Talk:1938–1939 German expedition to Tibet

Untitled

This article has several serious problems. Firstly it appears to have been translated at least partially from German by a non-naitve English speaker, perhaps with the aid of an on-line translator. Secondly, it contains several obvious errors of fact: for instance it describes Otto Rahn as operative in Iraq during the 1941 coup attempt, while linking to the main article on Rahn (also with serious problems) which describes him as dying in 1939.

More fundamentally, though more subjectively, it makes the argument thatthe true reason for the ostensibly natural historical expedition was occultist, to make make contact with 'secret amsters' in Tibet. While there may in fact be soemthing to this, no substantiation is offered, and the article seems to be encrusted with a lot of typical occultist drivel. 75.0.38.166 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images

Considering the availability of free images from the German Federal Archive, this article has entirely too many non-free images, particularly at the end. I have replaced one with a much better one (which actually shows the face of the man described, Beger); but several non-free images remain.

— Ken g6 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced two more images, this time with near-identical free versions. One was a lucky find; the other was on the German version of the article. Only two non-free images remain, but it may be more difficult to find identical free versions of them. — Ken g6 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up, Refs, etc.

I have added a couple of useful refs but a lot of the relevant material is on microfilm in the NA. The Levenda work, although emotive, is well sourced and provides sources and indications for the microfilm rolls if anyone is down that way with some time on their hands. Hope this helps.Ernstblumberg (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up

I have started removing or regrouping information not relevant to the subject (Heinrich Harrer's climbing debut, the Nanga Parbat expedition). For Harrer's in-depth biography, see the French Wikipedia page.--Elnon (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

POV

Unfortunately, the article suffers from POV. For a more objective appreciation, I recommend reading:

• Detlev Rose, L'expédition allemande au Tibet de 1938-39. Voyage scientifique ou quête de traces à motivation idéologique ?, in Synergies européennes - Bruxelles-Munich-Tübingen, novembre 2006 (article tiré de la revue Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart, No 3-2006).", cited into external links, but not cited in the article.
• Works of Isrun Engelhardt (This author published an article in McKay Alex (ed.), Tibet and Her Neighbours : A History). See also :
• Isrun Engelhardt, «Tibetan Triangle. German, Tibetan and British relations in the context of E. Schäfer's expedition, 1938-1939», in Asiatische Studien, LVIII.1, 2004.
• Isrun Engelhardt, Tibet in 1938-1939 : Photographs from the Ernst Schäfer Expedition to Tibet, Serindia, Chicago, 2007.
• Isrun Engelhardt, «Mishandled Mail : The Strange Case of the Reting Regent's Letters to Hitler», in Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies 2003, Oxford.
• Isrun Engelhardt, «The Nazis of Tibet : A twentieth century myth» , in Monica Esposito, Images of Tibet in the 19th and 20th Centuries, Ecole française d'Extrême Orient, coll. «Etudes thématiques», 2008.
• Martin Brauen, Dreamworld Tibet, Orchid Press, Bangkok, 2004.
• Thierry Dodin, Heinz Räther, Imagining Tibet. Realities, Projections and Fantasies, Wisdom Publication, Boston, 2001.
• --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For a page to be marked as non neutral, tangible arguments should be formulated in relation to relevant points of the text. A bibliographical list of articles and books can in no way be passed off as sound justification for charges of non neutral point of view.--Elnon (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the balanced literature cited above is neither cited nor used appropriately. I did read in details the 2 first indicated references and found out that the article in its current form as published on wikipedia is lacking such a balance approach. It will require time to go into details to obtain a balance article. In the mean time, I strongly suggest to let the indication of POV.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article suffers still from POV. It uses extensively sensationalist sources like Pringle, Heather, The Master Plan, as well as Hale's Himmler’s Crusade, which classified by researchers as "reflecting ideological preconceptions and sensationalism" but does not make use of reliable and established academic research. I removed the quote from Pringle who tries to put the Dalai Lama into the context of Hitler, which is ridiculous. There is also no precise reference given or a source where one can exactly prove such a claim. That this meteorite story is quoted in the article is also ridiculous because Elmar Buchner has in no way any evidence that this meteorite is from the Schäfer-Tibet-Expedition, he just assumes it. So it's a mere speculation. Actually this should be removed too until evidence is given. This meteorite story has nothing to do with the Schäfer expedition. I will remove Pringle and put the meteorite story in a different section with a separate headline. Moreover the article should have the title of its official name: "German Tibetexpedition Ernst Schäfer". One of Engelhardt's papers is online. I linked it in the article. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just seen that this article includes even more dubious sources like Trimondis, they as well as Pringle, and Christopher Hale are sensationalist and don't meet in any way Wikipedia's Reliable Source Policies (WP:RS). I removed at least Trimondi and one quote by Pringle, and replaced both by a WP:RS. For a review on Trimondi, see Schlieter: http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/8625 The article still is mainly based on dubious and non WP:RS, therefore I marked that article with the "unreliable sources" template. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Iron Man passage

As said earlier, this iron man passage is mere speculation, I would suggest to delete it or to put it into perspective. No researchers have been asked regarding its origin. It's a real non-sense speculation discussion. For a paper by Prof. Bayer regarding this see: http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/publikationen/Bayer_2012-Trousers.pdf 213.182.68.42 (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Good that it was deleted. This article by Roger Croston shows how distorted this has been: Is the Space Buddha a Counterfeit? 213.182.68.42 (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Self ref

Other problem : self reference, the article start with an introduction lacking ref, citing an article that is on wikipedia. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Title

The title SS Tibet Expedition is not based on recent reference. The official title of this expedition was "Ernst Schäfer German Expedition to Tibet" as stated by two recent and neutral references. There are no reference claiming that SS Tibet Expedition was the official title of the expedition. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A question of historical truth

To any historian who values historical truth, the official designation of the expedition is not the euphemistic "German Ernst Schâfer Tibet Expedition" but the official "SS Tibet Expedition", as encountered in the German press of the time (see "the SS Tibet expedition of 1938-1939" in Petre Levenda's book Unholy Alliance) and as used in the 1946 interrogation report on Schäfer by American military intelligence ("the SS-Tibet Expedition"). Even Schäfer himself used that name. It should be borne in mind that all 5 members of the expedition were SS officers (and not civilians) by the time they left for Tibet, and the expedition was placed under the patronage of the SS Institute Ahnenerbe (even though the latter only funded the expedition's return journey). Detlev Rose affirms that the official name is "the German Ernst Schäfer Tibet Expedition" but she supplies no evidence that this was the case. So there is no reason (except linguistic revisionism) why a designation so removed from historical truth should be preferred over that used by Schäfer himself (a fact recognized by Detlev Rose), his contemporaries as well as subsequent serious historians.--Elnon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

To clarify matters, I have added this paragraph to the page:

The SS Tibet Expedition ·  ·  · was a May 1938 - August 1939 German expedition to Tibetan territory under the sponsorship of the Ahnenerbe Institute.

--Elnon (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The references you provided do not claim the official title was "The SS Tibet Expedition". You have only listed a number publication having this denomination in their titles, which do not make it more official. You have also added part of a citation from a book. I have found the corresponding link, and the complete citation: "Probably the best known expedition was the SS Tibet expedition, undertaken in 1943". So, either this book is referring to a later expedition, or there is a mistake in the date. So, why not another mistake in the name of the expedition? In either case, the citation do not claim this is the official name of the expedition.

As for Detlev Rose, she put into question :

« Tous les participants à cette expédition étaient membres des « échelons de protection » (SS), mais ce fait justifie-t-il d’étiqueter cette expédition d’ « expédition SS », comme on le lit trop souvent dans maints ouvrages ? »

“All participants of this expedition were SS, but does that justifies the title of “SS expedition”, as we may find too often in many books?”

And yes, Detlev Rose affirms that the official name is "the German Ernst Schäfer Tibet Expedition" in her article that is base on an academic research work, the PhD dissertation of Dr. Peter Mierau, an historian of the University of Würzburg.

Therefore, in conclusion, there are 2 official and neutral references giving the official name as Ernst Schäfer German Expedition to Tibet, whereas there are none claiming The SS Tibet Expedition was the official name. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"SS Tibet-Expedition" is not the official title of the expedition but "Deutsche Tibet-Expedition Ernst Schäfer" is the official title. The academic standard work on the Expedition and the myths sourrounding it is for sure: "Nazis of Tibet: A Twentieth Century Myth." In: Monica Esposito (ed.), Images of Tibet in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Paris: École française d'Extrême-Orient (EFEO), coll. Études thématiques 22, vol. I, 2008, 63-96 by Isrun Engelhardt: http://indologica.de/drupal/?q=node/513 The Wiki-article seems to need a revision or clean up. I lack time to do that. Also the more than 1000 images should be linked: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Deutsche_Tibet-Expedition_Ernst_Sch%C3%A4fer The claim that the 'Ahnenerbe' sponsored it is plain wrong too, hence I removed that wrong and unverified claim from the article. Wikipedia relies mainly on WP:RS and not twilight literature. Engelhardt, Brauen, Dodin/Räther are the prime sources which should be used or consulted; McKay's Tricycle article is in many ways incorrect and an exaggeration of the events - maybe this was done for the sake to make it more exciting for the reader, however, Engelhardt is an excellent and reliable source. Detlev Rose: I don't know this source. --GelekT (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I made the intro more accurate removing inaccuracies:

The 1938-1939 Ernst Schäfer German Expedition to Tibet, as officially named[1][2][3] was a May 1938 - August 1939 German scientific expedition led by the German zoologist Ernst Schäfer to Tibet. All five researchers were members of the SS. The expedition was also named by some the SS Tibet Expedition. [4][5][6][7]

--GelekT (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks GelekT. I have started to study all the POV that were introduced here, and others in the fr:Ernst Schäfer. There are so many on this subject that it will require lot of times. Please have a look from times to times on this page. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It would not be much of a surprise if GelekT was in fact a sock-puppet. His first appearance and edit in Wikipedia is dated 23:34, 21 February 2010, and all subsequent edits are restricted to the German Tibet Expedition article and talk pages. How convenient!--Elnon (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea about that. Anyway, GelekT's contribution are of interst to this article. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The official title of the Expedition was indeed "Deutsche Tibet-Expedition Ernst Schäfer" and according to Wikipedia's name conventions (Wikipedia:Article titles) the lemma should be like this or "German Tibet-Expedition Ernst Schäfer". Hence, I would like to suggest to change the lemma accordingly. What Elnon suggests above is a bit funny to me. "SS Expedition" is not a "historical truth" but a mess up of semi-informed people, and strongly influenced by the bias of some British officer. The official title of the expedition is and was "Deutsche Tibet-Expedition Ernst Schäfer". This has nothing to do with being euphemistic. In the article a section can be added what other names the expedition received by whom and why, as long as WP:RS are used. In this way different information can be presented without distorting this topic, as it is largely now. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Under SS banners and a swastika, the expedition members are entertaining some Tibetan dignitaries and the Chinese representative in Lhasa; left: Beger, Chang Wei-pei Geer; in the centre: Tsarong Dzasa, Schäfer; right: Wienert, Möndro (Möndo)

SS-Tibet-Expedition is the designation used by Ernst Schäfer himself

• in the Atlantis journal (quote: “an article by Ernst Schaefer from the magazine Atlantis date October 1939. This article had the sub-heading 'von Dr Ernst Schaefer Leiter der SS-Tibet-Expeditionan", Ofcom, Broadcast Bulletin, Issue number 85 - 21/05/07, Fairness and Privacy Cases, Not Upheld, Complaint by Mr Roger Croston on behalf of Dr Bruno Beger Secret History: The Nazi Expedition, Channel 4, 12 July 2004 ).
• in the SS Das Schwarze Korps magazine and other Nazi periodicals (see The Activities of Dr. Ernst Schaefer: "Articles under Schaefer's name appeared in Das Schwarze Korps and other Nazi periodicals, publicizing the expedition, its scientific goals, and its role in the National Socialistic scheme for world domination.")

The designation was also found in German newspapers

• see Peter Levenda, Unholy alliance: a history of Nazi involvement with the occult, 2nd edition, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002, 423 p., p. 192 : "the official SS-Tibet Expedition referred to in the press" - p. 194: "the following article from the Nazi Völkischer Beobachter of July 29, 1939, relates: Dr. Ernst Schäfer, SS-Hauptsturmführer, has now completed the first German SS-Tibet Expedition with extraordinarily great success
• and in a scientific journal of the time (Konrad von Rauch, Die Erste Deutsche SS-Tibet-Expedition, in Der Biologe 8, 1939, S. 113-127.

At the end of the Second World War, the same designation was adopted

• by a US military intelligence in Europe in February 1946 (The Activities of Dr. Ernst Schaefer, United States Forces - European Theater Military Intelligence Service Center, APO 757 Final Interrogation Report (OI-FIR) No. 32, Feb. 12, 1946: “A new Tibetan expedition, to be called the SS Tibet Expedition, was then in preparation.”)
• and again by the Heinrich Himmler Archives in the Hoover Institution: “Folder 1. The SS-Tibet-Expedition, 1939. See Online Archive of California (OAC)).

SS-Tibet-Expedition has been used also by

• Mechtild Rössler, doctor of geography, in a book about Science in the Third Reich (2001) (quote: "Probably the best known expedition was the SS Tibet expedition" (Mechtild Rössler, Geography and Area Planning under National Socialism, in Margit Szöllösi-Janze (ed.), "Science in the Third Reich", Oxford and New York: Berg Publishers, 2001, 289 p., pp. 59-79, p. 71),
• and writer Peter Levenda (2002) (Unholy alliance: a history of Nazi involvement with the occult, 2nd edition, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002, 423 p., p. 192: "the efforts and adventures of the SS-Tibet expedition.") --Elnon (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Gayokang: Expedition with the minister of the king of Tharing, [from left to right: minister of Raja from Taring, Schäfer, Beger, Krause (in front), Wienert, Geer (in front)]; No SS signs or Nazi Swastika can be seen … From thousands of images of the Schäfer expedition there might not be more than two with an explicit Nazi Symbol like a Swastika or an SS symbol. Yet many have used these very few to "prove" the "SS character" of the expedition.

As I said in a WP:NPOV article different versions of designations can be presented. I mainly focussed on those designations to the expedition not liked to be used by those who like to spin SS myths, occult beliefs, and other projections into this expedition. BTW, whoever included the image above with the Nazi Symbol: Be aware that as far as I have checked it from thousands of images there are only two I have seen with a SS Symbol or Nazi-Swastika. To show 1 or 2 images from thousands of images on which there is not any SS symbols only proves that such a person is rather focussing on sensationalist aspects but not an a serious, unbiased investigation – or "historical truth" – as you called it. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Found this today (24/10/2012) which approves what I said about the Nazi symbol (mis)use: Roger Croston, Is the Space Buddha a Counterfeit?. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I added to the designation section the fact, that Schäfer changed the letterhead to “Deutsche Tibet Expedition Ernst Schäfer.”. This is what I added: After the German Consul-General in Calcutta criticised in his report to the German Foreign Office the letterhead, "arguing that the prescribed letterhead was counter-productive and immediately generated mistrust among the British", Schäfer "ordered a new, discreet letterhead in Antiqua font, which read “Deutsche Tibet Expedition Ernst Schäfer.” Reference: »Tibet in 1938–1939: The Ernst Schäfer Expedition to Tibet«, Engelhardt 2007, p.17 and Note 38 p.250. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the designation section is better than what has been there so far by now. In another paper by Engelhart Tibetan Triangle: German, Tibetan and British Relations in the Context of Ernst Schäfer's Expedition, 1938-1939, Asiatische Studien 58 (19 2004), 57- 113, she states:

In preparation for the expedition, he had had "Schäfer Expedition 1938/39” letterheads printed and applied for sponsorship from businessmen. However, in February 1938 Himmler decreed that on the orders of the "Ahnenerbe" the expedition's name would have to be changed to "German Tibet-Expedition Ernst Schäfer (in large print), under the patronage of the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler and in connection with the Ahnenerbe" (in small print).3 This letter heading, in large, striking Gothic type, caused Schäfer considerable difficulties with the British authorities after his arrival in India. Even the German Consul-General in Calcutta included a pointed criticism in his report to the Foreign Office that the letterhead had been counter-productive and had immediately generated mistrust with the English.4 The consequence was that Schäfer ordered new, discreet letterheads in Antiqua typeface, evidently while still in Calcutta, which stated "Deutsche Tibet Expedition Ernst Schäfer."

FN 3: 3 Memo Sievers, 93.1938, BA Berlin, NS 21/165.

FN 4: 4 Podewils to Foreign Office, Berlin, 11.6.1938, BA Berlin, ZM 1457 A.5, f. 47-48.

213.182.68.42 (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I added also that Schäfer used throughout the expedition only the non-SS letterheads.:

During the expedition Schäfer used only the letterhead “Deutsche Tibet Expedition Ernst Schäfer.” or his original “Schaefer Expedition” paper. The letterhead "German Tibet-Expedition Ernst Schäfer [in large print], under the patronage of the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler and in connection with the ‘Ahnenerbe’ [in small print]" was only used prior to the expedition’s departure.

reference: The Nazis of Tibet: A Twentieth Century Myth, Isrun Engelhardt, in: Monica Esposito (ed.), »Images of Tibet in the 19th and 20th Centuries.« Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO), coll. Études thématiques 22, vol. I, 2008, p.77-78 213.182.68.42 (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Reference credibility

Claudio Mutti wrote one article in Italian (Le SS in Tibet, published in 2000) about this issue, and it contains serious mistakes. Not the least: he wrote that the expedition met the Panchen Lama, who ... was dead at that time, Mutti even claim a treaty was signed by the Panchen Lama with the 3rd Reich. The reference cited in the article is in French, apparently a translation published in 2005 of the paper originally published in Italian. Due to important mistakes it contains, I think this reference can be omitted from the article. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on this ref, Elnon wrote : "The official plan of the expedition included ... contacting the local authorities for the establishment of representation in the country." I know no other source about this, this why I suggest this is unverified. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There is still this dubious source Trimondis included. Trimondis are not accepted by scientists as a reliable source. They are classified as a source following conspiracy theories etc. This is no academic source, and also not WP:RS in any way. It should be removed when there is a striving for a proper WP article. (Or is the article to continue to spin history?) One could include Trimondis in a special section about Myth Producing Sources or so. But not in the main body of the text. For details about Trimondis see e.g. Prof. Schlieter (University of Bern): http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/frontdoor.php?source_opus=8625; or Dodin/Räther in Imagining Tibet: Between Shangri-la and Feudal Oppression, footnote: 38:

There are, however, a few dissenting voices who contest the dominance of the positive image of Tibet and, instead, continue to spread the old cliches of the "feudal-hell syndrome" via the internet and some scattered publications. But the heavily dogmatic character of these circles, their marginality and the poor quality of their arguments make them negligible (see for instance: Ditfurth and Goldner, 1996, Ditfurth, 1997, Goldner, 1999, and Trimondi, 1999).

Also Prof. Martin Brauen (Dreamworld Tibet) and Engelhardt state clearly that this is a dubious source; e.g. Engelhardt in Nazis of Tibet about Victor & Victoria Trimondi [i.e. Herbert & Maria Röttgen]:

Another trend has originated from left-wing German authors, in whose books the idealized image of Tibet is being turned into its dark, but equally distorted, mirror image.  Here the alleged connections to National Socialism and neo-Fascism are linked to a literal interpretation of  the final victory of the armies of  Shambhala, with Tibetan tantric Buddhism being seen as a tool for world dominance by the Tibetans.

Martin Brauen, Dreamworld Tibet, 2004, page 80 – see especially his chapter: B: The neo-Nazis and Tibet, pp. 50-81:

Like Ipares, Strunk, Ludendorff, Wilhelmy and Rosenberg some sixty years earlier, the Röttgens construct a conspiracy theory according to which the Dalai Lama is a world ruler and wants to establish a global 'Buddhocracy' by infiltrating the West with his omnipotent lamas... and in sublime way making Western people… part of his world-wide Kalachakra project.

Tromondis should therefore be removed because they don't meet in any way WP:RS. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Aims of the Expediton

Though it's talked a lot about Ahnenerbe, Himmler, SS etc. the real objectives of Schäfer himself have not been included in the article. Hence, I put a section at the start of the article which state's Schäfer's own objectives:

Schäfer's primary objective for the expedition was the creation of a complete scientific record of Tibet, through a synthesis of geology, botany, zoology, and ethnology, referred to in the German science of the day as "holism." Reference: Ernst Schäfer, Geheimnis Tibet. München: Bruckmann 1943, 7-16, see also Engelhardt, Isrun, »Nazis of Tibet: A Twentieth Century Myth.« In: Monica Esposito (ed.), Images of Tibet in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Paris: École française d'Extrême-Orient (EFEO), coll. Études thématiques 22, vol. I, 2008, p.76. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The new section of objectives became somewhat unbalanced. Therefore I quoted Roger Croston who not only agrees with Schäfer but also quotes NYT, and bases his POV an present research results:

Researcher Roger Croston quoting the The New York Times of 1939 (stating “The expedition is bringing back valuable zoological and botanical collections”), Schäfer, and research results describes the objective of the expedition as "The primary aim of this expedition was an holistic creation of a complete biological record of Tibet alongside a synthesis of inter-relating natural sciences with regard to geography, cartography, geology, earth magnetics, climate, plants, animals and mankind." ref: Roger Croston, [1] Is the Space Buddha a Counterfeit?, 24 Oct. 2012

213.182.68.42 (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Claudio Mutti is an unreliable source

This source should not be used, at it not neutral. It also contains mistakes. See discussion in French fr:Discussion:Expédition allemande au Tibet (1938-1939)/Archives. For instance, Mutti pretend Panchen Lama met the German expedition and signed a friendship treaty with the 3rd Reich. This is impossible, as the Panchen Lama died in 1937. See also discussion above (Reference credibility), about Mutti and Trimondis.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)