioned that Hitler appointed him to such and such position. And there are equivocal cases, e.g.

• "On 17 June 1936, Himmler became Chief of German Police after Hitler had decreed the unification of all police forces" - so did Hitler appoint him? Or did someone else, without Hitler's input, after Hitler decreed the unification of all police forces?

It does now state Hitler appointed him. So it is clear.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I will do some further copy edits to try to resolve that problem. -- Dianna (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither of my books says who appointed him Deputy Reichsführer-SS, so sorry. It could have been Heiden. -- Dianna (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

reply regarding sources

• If none of your sources mention this, you need to search for better sources for this important topic. This source, while not usable, says "In order to strengthen the position of the SS relative to the established German elites after a victorious war, Himmler persuaded Hitler in late 1939 to permit the establishment of an armed SS force, known as the Waffen SS.[6] I believe Peter Longerich is/was a scholar at The Holocaust Museum. The books you are relying on appear not to be comprehensive. It's not hard to find out this info on the web. I'm surprised your sources don't cover such information.
• The same source says: "In 1933-1934, Himmler also secured for his SS control over a centralized concentration system. Although various civilian authorities and police agencies had established autonomous concentration camps during 1933 to incarcerate political enemies of the Nazi government, Hitler -- who was impressed with the Dachau concentration camp established by the SS in March 1933 -- authorized Himmler to create a centralized concentration camp system."
• The lede needs to include dates to give an indication of the time sequence. There were concentration camps before Hitler appointed Himmler to oversee them. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have undone your edit, because it does not agree with the sources. Himmler was the SS; Himmler created the concentration camps; there were no concentration camps until Himmler created them. I just looked it up, in Evans (2003), which says, "On 20 March [1933] ... Himmler announced to the press that a 'concentration camp for political prisoners' would be opened at Dachau'". The seizure of power was 30 January 1933, so if there were camps set up by other authorities throughout 1933, they were after Dachau, which was the first. Please remember too that the war did not start until 1939, so to say "the total number of civilians killed by the regime is estimated at eleven to fourteen million people during the war" is incorrect; people were dying from 1933 forward.

Peter Longerich is Professor of Modern German History at the Royal Holloway University of London and founder of that college's Holocaust Research Centre. Richard J. Evans is currently the Professor of Modern Hisory at Cambridge. I am puzzled why you would prefer to use the USHMM website over these sources. -- Dianna (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

reply

• I used the source to demonstrate that who appointed him to positions and the dates involved are not deep dark secrets unavailable to the world. I said that it wasn't a source you could use. But I think it's common enough information to be found in sources. Your sources are not wide enough to be able to present the information responsibly. I don't buy into your view that Himmler was really the man behind the throne, that it was all Himmler and Hitler was just a straw man who ultimately was not responsible.
• I don't "must understand" anything. You must provide NPOV sources to support your view. Longerich's Attachment disorder theory is enough to question his POV.
• reply to your comment: "so to say "the total number of civilians killed by the regime is estimated at eleven to fourteen million people during the war" is incorrect; - I put that in to draw your attention to the fact that numbers are used cavalierly in this article. Your phraseology makes it sound like Himmler was responsible for all those deaths. To throw numbers around without dates is irresponsible. What is the time frame for your statement "As creator and overseer of the concentration camps, extermination camps, and Einsatzgruppen in World War II, Himmler coordinated the killing of some six million Jews, between 200,000 and 500,000 Romani people, and other victims; the total number of civilians killed by the regime is estimated at eleven to fourteen million people. Using a semicolon makes it sound like Himmler was responsible for the deaths of eleven to fourteen million people."? I think your view that Himmler is responsible for everything, and is more responsible than Hitler is POV. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Nick-D of the Military History Project to have a look, and Wehwalt will hopefully be available soon to make a comment as well. -- Dianna (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Matt, you are a sharp guy, no doubt. And have done good things for instance with pushing for the more chronological org. I would be a little wary of getting too wound up into debates of specific points or starting to fight for edit control. You have a lot of good that you can do by being a reviewer, but it is important to remember the issue of the main writer and to have some attitude of not fighting to have every one of your recommendations (recommendations, not orders) implemented. This is the same for inspectors, auditors, etc. Yes, try for the best article, etc. But realize that may not be slavishly conforming to your view on all.

BTW, I think the idiom kvetch was kind of nitanoid. (For all we know German uses that idiom, we have not even checked!) And in any case, to indict a translator for that, makes no sense...he might have been doing a better job of translating the sense of the original than if he had done slavish word for word.

You're good to push for a good article...but less fight, more calm elder statesman, gentle suggester please...64.134.164.188 (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, first relax. Second, I checked what I wrote from memory above; I was correct in that Himmler assumed the RF-SS position with tacit approval from Hitler; Hitler is the one who appointed him Deputy RF-SS in 1927. As for sources, I would not rely too heavily on what the USHMM web site states; it is for general readers and I have found it not correct at certain times (including when I was there doing research in Washington, DC). But, I can tell you both that Himmler set up the first official concentration camp in 1933; BEFORE that, there were a mixed lot of jails, detention camps, etc. for incarcerating enemies of the Nazis which were run by the SA. Dachau was the first official "model" camp set up and run by the SS in March 1933. The power and favor of the SA weakened as you both know and the SS in May 1934 took over control of all the camps; they shut some old ones down and built new ones thereafter. Eicke was put in charge, partly because Himmler did not want Heydrich to have it; and because Eicke was a hard loyal Nazi killer who did such a splendid job at Dachau (from a certain POV of Himmler and Hitler). I can gets cites for all this if you want to use it in the article in some fashion. Kierzek (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Kierzek

• Whatever their formal terminology, they existed prior to Himmler. Adolph Hitler article doesn't support the view that Himmler was solely responsible. ok, Himmler was best at it. I'm perfectly willing to believe, in fact I do believe, that Himmler was a bad guy. I'm just allergic to POV. Himmler was certainly good at performing certain tasks, which Hitler was astute in recognizing and used. Is it your position that Himmler was more responsible than Hitler? Do you hold Himmler personally responsible for fourteen million deaths?
• By the way, I think your edits have been very helpful.

MathewTownsend (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

NO, Hitler is most responsible, with Himmler and Heydrich following in that order; then the rest of the gang, so to speak thereafter. As you may know the Nazis got the idea for the camps from the use of them in the Boer Wars in the early 1900's. It is true that Hitler in 1933 stated he didn't want the camps to become prisons but to be a tool of terror and with that Himmler and Eicke carried it out with the new model SS camp of Dachau. Kierzek (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D
Dianna has asked me to comment on this article and the above review. I'd like to make the following observations:

• As some background, while I'm not hugely familiar with Himmler's biography, I've read widely on Nazi Germany and World War II. As such, I'll limit my comments to the sections on World War II. As is normal for our review processes, I'm focusing on the areas which need work rather than those which are OK.
• While Longerich's book is clearly a RS (he's an expert on the topic, the book was published by a prestigious scholarly press, and it was well reviewed) I think that the article is overly reliant on it.
• "By the end of 1939 some 65,000 intellectuals and other leading civilians had been murdered by militias and Einsatzgruppen (SS task forces)" - the German Army also took part in these killings (see Evans 2008)
• "By this time the genocide had already been underway for some months, but Himmler now had confirmation of the policy from the highest authority: Hitler himself." - this suggests that Hitler hadn't previously authorised the mass killings, which is entirely incorrect. See, for instance, this section of of Peter Longerich's expert report for the Irving v. Lipstadt trial.
• The first part of 'The Holocaust' section needs to note Hitler's central role in the further radicalisation of German policy towards the Jews - at present, he's not mentioned and the Holocaust is presented as being largely Himmler's brainchild. Again, Longerich's expert report has some material on this topic: [7], [8], though there are obviously lots of other references which could be used.
• The 'Commander-in-Chief' section provides a much more sympathetic view of Himmler's period as commander of Army Group Vistula than most sources on this topic do. It largely presents Himmler as being let down by his staff and bullied by Hitler, when the main sources on this topic emphasise Himmler's military incompetence and laziness (for instance, the standard English language work on this part of World War II, Red Storm on the Reich by Christopher Duffy, blames Himmler for his useless headquarters, states that he only worked for about 4 hours a day (with the rest being spent sleeping or relaxing) and blames him for hindering the evacuation of German civilians, among other things).
  • Just to add, in his book Armageddon: The Battle for Germany Max Hastings writes that Himmler suffered a nervous breakdown and abandoned his command, and was only sacked when Hitler learned of this. Nick-D (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• The article doesn't note that Himmler oversaw the creation of the Volkssturm. On the basis of my observations, German museums present the Volkssturm as being one of the atrocities the Nazis inflicted upon German civilians (as it basically involved conscripting old men and young boys for use as cannon fodder in what was a clearly lost war). Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Bury the hatchet IS A GERMAN IDIOM also. See here: [9].64.134.164.188 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's much closer to GA standard, there are a few typos I saw in passing so the article would benefit from a careful read.

I'm not sure I fully understand the POV issue on the biographer. Is there a certain way in which his view of Himmler differs from the usual? Or is the view that the article still too heavily relies on him. A few things, not intended to be comprehensive:

• Consider moving all except the first and final sentences in the first paragraph of the lede further down in the lede.

• Hitler announced that German actions in Poland would be outside of what was ethical or legal; he authorised the killing of Polish civilians, including Jews and ethnic Poles." Wasn't it legal if he said so under the Enabling Act? And did he really say he was being unethical?

• I would not leave the Posen section with the long hanging blockquote. Perhaps raid Sereny (sorry, didn't see the book there in the biblio, my mistake) for some reaction to Posen? Even if you don't (and you shouldn't) want to get into the whole Speer present or not thing.

• "The following is a translation of an excerpt from a transcription of an audio recording" rather awkward.

• "On Himmler's orders, those who refused to be classified as ethnic Germans were deported to concentration camps, or had their children taken away, or were assigned to forced labour." Serial "or".

• "and half a million occupants of Poland, Slovenia, Alsace, Lorraine, and Luxembourg had been deported to the General Government or sent to Germany as slave labour.[128]" Poles were deported to Poland?

--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the consensus is now that the article still too heavily relies on Longerich; that is being fixed. The lede needs to be re-written along the lines of the recent changes and inclusions of info. I believe Diannaa or Malljaja would be better suited for that task, then me. I hope you two will consider taking a stab at it. The article is in its best shape ever. I plan to clarify the role of the Einsatzgruppen this afternoon; Heydrich first formed them; their role changed after the war with Poland started; Hitler knew and appointed the new role as killing squads. Also the appointment of Heydrich as acting Reichsprotektor of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was important as the SS now had its own state to control. Himmler was proud of Heydrich and that fact. As to Himmler as military commander, I disagree the protrayal was too sympathetic; but with that said, certainly agree it has better detail now. Real life calls, so I will get back to this later. Carry on guys; good work all. Kierzek (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

reply to Wehwalt and a few more comments

• Haven't read it thoroughly but the article seems significantly improved by the addition of more specific information and the insertion of Hitler into the narrative.

• Still some remaining vagueness. e.g.

• "In spite of the mass murders for which he was ultimately responsible, wife and mistress both remained loyal to Himmler." - this sentence is vague - which mass murders was he ultimately responsible? Was he was ultimately responsible for all the mass murders? (would like to see a citation for this) - he was ultimately responsible, more so than Hitler? (This seems a remnant of the article's previous position that Himmler was the real power, not Hitler.)

• My beef with Longerich is significantly reduced, as many of his citations have been replaced by others. However, based on his diagnosis of Himmler as having Attachment disorder (according to Dianna above), I'd prefer to see more citations from others in the discussion of his "personality" under "Historical views" Psychoanalysis by historians is amateur diagnosing and the comments in this section are mostly repetitions of material already in the article. Most of it is trivial and obvious and could be removed. And little falls under "personality traits" or personality.

• "Himmler's personality was a focus of historian Peter Longerich. What are Longerich's credentials to conduct a personality evaluation?
• "Longerich notes that Himmler's ability to consolidate his ever-increasing powers and responsibilities into a coherent system under the auspices of the SS led him to become one of the most powerful men in the Third Reich." This is not a personality trait and should go elsewhere, where his abilities/flaws are discussed.

• Under "Marriage and family"

• Margarete, by then living in Gmund with her daughter, learned of the relationship sometime in 1941; she and Himmler were already separated, and she decided to tolerate the relationship for the sake of her daughter. The couple saw little of each other, and the relationship was strained. (Longerich) - I'd prefer to see supporting citations, as this is not a uniform view.

• "wife and mistress both remained loyal to Himmler." - despite the "strained relationship" tolerated for the sake of the daughter - was this remaining loyalty for the sake of the daughter also?

• Above Himmler is compared to Nixon by one of the editors promoting Longerich's version of Himmler's personality. {"Given his high position it was easy for him to gain a mistress and with the power for people to treat him with favor. (look at Nixon, for example.)" I'm not defending Nixon, but his daughters remain staunch supporters of him. Politicians (e.g. Dick Chaney) and other famous people usually have personal lives that differ from the public perception and can conflict with their public persona and positions. e.g. Chaney's lesbian daughter etc.
• "Gudrun emerged from the experience embittered by her alleged mistreatment and has remained devoted to her father's memory. (cited to Himmler but there are many other sources available.)
• "Hedwig Potthast last saw Himmler in March 1945, and remained in Berchtesgaden until the end of the war." (Longerich) - the article's ending sentence.

• So his mistress last saw him 9 years after their affair began and remain in Berchtesgaden until the war ended. What is the significance of this? What information is this supposed to covey. Berchtesgaden has not been mentioned in the article at all until the last sentence. (This sentence seems a strange way to end the article.)

• Seems like "Marriage and family" should go before "Historical views". "Historical views could function as a "Legacy" section i.e. some kind of wrap up section where an analysis of his strengths and weaknesses would make sense. Or perhaps an "Aftermath" section as Reinhard Heydrich has.

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Kierzek

• I appreciate your views and agree that the article looks significantly better. Do you agree with Nick-D's comments? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with his comments (but for the one point I state above which is now moot) and I believe Diannaa does, as she has been working on putting them in. As I wrote, I agree the lede needs re-writing; more needs to be clarified as to the role of the Einsatzgruppen. The family part can use some work as to clarification. BTW-as to your comment about "most famous people usually have personal lives that differ from the public perception"; that can be true but not always. For some, what you see is-for the most part-what you get; and one area can dominate their lives so much that is the majority of the time how the person behaves; such as Himmler. Also people can be hard to know; Hitler for example, many have said they found it hard to tell when he was "acting" the part of the Führer (a certain way) for people and when he wasn't. The only area I have found Himmler to be "tender" in is as to his first daughter; he didn't have the dimensions of Heydrich, nor even Hitler. Kierzek (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Kierzek

• ok, the point regarding his "personality" is moot if multiple reliable sources are used.
• Suggest the section "Consolidation of power" consider the FA Night of the Long Knives which puts way more emphasis on Hitler's long preoccupation with Röhm and indicates he moved against Röhm for multiple and complex reasons (unless you think that FA is way off base). It doesn't even mention Himmler until the middle of the article.

• The beginning sentence of this section gives the wrong impression, as it doesn't mention Hitler: "In early 1934, Himmler, Göring, and General Werner von Blomberg determined that the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, posed a threat to the Heer (German Army) and the Nazi leadership."

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

further comments regarding antisemitism, master race and eugenics

• Suggest looking at Adolph Hitler (already a GA) and see how carefully his antisemitism is treated. Suggest a similar treatment here, rather than a flat statement "Himmler was antisemitic by the time he went to university; students at his school would avoid their Jewish classmates." sourced to Longerich.
• "Himmler wanted to breed a master race of Nordic Aryans in Germany". (was he the only one?) This is POV. The article master race explains that "Eugenics came to play a prominent role in this racial thought as a way to improve and maintain the "purity" of the Aryan master race. Eugenics was a concept adhered to by many thinkers in the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s, such as Margaret Sanger... (list of names)." It is taking information out of context to make it seem this was Himmler's idea. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

comment on irresponsible linking

• from the lede: "Himmler was a primary accomplice in the killing of some six million Jews,

• This links to an article that goes into extensive and varying estimates of the Holocaust death total. Better to come up with a source for this article that pertains to Himmler.

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The link has been removed. I think that all the questions and concerns listed above have been addressed, and await your response. Thank you! -- Dianna (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Further comments from Nick-D
My above comments have now been addressed, though I've made a few tweaks to the article (the Army was an active participant in the killings in Poland during 1939, and Hitler declared war on the US, and not the other way around as the wording implied. The statement that "Himmler attracted volunteers from all over Europe for the Waffen-SS by declaring that the war in the east was a pan-European crusade to defend the traditional values of old Europe from the "godless Bolshevik hordes" seems rather unbalanced - the numbers of volunteers from the occupied countries were never all that high, and very few people in these countries were convinced that the Nazis were seeking to "defend the traditional values of old Europe"! Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

comments from MathewTownsend

• The article looks much improved and I feel mostly fine with the article now. Haven't run through it completely yet after the changes. Very glad for Nick-D's input! I hope Wehwalt can drop by, as he said he would. I also ask Dank (the military history guy) if he would have a look - he seems very busy though.
• Agree with User:Malljaja's comment above that the antisemitism section is way too long and off topic.
• "After initial methods of shooting the victims or killing them with gas vans proved impracticable for an operation of this scale,[106] and after witnessing a mass shooting at Minsk in August 1941, Himmler issued instructions that alternate methods of killing should be found."

• could you clarify "witnessing a mass shooting at Minsk" - what sort of mass shooting was this, that it prompted Himmler to seek "alternate methods of killing?

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I concur the antisemitism section is too long. Malljaja, if you have the time, you can have a go at it or Diannaa for ces. As for Himmler, in August 1941 went to Minsk, where he personally witnessed 100 Jews being shot in a ditch outside the town (an event described by SS general Karl Wolff in his diary). "Himmler's face was green. He took out his handkerchief and wiped his cheek where a piece of brain had squirted up onto it. Then he vomited." After recovering his composure, he lectured the SS men on the need to follow the "highest moral law of the Party" in carrying out their tasks. Kierzek (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I added detail as to the Minsk shooting which Himmler witnessed. Check it for ce. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

comments from MathewTownsend

(suggestion from above not addressed)

• "Suggest looking at Adolph Hitler (already a GA) and see how carefully his antisemitism is treated. Suggest a similar treatment here, rather than a flat statement "Himmler was antisemitic by the time he went to university; students at his school would avoid their Jewish classmates." sourced to Longerich.

• Instead, the Longerich material was increased with more flat statements that seem irrelevant to me: "Himmler was antisemitic by the time he went to university; students at his school would avoid their Jewish classmates, and they were not allowed to join duelling clubs. His diary shows that he read antisemitic books, including The Register of Judah's Guilt by Wilhelm Meister and Race and Nation by Houston Stewart Chamberlain." (Longerich)

There is a wealth of sources available on the topic of Hitler, with many biographies specifically about him, and several analyses have been written about the origins of his antisemitism. For Himmler, not as much material is available. If you could be more specific about what you are wanting to see, I will try to locate it. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Dianna

If you can't supply more than one source on such a complex issue (see the Adolph Hitler article), then don't make flat statements. It's POV. It's not as if Himmler's dueling club disallowed Jews is breathtaking news necessary to the article. Did Hitler join clubs that didn't allow Jews, did Speer, did Hermann Göring, Reinhard Heydrich? Without context, this "fact" is meaningless. How many of the main characters joined clubs that did allow Jews? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I will remove it. -- Dianna (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Early life" and "Nazi activist" are almost exclusively sourced to Longerich, usually including more than one page. Suggest including more than one source for those only cited to Longerich, as he seems to have a POV regarding Himmler's early life and "personality".
• Longerich 2011, pp. 27–28 - this material has now been removed
• Breitman 2004, p. 12. - this material already has two sources
• Longerich 2011, p. 29. - this material already has two sources
• Longerich 2011, p. 28. - peripheral material; I have removed it
• Evans 2003, pp. 22–25 - not sure why this general information on antisemitism would need a second source
• Longerich 2011, pp. 33, 42, 59. - added Manvell, Fraenkel page 11
• Longerich 2011, pp. 31, 35, 47. - trimmed content and added Manvell, Fraenkel page 9, 11
• Longerich 2011, pp. 32–33. - this material has now been removed
• Longerich 2011, p. 54 - added Manvell, Fraenkel page 10
• Manvell & Fraenkel 2007, p. 11. - this information is also in Longerich
• Longerich 2011, pp. 60, 64–65. - added Manvell, Fraenkel page 9, 11
• Longerich 2011, pp. 72–75. - this material already has two sources
• Longerich 2011, pp. 77–81, 87. - added Manvell, Fraenkel page 11-13
• Longerich 2011, pp. 70, 81–88. - this material already has two sources
• Longerich 2011, pp. 89–99. - trimmed content and added Manvell, Fraenkel page 15-16 -- Dianna (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything in the "early life" section sourced to Longerich now has an additional source or has been removed. My sources do not contain any further analysis of the origins of Himmler's antisemitism, but I will keep looking. -- Dianna (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There are no further sources on Himmler at my local library or at the library in the nearest large city. There's an article at the Holocaust Research Project that says he was not particularly antisemitic. Do you wish this aded to the article? Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

comment

• Thanks to Diannaa & Kierzek for your recent edits on the "Historical views" section. The sub-section sourced to Weale has been much improved—framing it as this historian's view is an elegant solution and wikilinking Auftragstaktik is very helpful. In fairness, I should have been quicker on my feet to find the term before making my latest edits. So "adopted" seems indeed the better choice than "developed"—however, "adopted" suggests a level of sophistication that seems at odds with Himmler's apparent lack of military expertise and general erudition. Does Weale mention whether Himmler really implemented an existing tactic or doctrine or whether he fortuitously hit on it? Malljaja (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Auftragstaktik was a well known German tactic of command which he would have known. He had been an officer candidate, and he enlisted with the reserve battalion of the 11th Bavarian Regiment. Further he was in para-military units and all say, including Weale, he was an effective organizer and picked high-quality subordinates. Himmler adopted this system and examples of its use would be in the Einsatzgruppen which used different methods for the same (terrible) results. BTW-thanks, as always, for the ce work. Kierzek (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

reviewers comment and revealing my preferences but willing to compromise

I'm not trying to defend Himmler, but rather wish the article would acknowledge the complexity of what happened. Very easy to pin it on Himmler. It (seems to me) the article over simplifies still, by distorting Himmler's motivations. In reality, it appears (to me) to be an interaction between Himmler's personality (his need for order, detail, duty) and Hitler's astuteness in recognizing traits in Himmler that would be of use to him.

Wehwalt suggested that there be a section on Himmler's relationship with Hitler. I second this. It seems that Himmler had no interest in Hitler and was not involved in Hitler's planning team until 1938 (I think) per Manvell & Fraenkel. That says a lot right there. There is a story in how he did become more involved.

I do think that the statements sourced to Longerich that are not supported by the second source given should be removed. Manvell & Fraenkel 2007 are used as a second source, but don't support Longerich's views in several places, listed below.

A few comments, just addressing the first part of the article, sourced primarily to Longerich and Manvell & Fraenkel that conflict. Manvell & Fraenkel 2007 do not seem to support Longerich's view of childhood, motivations etc. (I haven't checked the whole article.):

• "At the behest of his father, Himmler kept a diary from age 10, and continued to do so even after his father stopped checking." - (this is not in Manvell & Fraenkel 2007 who discuss his diaries fairly extensively - this seems to be purely Longerich. Himmler is portrayed by Manvell & Fraenkel 2007 as the kind of person who kept track of every detail - no need for father to mandate the diary)

: {not done} This content appears on page 18 of Longerich. Longerich's source is "Smith, Himmler, page 51." -- Dianna (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC) This content has now been removed. -- Dianna (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• " 'diligent, not brilliant' at school" (Manvell & Fraenkel 2007, p.3) - this is different than being "good" at school work. There is no indication that Himmler was particularly smart, I.Q. wise.

 Not done Longerich says on page 19 that his marks were above average. "In religious education and history he was always graded 'very good' and in languages he was judged 'very good' to 'good'; his weakest subject was physics ... A school report for 1913/14 report reads: " ... the best results in the class. His conduct was exemplary." Sourced by Longerich to Alfons Beckenbauer, "Eine Landshuter Jungendfreundschaft und Ihre Verwicklung in Die NS-Politik. Der Arzt Dr. Karl Gebhardt und der Reochsfuher-SS Heinrich Himmer", in Verhandlungen des Historichen Vereins fur Niederbayern, 100 (1974), 5-22. -- Dianna (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "he confesses to himself, 'I am not quite sure what I am working for, not at the moment at any rate. I work because it is my duty. I work because I find peace of mind in working . . . and overcome my indecision.' " (Manvell & Fraenkel, p, 6) - if you want a character-driven plot, this makes much more sense than portraying Himmler as extra-specially antisemitic from an early age, when there is nothing to suggest that as a child and young man, his beliefs stood out from many Germans at that time.

Not sure what you mean by this remark; we do not show him as extra-specially antisemitic at any age. He was not. -- Dianna (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• recollections of certain fellow students "He is remembered as being meticulous in his studies and awkward in his social relationships" (Manvell & Fraenkel, p, 6) - this is concordant with his future behavior.

Content along this line has been added. -- Dianna (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• more on this page (Manvell & Fraenkel, p, 6) portrays his character somewhat differently than Longerich. e.g. "The force that drives him is what he believes to be his duty, and this leads him to work hard at his studies, and force his unhealthy body to suceed in the accepted exercises such as swimming, skating and, above all, fencing. His conventionalism becomes in itself a kind of passion;"

Content along this line has been added; however, you are wrong when you say that this is different from what Longerich said. -- Dianna (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Himmler was antisemitic by the time he went to university; students at his school would avoid their Jewish classmates." (cited to Longerich Manvell & Fraenkel 2007, but not supported by Manvell & Fraenkel 2007) See the statement below. Why would he be a member of Apollo if he sought to avoid his Jewish classmates?

I don't know; that information does not appear in the sources. It was a fencing fraternity, not a club per se. The members did have extensive debates over whether not not Jews should be members or allowed to fight duels. -- Dianna (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Dianna

• re Apollo society: "and the president of the society at that time was a Jew, Dr. Abraham Ofner. Although Himmler, a junior member of Apollo, was studiously polite to Dr. Ofner and the other Jewish members, he was already strongly anti-Semitic in feeling, (Manvell & Fraenkel p.8)

I have added some more content on the fencing fraternity. -- Dianna (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(MathewTownsend comment continued)

• "His diary shows that he read antisemitic books, including The Register of Judah's Guilt by Wilhelm Meister and Race and Nation by Houston Stewart Chamberlain." - (not supported by the source given (besides Longerich): (Manvell & Fraenkel 2007, p. 11.)

This citation was intended to support that he was already antisemitic when he arrived at college; I don't think Manvell & Fraenkel mentions the reading list at all, so no, it does not support that part of the paragraph. I see you have already removed this citation. -- Dianna (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "His exactness of habit seems to amount to a mania, for he never ceases to record when he shaves, when he has his hair cut, even when he has a bath. All these experiences take their due place alongside the duelling and the military exercies, and the serious discussion of religion, sex, and politics. ("Manvell & Fraenkel p.8) - to me this shows that he had many preoccupations and was not totally focused on antisemitism. That was just one of many "issues" he was concerned about, none of them particularly unusual, given the times and his age.

As mentioned above, I agree with you, and find your focus on the amount of antisemitism content puzzling, since you specifially asked for additional material to be added on this topic, so that it would resemble the Hitler article. Himmler was not as antisemitic as Hitler or Goebbels. -- Dianna (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "The character of the man is in everything he writes, as well as in the fact that these letters, like so much else from the period - receipts, lists, drafts, ticket-stubs, and so on - survived through his care the holocaust of Germany. ("Manvell & Fraenkel p.8) - my POV - this explains more how he accomplished what he did, than trying to blame his sex life, his perverted brilliance etc.

This is trivial, and I am not going to add it. Also, we don't blame his sex life or perverted brilliance for anything; nothing like this appears in the article, and as far as I know it never has. -- Dianna (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Official records show that he did not formally apply to join the Nazi Party until August 1923, four months before the unsuccessful "putsch", in which he was to play a minor part as ensign to Roehm's contingent .... ("Manvell & Fraenkel p.11) - really, he was on the sidelines for much of what happened, until much later.

• "It soon became apparent that while Goebbels was the brilliant speaker and potential journalist, Himmler's talent lay rather in desk-work and other, more pedestran, activities. ("Manvell & Fraenkel p.15) yes, yes. The same with Heydrich whose article says: Historians regard him as the darkest figure within the Nazi elite; Adolf Hitler christened him "the man with the iron heart".

• "This year, 1929, became the turning-point in Himmler's life. On 6 January Hitler issued an order appointing him Reichsfuhrer S.S. in place of the cammander Erhard Heiden, whose deputy he had been. It was a far-seeing appointment. Something in this clerk-like man with his military ambitions and scrupulous self-discipline must have revealed to Hitler that he had in him the kind of perfectionism necessary to create a reliable counter-force to the undisciplined mob to storm-troopers who roamed the streets in the name of the Nazis. ("Manvell & Fraenkel p.17-18) - Himmler was not a self-made man.

• Darre was Hitler's agricultural expert and he had come to believe in selective breeding as a result of his studies . . . Darre became an accepted "thinker" on behalf of the Nazis, closely linked with Alfred Rosenberg, one of the principal propounders of the myth which convinced the Party that the true Germans possessed a unique racial superiority. ("Manvell & Fraenkel p.20-21)

I have added some content on Darré. -- Dianna (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Himmler's energies during this initial period were, as we have said, devoted to the theory and practice of the S.S. In 1931 Darre Joined his staff to organize the department known as the Race and Settlement Office ... (R.U.S.H.A.). This office was set up to determine the racial standards required of good German stock, to conduct research into the surviving ethnic groups in Europe that could be claimed as German, and to decide all matters connected with the descent of individuals ... .Darre remined in charge of this office with its increasing powers until 1938. ... It was with his aid that searching tests were devized for the brides of S.S. men and made obligatory in the notorious Marriage Law of S. S. men. ("Manvell & Fraenkel p.21-22)

Content has been added on the RuSHA and the Marriage Law. -- Dianna (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• During the next ten years Heydrich was to create a network of power which was eventually to threaten not only his master but every other member of the Nazi leadership, including Hitler himself. etc. ("Manvell & Fraenkel p.25) - needs more on Heyrich's role. (and by the way, Himmler and Heyrich were close friends.)

I disagree that the article needs more content about Heydrich. --Dianna (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

None of this is to excuse the cold brutality of Himmler, but I think his strengths were "used" by those who had the ideas, to implement those ideas. That Himmler, believing in duty etc. did this well, doesn't mean that the Holocaust was his brainchild or even largely his brainchild. It seems to me that for quite a while he carried out what he thought he was supposed to do. Yes, he came to believe in it all, even though he wavered in the end and contacted the British. But even as a child he was surrounded by a culture that had certain beliefs, and that he had them too is kind of predictable.

However, if Wehwalt (he said he'd return to the article to give his opinion) or other German military history person if he doesn't, feel the article is accurate, I'll accept that. I'd rather a more realistic article than the standard fare, but that's my POV.

I hope Nick-D's comments have been fully addressed.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing any furhter material sourced to Longerich will not make the article better; it will make it worse, and should therefore not be a requirement for this article to pass GA. Longerich is recognised as one of the top experts on this subject in the world, and to not use him as a source would do a disservice to our readers. It's not realistic to expect Manvell & Fraenkel at 251 pages (excluding citations and index) to contain the level of detail in Longerich, 748 pages excluding citations and index (Longerich has 200 pages of citations, by the way). Material in Manvell & Fraenkel supports that in Longerich; it does not contradict it.

Listing sixteen more tasks to be done just from the top part of the article goes well beyond the requirements for GA, too, in my opinion. I thought we were almost there, and now it looks like you are proposing a total re-write. -- Dianna (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

reply regarding inaccurate sources

• At least remove the inaccurate sources to Manvell & Fraenkel that supposedly support Longerich, but don't.

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• p.s. I think that there was general agreement that Longerich was overused in the article. Just because it was one of two books you could get at your local library isn't a reason to use one historian as the authorized source for events in Nazi Germany in WW II. You need a broad range of sources. And you should check the sources for accuracy before adding them as a second backup source for Longerich. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cross-checking is the best way; remember Manvell & Fraenkel's book is from 1965 (with many re-prints) so it is dated. With that said, I have no great love for Longerich, either; but he is well regarded and the most recent bio. I have read them all at different times. In fact, I did own both books above (and Peter Padfield's bio (1990) on Himmler, as well, but sold them all for other books). I recently added herein more as to his personality and what he was known for by others. Again, he did not have a close relationship with Hitler; Speer, Göring (until after 1941), Goebbels and Bormann are the ones Hitler was close to. Some of the early days history as written above from Manvell & Fraenkel's book could be added in with cross-checking with Longerich. Kierzek (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

All the citations recently added to Manvell & Fraenkel support at least some of the content that they follow. I did indeed check every one of them, as I have the book right here. They are not going to support everything in Longerich, because Longerich is three times as long a book. None of the sources I added are inaccurate. Why have you added a citation needed tag to the statement that "Himmler kept a diary from age 10, and continued to do so even after his father stopped checking" when it is sourced by footnote #5? The material is at the top of Longerich, page 18: " ... This terse recounting of the events of each day was something Heinrich continued with after his father stopped checking ... " -- Dianna (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Longerich's source for this information is "Smith, Himmler, page 51." Looking closer at your remarks above, it looks like you wish the content to be removed as it appears in Longerich and does not appear in Manvell & Fraenkel. So sorry, but my opinion is that if we remove everything from the article that is not supported by Manvell & Fraenkel, we will end up with a poorer article, not a better one. -- Dianna (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Dianna

• It was agreed by several editors that too much of the article was soured to Longerich. I never asked you to remove everything sourced to Longerich. I asked that supporting sources to be added. I check this sourcing regarding his childhood and youth, where Longerich's POV seemed particularly obvious. I found that the sources you provided (in addition to Longerich, since at this point there seems to be general agreement that Logerich is sourced too much) were inaccurate and did not support him. (Again, I remind you I was only looking at the first section about his early life and university. Longerich was directly contradicted by one of the sources you added. I think a general source check should be performed as I no longer trust the sourcing, and if Longerich is right, there should be others that support him. Otherwise, why should his POV be accepted? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two ps in here, I think that both Kierzek & Diannaa make good points about the use of Longerich vs other sources. I also second Diannaa's opinion that the recent additional points and suggestions are overly extensive. In fact, just from a high-level view of someone who knows less about Himmler than he probably should, I feel the entry is already too sprawling. For example, although I appreciate that Heydrich and Himmler were close, Heydrich features too prominently in the entry—now even the lede states that "Heydrich created a network of spies and informers for intelligence-gathering purposes and to obtain information to be used as blackmail to further political aims."; it is quite jarring to read, and in my opinion does not belong there. Moreover, what do we really glean from the fact that Himmler's father prompted him to write a diary, which he continued even when his father stopped checking on him? Is there a father-son issue there that needs exploring? If not, I'd suggest just to say that Himmler carried a diary. I feel there's a lot of very good information there—with a few fine-tuning cuts this article will be outstanding. Malljaja (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I added more detail to the jockeying for position as to the national police force, with some re-write. It is a good example of how Hitler handled things; with him being chief judge and the underlings fighting for turf. And how they would team up together. Frick took sides with Himmler and Heydrich in 1934 against Göring and then H&H switched sides to Göring after April 1934 against Frick. Check for ce. Kierzek (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to some of MathewTownsend's specific remarks in the bulleted list above. That there are indeed some differences between the two books, but that does not mean that Longerich is incorrect; it could be that Manvell and Fraenkel is the book that is incorrect. Manvell and Fraenkel mostly wrote books about Hollywood films and wrote a series of books on Nazi Germany as well as a sideline, whereas Peter Longerich is one of the leading German authorities on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. MathewTownsend, I urge you to seriously reconsider your dismissal of Longerich as a reliable source. I think it is a far superior source to Manvell and Fraenkel. We do our readers a disservice if we rely on Manvell and Fraenkel's tabloid-like book over a scholarly book by a world-renowned expert on this topic. -- Dianna (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Longerich's book is the most recent serious scholarly biography of Himmler. As such, there seems to be nothing per-se wrong with using it as a major source. As always, if different reliable sources say different things the different views should be noted. However, Manvell & Fraenkel's book appears to date from 1965, so it's quite likely to be outdated (there have been very significant advances in the historiography of Nazi Germany in the last 20 or so years). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Nick-D

1. The Manvell & Fraenkel's book is listed as 2007 both in this article in the footnotes and on Amazon.com, not 1965. So is the date in the article wrong about Manvell & Fraenkel's book?
2. Longerich's Attachment disorder diagnosis of Himmler is enough for me to question statements he makes about Himmler's early years.
3. Some of the material cited to him is either trivial or unnecessary, e.g. the part about his father making him start a diary (how does that contribute?) and the cavalier statement about his avoiding Jewish classmates when the next statement is that he belongs to a club that has a Jewish president and other Jewish members.
4. Longerich seems to have a POV regarding Himmler's early years that he was abnormally antisemitic from the get-go, when there is no other proof that his views were any different than many Germans of the time.
5. Longerich is relied upon overly in this article, and when I asked to have some corroborating citations for the Longerich citations on the early years, Manvell & Fraenkel's 2007 book was cited along with Longerich. However, when I looked in their book, the text did not corroborate Longerich's statements.
6. There are many scholarly books on World War II and what led up to it, as well as scholarly books on Himmler.
7. Longerich remains extensively cited in the footnotes. Examples from later in the article:

• Fn #169 Longerich 2011 pp. 733-734
• Fn #170 Manvell & Fraenkel 2007, pp. 239, 243
• Fn #171 Longerich 2011 pp. 734-736
• Fn #172 Longerich 2011 pp. 1, 736
• Fn #173 Longerich 2011 pp. 1-3

I agree with Malljaja that the entry is too "sprawing" and "what do we really glean from the fact that Himmler's father prompted him to write a diary, which he continued even when his father stopped checking on him? Is there a father-son issue there that needs exploring?"

Heydrich belongs in the lede. He and Himmler were very close and Heydrich, called the worst Nazi of all in his own article, was essential to Himmler's success. Many acts attributed to Himmler were actually designed and carried out by Heydrich. It has been pointed out in many sources that Himmler was a lax supervisor, lazy, work only a few hours a day etc. I see too many contradictory elements in the article. I think the article should either present the contradictions, as Wehwalt did in Albert Speer or leave out both sides. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Mathew

Yes, Manvell and Fraenkel's book is originally from 1965: From Amazon.com: Hardcover Publisher: Heinemann; Reprint edition (1965) ASIN: B0019OKUK6 Paperback Publisher: Heinemann (1965) ASIN: B0000DOR5F. How it should be cited is: (2007) [1965]. As for your comment there are "many scholarly books on Himmler"; actually there are only four main ones; one written in 1953 by Willi Frischauer, the one above from 1965, then Padfield in 1990 and Longerich, the most recent. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Mathew

I don't agree that Longerich's speculation that Himmler may have had attachment disorder should cast doubt upon the book's quality. The speculation is confined to a few pages, and does not permeate the book as an explanation for Himmler's actions. My opinion is that the book is a highly reliable source, quite likely the best one on this topic. My opinion is that the article meets or exceeds the sourcing requirements for GA.

MathewTownsend's assertion that Longerich presents Himmler as unusually antisemitic from an early age is incorrect. Longerich does not make this assertion. In fact, when the reviewer asked for more material on Himmler's antisemitism, it was difficult to find any additional material. Himmler was not especially antisemitic.

Another thing I want to talk about in MathewTownsend's most recent post is the statement that he was unable to source facts to Manvell and Fraenkel that appear in Longerich. The reason for this is because Longerich's book is three times as long and far more comprehensive. I added additional citations, as requested, that cover some of the points in "early life", but there is still material in that section sourced soley to Longerich. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

Asking for further analysis like that which appears in our featured article on Speer. This is not a GA requirement; GA requires that we address the main aspects of the topic and it stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. So in my opinion the article meets or exceeds the GA requirement for coverage of the main aspects of the topic. -- Dianna (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

WP is not about finding the truth — it's about representing the common view on a subject, however flawed it may be. So I do not quite follow the protracted discussion about the quality of Longerich as a source. From what I gather now, he is a major authority on Himmler. If so, his work should be a major source, which, like any source, may contain errors. If he stated something in his work that is not within the academic consensus this should be highlighted, drawing on reputable scholars who have questioned specific statements of fact or his interpretation. I agree with Diannaa that it is inappropriate to compare sources that differ in breadth and depth. Malljaja (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The material that our reviewer is questioning does not appear in the article; it has never appeared in the article; I merely mentioned it as an aside here on the talk page. In Longerich's book its discussion is confined to a paragraph on pages 40-41 and a couple other short mentions in the 748 pages of the book. So I disagree with you that anything needs to be placed in the article discussing the matter; Longerich himself treats it merely as an aside and does not use the premise as a basis for further discussion of Himmler's character. -- Dianna (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with both of you; to be clear, the major works which meet WP:RS should be used and Longerich is certainly one for this subject matter. When I have recommended "cross-checking", I meant for points which may in question or as to well known quotes or speeches. And certainly greater weight should be given to newer works by reputable scholars who have written on this type of subject matter as there are more source materials available now for review. BTW, Diannaa, I believe Malljaja only meant something should be noted if it didn't meet academic consensus; that is not the case, as you noted that opinion was not included in the main article and only mentioned here. BTW, will you check my Padfield ref book citation, apparently there was some minor error in format. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, my comment was indeed directed more broadly at the use and justification of sources and their representation in the entry. Malljaja (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Footnote to Mathew, I checked my SS books again and Kershaw's bio on Hitler. They confirm what I stated above on 00:49, 9 July 2012, that Hitler was not really close to Himmler. He did get regular reports. Further, they had meetings, discussions and phone conversations. Hitler knew what Himmler and the SS were doing and approved of it all (and Himmler was a true believer in Nazism and the Führerprinzip). Hitler liked to give verbal orders so little is written down; or he would give instructions to Bormann and he would convey orders. Kierzek (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I did similar research here, checking through four different books. It was pretty much a work-only relationship. They did not see each other socially; Himmler mostly socialised with other members of the SS. Himmler did not have a house at the Obersalzberg and was not a member of Hitler's inner circle of friends. -- Dianna (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Per Wehwalt's suggestion, there needs to be a section on the relationship between Hitler and Himmler. That he was not a part of Hitler's "inner circle of friends" is important. Such a section might put the events more in perspective. See Adolph Hitler for a very different view. It's like the Adolph Hitler article and this one are on different planets. One of the article's has the facts wrong, it seems to me. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(from Adolph Hitler): The Holocaust (the "Endlösung der jüdischen Frage" or "Final Solution of the Jewish Question") was organised and executed by Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich. The records of the Wannsee Conference—held on 20 January 1942 and led by Heydrich, with fifteen senior Nazi officials participating—provide the clearest evidence of systematic planning for the Holocaust. On 22 February Hitler was recorded saying to his associates, "we shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jews". MathewTownsend (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

read the Reinhard Heydrich article also, for another view. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Kierzek and I have worked extensively on all three articles (Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich) and as far as I know none of them contain any factual errors. So as it stands I am unable to rectify your concern. Could you please be more specific as to what it is that you are seeing that looks wrong? The corresponding section to the material you quote from Hitler appears in Himmler as follows: "Shortly after declaring war on the United States in December 1941, Hitler decided that the Jews of Europe were to be "exterminated".[109] Heydrich arranged a meeting, held on 20 January 1942 at Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin. Attended by top Nazi officials, it was used to outline the plans for the "final solution to the Jewish question". Heydrich detailed how those Jews able to work would be worked to death; those unable to work would be killed outright. In total, the attendees planned to kill 11 million Jews in this way, and Himmler was ultimately appointed to oversee these actions.[110]" How is this a "very different view"? What am I missing here? And from Heydrich: "On 20 January 1942 Heydrich chaired the Wannsee Conference, at which he presented to the heads of a number of German Government departments a plan for the deportation and transporting of 11 million Jewish people from every country in Europe, to be worked to death or killed outright in extermination camps.[92][93]" Same information, presented in a slightly different way.

I could start a section on Himmler's relationship with Hitler as requested, but it will would very small, as there is really insufficient material for a separate section:

Hitler and Himmler were not very close, and did not see each other socially. Himmler was not a member of Hitler's inner circle of friends. Hitler did receive regular reports, and the two had meetings, discussions, and phone conversations. Hitler typically gave verbal orders, or he would give instructions to Bormann, who would convey the orders, so little was written down.

It makes more sense, in my opinion, to incorporate this additional information into the article somewhere, perhaps in "historical views". I will be interested to hear Wehwalt's opinion as to whether he still feels strongly about this. -- Dianna (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, was Himmler, for example, often a guest at Hitler's table? Is he in Hitler's Table Talk? But even if it is as minimal as you indicate above, I think that a couple of concrete example of how Hitler and Himmler communicated would be in order. What about their relationship pre-1933? Surely there's enough material for, say, three paragraphs tracing the course of their relationship and the manner in which they worked together. Did Hitler ever say anything about Himmler, that sheds some light on Himmler? I think this would be of considerable interest to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will try. -- Dianna (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Hitler's Table Talk is a good place to start, because it basically draws on Bormann as a source. I'm currently reading Speer's Erinnerungen, and so far it confirms my impression from reading Kershaw's two books that Hitler and Himmler were not what one could call "friends". Of course, aside from Kubizek and perhaps Speer, Hitler did not have any friends—he mostly surrounded himself with his drivers, secretaries, and personal adjutants, i.e., mostly individuals who had the stamina to listen to his interminable monologues and were not disposed to offering their own views. Himmler was very loyal to Hitler, but Goebbels showed his ultimate loyalty by dying alongside his Führer, whereas Himmler tried to strike out on his own. To untangle these personal relationships and how they evolved and devolved over time is probably beyond the scope of this entry. Malljaja (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

reply from MathewTownsend to Diannna re Wehwalt's comments

• Plus the use of the "passive voice" continues, even in your example: "Heydrich detailed how those Jews able to work would be worked to death; those unable to work would be killed outright. In total, the attendees planned to kill 11 million Jews in this way, and Himmler was ultimately appointed to oversee these actions." There seems to be some sort need to reduce Hitler's involvement. Apparently Himmler had little direct contact with Hilter until the early 1940's.

• Hitler is the overarching figure. His relationship with Himmler is crucial in putting Himmler's actions in perspective.
• In Adolph Hitler, not much is said about Himmler.

• "On 15 May 1940, however, Himmler presented Hitler with a memo entitled "Some Thoughts on the Treatment of Alien Population in the East", which called for expulsion of the entire Jewish population of Europe into Africa and reducing the remainder of the Polish population to a "leaderless class of labourers".[264] Hitler called Himmler's memo "good and correct";[264] and, ignoring Göring and Frank, implemented the Himmler–Greiser policy in Poland."
• "When Himmler met Hitler on 18 December 1941 and posed the question "What to do with the Jews of Russia?", Hitler replied "als Partisanen auszurotten" ("exterminate them as partisans")."
• There is more info in the Hitler article about the dynamics between Hitler and Himmler regarding policy than in this article. i.e. the plan with Arthur Greiser: "Greiser complained to Hitler that Forster was allowing thousands of Poles to be accepted as "racial" Germans and thus, in Greiser's view, endangering German "racial purity". Hitler told Himmler and Greiser to take up their difficulties with Forster, and not to involve him."
• "On 28 April, Hitler discovered that Himmler was trying to discuss surrender terms with the Western Allies.[300] He ordered Himmler's arrest and had Hermann Fegelein (Himmler's SS representative at Hitler's HQ in Berlin) shot."

• The Reinhard Heydrich article details the extent of his involvement, and presents Himmler and Heydrich as working as a team. If Heydrich had not been murdered, his role would have grown most likely. But the emphasis is different in the two articles.

• from Heydrich's article: "When Hitler required a pretext for the invasion of Poland in 1939, Heydrich was placed in charge of the false flag plan code named Operation Himmler, ... "
• from Himmler's article: "In 1939, Himmler, Heydrich, and Heinrich Müller masterminded and carried out a false flag project code-named Operation Himmler."

• I'm concerned with balance and perspective in this article. An article on Himmler should fit in with the general coverage of Nazi Germany in the 20th century and the two wars, not go off on targeting Himmler as the main culprit. What happened and why is still being worked on by historians, as the Hitler article makes clear. The articles on Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich should jib, especially if the same editors worked on all three. Yet it seems to me the emphasis so distinctly different in this article. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

clarification

I'm sorry that I was misunderstood when I listed descriptions from Manvell & Fraenkel 2007. I didn't mean for that information to be included in this article. I was trying to point out the difference between describing various factors in his childhood/early life that actually related to what he was good at as an adult, rather than focusing on the antisemitism and other negative traits that probably were fairly comment in German youths of the time e.g. the books he read etc. Remember World War I and the Treaty of Versailles were in the recent past. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The "false flag" plan is now in sync with ce from Himmler's article added to the Heydrich article version as the former is more correct with greater detail. Kierzek (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

reply

hmmm. That is a considerable change in meaning, shifting the responsibility again away from Hitler. So Hitler hadn't "required" anything, wasn't involved, didn't care and it was all the independent idea of Himmler, Heydrich, and Heinrich Müller? Is it my job to go through the whole article and find these instances where the material is not consistent with other articles? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Hitler wanted and needed a casus belli and the SS through H&H and Muller gave him one. You are mis-reading the event as written. The article event was in general consistency; just the one had a little more detail as to the parties involved. And as with all things mentioned, the general reader can go to the main article for more detail. BTW, since you asked, your job is to generally review an article for main coverage, grammar, style and citing along the lines for GA status. Anyway, I have to get back to my day job (real life calls). Kierzek (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I now tweaked it but must go for now. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Kierzek

My main concern is criteria 2: factually accurate and verifiable, 3(a): it addresses the main aspects of the topic, 3(b): it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail, and 4: neutral point of view. This is what I'm having trouble with and why I've consulted other articles and sources etc. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Mathew Townsend

• I have tweeked the content about the false flag operation, using Shirer page 518 as a source.
• I have clarified the section on the Wannsee Conference, using Evans (2008) page 264 as a source. This edit also removes the passive voice from the material, as it makes it clear that the statements were part of Heydrich's speech.
• I have added a new section about Himmler's relationship with Hitler.
• Some of the material has been removed from the "Early life" section, and I have tried to make it clearer that his antisemitism was not unusual or extreme in his school and college years.
• I have done another round of copy edits and re-worded further instances of passive voice.
• The material on Greiser in the Hitler article is intended to give an example of Hitler's leadership style. I have discussed the leadership style here in the new section, but did not give any specific examples, as it's too much detail for the Himler article.
• Now I would like to try to briefly address Himmler as a main perpetrator of the Holocaust. When we describe in this article the things that Himmler willingly did in an effort to fulfill Hitler's genocidal wishes, we are not trying to minimize Hitler's role. Hitler was the man ultimately responsible for the Holocaust and the events of WWII in Europe; however, without willing subordinates such as Himmler, Heydrich, Eichmann, Bormann, Höss, Amon Goeth, and thousands of other Nazi perpetrators, none of these events would have happened. All these perpetrators are responsible to varying degrees. Most sources consider Himmler as the second most powerful man in the Reich, and hopefully our article in its present state conveys that fact clearly.
• Finally I respectfully disagree with you that it will be necessary to coordinate and edit an entire suite of articles in order for this article to pass GA. Such work is clearly outside the scope of the GA requirements. If you spot any further discrepancies among these articles, one of us will be happy to try and resolve such problems for you. I repeat, to the best of my knowledge there's no factual errors in any of these three articles. If anything, this article is superior to the others, as it is the one we have nominated for GA the most recently. -- Dianna (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Dianna

• I bothered me that I had to point out contradictions in the articles.
• From the lede of your article on Reinhard Heydrich: Historians regard him as the darkest figure within the Nazi elite; Adolf Hitler christened him "the man with the iron heart". - so that is true too?
• Now you appear to be trying to target Himmler as the "worst", the one most responsible. Regarding "without willing subordinates such as Himmler, Heydrich, Eichmann, Bormann, Höth, Amon Goeth, and thousands of other Nazi perpetrators, none of these events would have happened." You are being simplistic, and you aren't explaining anything about Himmler - he was a willing subordinate like many others. Also without the history of genocides in Europe, just in the 20th century (for example, detailed in Naimark, Norman M. (2002). Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-00994-3 - used as a source in the Hitler article) it wouldn't have happened. With out World War I (the Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Greek genocide etc.) and the Treaty of Versailles it wouldn't have happened. Probably wouldn't have happened without the US Wall Street Crash of 1929, which hit Germans hard. I just can't see huge events as the fault of one of the "willing subordinates".
• ps You are using Speer's comments on Himmler, despite Wehwalt's warning to be very careful in doing so. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to MathewTownsend

• I am getting kinda confused here, as it seems like your post is commenting more on things I have said here on the GA review page rather than the content of the article. Regardless, I will try to answer your questions. That description of Heydrich has three sources; it is properly and verifiably sourced; I am not going to speculate as to its truth. I am not targeting Himmler as the worst; I am not trying to rank these perpetrators in any way in this article. However, historians do describe Himmler as second in power within the Third Reich; that statement can be verifiably sourced to Kershaw and others. And I am not trying to explain anything about Himmler in this article; I am using the material in reliable sources to chronicle the events of his life. For me to try to explain his life would be original research. I am not attempting to describe the Holocaust as any one person's fault. That would indeed be incredibly simplistic.
• If you want any of the material that was sourced to Speer removed, please say so, and it shall be done. -- Dianna (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Dianna

I respond to emotional statements, like "Hitler was the man ultimately responsible for the Holocaust and the events of WWII in Europe; however, without willing subordinates such as Himmler, Heydrich, Eichmann, Bormann, Höss, Amon Goeth, and thousands of other Nazi perpetrators, none of these events would have happened."

• Do you really believe that Hitler was ultimately responsible for WWII? Read The Economic Consequences of the Peace by John Maynard Keyes in 1920. Something bad was going to happen as a consequence, he predicted. So Hitler used the circumstances, but to say one man was ultimately responsible for WWII is ... false. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, I have been only peripherally involved in working on this entry, but from following this discussion here, I would like to offer a suggestion. You need to articulate comments and suggestions that are structured, specific, and positive. Your last comment in particular is very unhelpful — it does not focus on how to improve this article, which reviewer's comments should. You have two top contributors working on this, who have done an outstanding job improving this entry on an unwieldy subject — even going beyond the call of duty for a GA review. It's time to acknowledge that. Malljaja (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Malljaja

I appreciate your suggestion and you have a good point. But there's been too much pushing of POV for me to be comfortable. I believe a too narrow focus on proving a POV has been employed. I think I expressed specific instances quites a while ago, and only with extreme persistence on my part, calling in outside experts etc. (Wehwalt, and Dianna called in Nick-D who agreed basically with me) was anything changed. I've seen the same reference used to support opposite views. I've seen an insistence the switching of wording, but the same citations used. I've seem switching of wording to fit the POV of an editor. I don't buy into the "one bad man" caused it all theory. And the use of Longerich, however respected he is in general, is not a good source for Himmler's early life, per comments from Dianna that show he is psychoanalyzing when he is not a psychologist. (If his diagnosis is correct, then Himmler has a diagnosable mental illness and wasn't responsible.) When people make statements that any one man was "ultimately" responsible for WWII, then it's hard for me to trust their interpretation of events. In the last couple of days I have read more than I ever wanted to know about Hitler and WWII. I have consulted with off wikipedia experts on WWII and causes thereof. It is best for all if I just fail the article and let another reviewer pass it, which will probably happen as it has been immeasurably improved. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mathew, some points to consider when you make statments such as, "...So Hitler used the circumstances, but to say one man was ultimately responsible for WWII is ... false." Copy edit: Most historians take to position that Hitler's overriding obsession was hatred of the Jews, and he showed on a number of occasions that he was willing to risk losing the war to achieve their destruction. There is no "smoking gun" in the form of a document which shows Hitler ordering the Final Solution. Hitler did not have a bureaucratic mind and many of his most important instructions were given orally. Hitler's policies inflicted human suffering on an unprecedented scale; the Nazi regime was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 21 million civilians and prisoners of war. In addition, 29 million soldiers were killed in the European theater of World War II. Historians, philosophers, and politicians often apply the word "evil" in describing the Nazi regime.

He and his minions did more then just take advantage of "the circumstances" handed to them. Lastly, to say that changes only came about after "extreme persistence" on your part is disingenuous. It is unfortunate given the fact we all worked so well together on Heydrich; in getting it to GA status. I rather we get this article, together, to GA status. Kierzek (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to MathewTownsend

Thanks for responding to my comment. I understand your unhappiness about the progress of the GA, though I do not share your view that POV has driven some of the recent changes. I think it's more to do with the immensity of the subject, which by its very nature has not invited a plurality of POVs in the scholarly literature. I sense that you are quite emotionally invested in the subject, which is very laudable, but it may have stood in the way of doing an effective review — being a little bit naive about and distant to the subject at hand may be a better starting point. But I realize that's a bit of a tall order for this general area. I'd ask you to reconsider failing the GA, because, as you yourself say, the entry has been immeasurably improved. It's a GA not an FA review, and having it visibly elevated may attract additional high-quality editors to further improve its contents. Malljaja (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Malljaja

I agree that the article is immensely improved and I now feel I could pass it as a GA. I'm glad to see the mention of the Treaty of Versailles, as the attractiveness of a demagogue to the German people didn't happen in a vacuum. Likewise the Great depression. Hugely negative economic effects on a country can set the stage. Also, I think the section on Hitler helps explain the context. I offered to fail the article to get myself out, as I'm sure another editor would pass it. I'm pretty confident in the article now. However, Wehwalt said on his talk page he would look at it Sunday. He's much more astute then I am. If he doesn't turn up on Sunday, I'll pass it without more input. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it meets the GA standard. A couple of quick points, both having to do with Speer. First, "He entrusted Bormann with his paperwork, appointments, and personal finances. Bormann used his position to control the flow of information and access to Hitler,{{sfn|Speer|1971|p=333}} Speer is not who I would pick for a neutral source on Bormann. Surely it can be found in another source? Second, I'm a bit surprised he never makes it "onstage" in the story of Himmler's life. Given that Speer devoted a book to Himmler and the SS, and the reader may in fact be aware of this, it might be wise to have a sentence or so mentioning and describing their relationship during the war.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Wehwalt. I hope you had a great vacation! I have found some equivalent content in Evans (2005) regarding Bormann and a bit about the rivalry between Speer and Himmler from Sereny. Thank you very much for taking the time to help out with this review! -- Dianna (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, and thanks, yes, it was very nice. I'll glance through my Nazi Germany sources when I get a chance, but as you own most of them, I'll be doing it just to make sure I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, MathewTownsend. -- Dianna (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)