Talk:Ernst Röhm

A BOLD claim needs to be sourced

An editor has made the claims that if "[Röhm] had agreed to stand the SA down he would have survived", i.e. he would not have been purged in the Night of the Long Knives. The editor also claims that "Hitler needed the support of the industrialists more than he needed the army." I have seen absolutely no support for these claims in any of the literature I have read. Such WP:BOLD claims need to be supported with citations from extremely reliable (i.e. not WP:FRINGE) sources.

First, there is the question of what the editor means by "standing down". The conventional meaning of this is to (temporarily) stop activities. This is what Hitler ordered Röhm to do, stand down the SA, and Röhm complied. He and the SA's leadership were (putatively) at Bad Wiessee to confer with each other and then meet with Hitler, again at Hitler's orders. So the SA had indeed stood down, and Röhm was murdered anyway.

It seems possible that the editor means by "stand down" to dis-establish the SA entirely. If so, this is a counter-factual opinion which is impossible to verify, because it did not happen, and it seems highly unlikely that Röhm would have willingly shut down his very power base. It's more likely that if Hitler had ordered it, Röhm would have returned to South America, or wherever, to be a military consultant again. In any case, the opinion that Röhm would have survived if he had shut down the SA for good is one that can only be expressed in a Wikipedia article if it is expressed by a verified subject expert, who are the only people that are allowed to express opinions; Wikipedia editors cannot do so as the editor has done in this instance.

As for the industrialists vs. the military: the Army had long objected to the SA, and was concerned about their being a quasi-military force which could be used against them. Hitler very much needed to co-opt the Army, and the fact that he had gained the Chancellorship and virtually unfettered civil power meant that he no longer needed the SA to perform the anti-Communist rabble-rousing role they had played, which helped to create the circumstances under which he was made Chancellor. Now, he no longer needed the SA, he needed the Army, and Röhm's continuing push for a "Second Revolution" had become a thorn in his side, similar to the Strassers. Hitler had power, he no longer saw the need for revolution, which would simply upset everything he had achieved. These factors all came together in his decision to purge Röhm, the SA leadership Strasser and others who had long been on his list. The Army was who he was trying to appease, not industrialists.

Hitler, of course, needed the backing of the industrialists, but he already had that to some extent, and it is far from clear to me (and the editor does not present any evidence to support the idea) that getting rid of the SA was something that the industrialists wanted. The Sa was potentially direct competition for the Army, they presented no specific danger to the industrialists, except for being agents of general civil unrest. I have read nothing to indicate that the industrialists were urging Hitler to suppress the SA, were as the literature about the Army's qualms about the Nazi paramilitary is abundant.

In short "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." The editor is questions needs to stop attempting to edit-war their desired changes into the article and discuss them here, providing proof in the way of citations from very reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your revert and analysis, BMK. The fact is, the inclusion of the first part of the edit, is mere speculation and conjecture. The second edit is not the main reason, as you stated; certainly the industrialists and conservative politicians for that matter wanted the SA brought to heel given the civil unrest caused and also the spouted Socialism aspects, but it was the army who were the competition for being the arms bearing military force for the country; they had the most to lose. Frankly, there’s no evidence that Ernst would have survived and there’s no evidence he would’ve ever “stood down”, either. The edits also involved WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor blocked as sock of HarveryCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The point is that both the army and the industrialists were concerned by the SA, and Hitler needed both on his side if he was to dismantle the Treaty of Versailles. (Westerhaley (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)) No, the point is that you wish to change the article away from the normal, conventional interpretation of events expressed by historians and scholars towards a different interpretation which emphasizes Hitler's need for support from industrialists over his need for support from the Army as being the reason for the purge, and you need a very good source to do that -- and even then, the opinion (which is what it would be) would have to be attributed to the source, since it differs from the conventional view. The same for the supposition that Rohm would not have been killed if he had "stood down" the SA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Even my A-Level history textbook mentions both points. I would have thought this was common knowledge. (Westerhaley (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)) A secondary school textbook is not a reliable source. perhaps you should read some more in-depth works written by reputable subject experts before you attempt to edit in this area again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I have. They all mentioned it too. Rohm was eliminated because he was a threat to the industrialists as well as to the army, and because he had resisted standing the SA down. Hitler did not want a second revolution. (Westerhaley (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)) Then you'll have little difficulty providing a citation from a reliable source to support your supposition. Please post it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC) BMK--I share the same sentiments. Nowhere can I recall anyone claiming that Röhm would have survived had he "stood down" on the second revolution. Moreover, I am quite familiar with historians who have claimed his homosexuality was an embarrassment to the Party leadership, how Hitler viewed his reign over the SA as a threat to himself and his standing, so much so that this too contributed to his execution. With that being said...I would find any source that claims Röhm would have survived to be "fringe" or speculative scholarship at best. --Obenritter (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Financers and industrialists were concerned by Röhm's policies: http://weimarandnazigermany.co.uk/ernst-rohm/#.YKO6EnmSnIU (Westerhaley (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)) Sorry, you're not paying attention. To cite your extraordinary supposition that it was for the sake of the industrialists, and not to alleviate the concerns of the military and get them on his side that Hitler had Rohm killed, you need a really exemplary source from a well-recognized subject expert. A WordPress-published page which merely says "Similarly financiers and Industrialists were concerned by the politics of Rohm." and nothing more is far from sufficient for this purpose. (Please see WP:SPS about citing from blogs, and WP:RSP under "WordPress".) If you don't have the kind of source that is required, please stop wasting our time. Beyond My Ken (talk) Westerhaley: first, what you’ve written does not support what you want to add. Secondly, that is not a good strong RS source. Kierzek (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC) The point is that the army, financers and industrialists all wanted Röhm and his SA to be eliminated in 1934. (Westerhaley (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)) As explained already, that's not the point at all. You attempted to make two changes to the article, one which emphasized industrialists over the Army for the pressure on Hitler to eliminate Rohm, the other claiming that if Rohm had "stood down" the SA (whatever that means to you), he would not have been purged. You have introduced no references to support these two suppositions. Until you do, I will not be responding to your posts here anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"First openly gay politician"

From the article:

Röhm acknowledged that the letters were genuine, and as a result of the scandal, he became the first openly gay politician in history.

But the reference for this doesn't state the latter half of the claim, only the former. The claim that Röhm was the first openly gay politician in history seems quite bold -- there's quite a bit of history, after all, and politics has been a part for all of it, and historically attitudes on homosexuality have varied. I'm no expert on queer history, nor can I name an earlier "out" politician, but a better source for this would be nice. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Not from an WP:RS source and so it has been removed. Kierzek (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's worth noting then that the exact same information (with the same source) is prominently present on the article Röhm scandal, which is now no longer linked to at all from this article (also, while the source has been removed from the bibliography, {{sfn|Marhoefer 2018}} is still present). Not an optimal situation. Also, rereading the page, while the "in history" bit is not literally there, it does state Röhm was "the first openly gay politician", which is presumably meant to cover all of history. This doesn't reduce the boldness of the claim, but then Laurie Marhoefer actually is a historian, and I'm not. She's written actual books, which might be better sources than a blog article. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Rohm's country of origin

Hello, I'm not really familiar with the tools of changing pages like this, but under early life it states he was born in the Kingdom of Bavaria, which ceased existing in 1871. This is listed correctly as German Empire not kingdom of Bavaria in the card, but not in the body of the early life section. It'd be really nice if someone with skills could fix this Zsessions1 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)