Talk:Heinrich Himmler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Abbreviation

"It was only in 1943, when Himmler was appointed Minister of the Interior, that the transfer of ministerial power was complete. Indeed, his full title was Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police in the Ministry of the Interior (abbreviated as RFSSuCdDLQzPidMI),"

RFSSuCdLQzPidMI? I doubt it. I smell a vandal (no other google results for that apart from this page) Spark 06:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I also doubt it, even if it was something similar for all intents and purposes he was called Minister of the Interior anyway --Banime (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nazi mysticism

I think a new article dedicated to Nazi mysticism would be nice. Kent Wang 04:41, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

He carried the Imperial German Battle Ensign in the Munich Putsch, the Party's failed attempt at a nationwide right-wing revolution.

Should this read "flag" instead of "ensign"? I believe that to most readers, "ensign" means a Navy officer rather than a flag.

---

Some of Zippy's changes, though well-intentioned, IMO may be POV or have implications that are historically inaccurate. Specifically:

• calling the Nazis "extreme" and "right-wing" is POV (and the latter is something that some people find contentious)
• saying "deemed by Hitler to be [...] Untermenschen" is historically inaccurate; decisions like this were often not made by Hitler, but were made by subordinates in decentralised and contradictory ways.
• "regime" is arguably a POV term, meaning a government the speaker doesn't like. Should we replace it with "government"?

-- Cabalamat 17:24, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Nazis were certainly not right-wing. But they were extreme. I don't think that that is a point of view.

[.]Lots od the "facts" we "know" about the "Nazis" are anyway misleading. Anyway: Usage of loaded unscientific terminology like "Nazi" is misleading. Use National Socialist (Nationalsozialisten) instead. -- Bigbossman 04:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I see no mention of the Ancestral Heritage Bureau, expeditions to Tibet and various European mountains and other exotic locations to search for relics and ancient Swastikas. Also, his acquirement and remodeling of Wewelsburg Castle and the contents of his safe there are not addressed. It is simply administrative that he headed the Acenstral Heritage Bureau and hired archaeologists etc., and not just a matter of mysticism. Also his preoccupation with Spiritualism and reincarnation and deceased German rulers from past centuries. 68.218.27.242 05:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)F.F.E.

Villa Trapp

Maria von Trapp in her books claimed that the family residence, Villa Trapp, was used by Heinrich Himmler as his headquarters during the war. Is there any independent evidence establishing that Himmler maintained his headquarters at the Villa Trapp?

John Paul Parks (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong picture caption?

I think the following caption is wrong. "Himmler (with machine gun) mans a Freikorps barricade in 1923" There were no Freikorpses anymore in 1923. I think this is is a pic from Himmler involved in the failed Nazi putsch in 1923. Andries 13:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thats a very well known picture of Reichskriegsflage members who supported the Nazi putsch. As far as the Freikorps not existing in 1923, that was a period when they were at thier height. The private armies existed all the way up to about 1933 when the Nazis merged them into the SA or they were disbanded -Husnock 8Jan05

Agree, Freikorps were around in 1923 unless you have some source that says otherwise --Banime (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Nazi party was a right winged party, as Communisim is a left winged party.

"Right wing" and "left wing" do not mean the same thing in every part of the world. Labeling any such group with one of those terms is inappropriate.

Himmler's Nazi ideology

I think it would be reasonable to add into the article that he was the fervent nazi in the entire party.

Sounds pretty POV to me. There were others you coukld say who were more fanatical. -Husnock 05:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Himmler was not a fervent or rabid anti-semite unlike several other Party members like Joseph Goebbels, Karl Adolf Eichmann, Julius Streicher to name a few and certainly not cast in the mould of a cold killer like Reinhard Heydrich. Actually he was in total awe of Hitler and remained a shadowy figure till his end when practical considerations of survival made him "betray" his Führer. That doesn't necessarily erase his guilt in the massacre of millions in Germany and Occupied Territories but it is interesting to note that he delegated the main responsibility of the Jewish Question to his subordinates in his Police Empire. While Himmler provided the physical means to achieve the Holocaust with his all-powerful SS and other Police apparatus of the Nazi State, it was the bloodthirsty Goebbels who actually conceived the idea of the extermination of Jewry and Hitler, who, being as rabidly anti-semetic, adopted this plan with fanatic zeal. Another interesting fact to note is that it is extremely plausible that Himmler actually knew a lot more about the assassination attempt of July 20th before its occurence and that the thought of succeeding Hitler as the next Leader that was vaguely forming in his mind at that time prevented him from putting it down before the assassination attempt was made. However, having been so servile to Hitler all his life, he couldn't bring himself to actually overthrow Hitler or at least help the conspirators gain control of Berlin on that crucial day.

Actually Goebbels was only a mouthpiece for Hitler, if you have read anything about him you'd know that. He was not the one who "thought up the extermination", that's complete hogwash. He even nearly quit the party when he had an affair but was coaxed back by Hitler. And in his diary he notes that he's under orders, why would he write that in his own diary if he were in control?

It is quite evident that he remains one of the most intriguing characters of the Third Reich. That he had weird, mythical fantasies and theories of race there is no doubt. Of his true state of mind there is much speculation. He definitely had racist ideas though he was not particularly anti-semetic. I think it is quite fair to say in the final analysis that Himmler remained essentially a lackey of Hitler most of his life. --Bigbossman 10:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Himmler was not anti-semitic as claimed in the above, what are we to make of his speeches to the SS larded with hate of the Jews, his enthusiastic visit to Auschwitz with special request to Hoess to see the killing process in person and so on? Seems to me like there are some apologetics going on here, the motive for which is hard to guess; could it be the usual one that it is so hard to comprehend this mass slaughter that we need to shy away from it mentally and from the level of anti-semitism that must have operated for these people and say that wasn't so? I suggest as a starting point reading Gitta Sereny's books.MarkThomas 16:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The term Nazi should be avoided

Nazi is not a good term for describing a member or a follower of the ideology of the NSDAP (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei). The German wikipedia explains that in English speaking countries this term is even used in science. But that is just bad science then. There was no Nazi Party. Here is one example I think is totally wrong, the title: Early Nazi Party. There was no Nazi party! But there was the dreadful NSDAP. Himmler was not a member of the Nazi party. He was a member of the NSDAP. Or use the English translation: National Socialist German Workers Party I just saw that the same is also going on here and the term Nazi is explained: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP (English is a foreign language for me. So my comment has to be viewed with that in mind.)

Every American textbook, documentary, and general dicussion refers to the National Socialist German Workers Party as "Nazi Party". Nazi, itself is an abbreviation which has been around for over 70 years. So, it would not be practical to remove all refences to Nazi Party in this article nor would it be correct to say Himmler was a never a member of the Nazi Party. Thats what I think. -Husnock 22:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The word nazi is an insult. Thats not very well understood by most non-german speakers, but it is. Its like refering to early americans as 'yankees", or japanese during WWII as "japs". Anyhow its in standard use, so until that changes its presense in this article is according to policy. Its not like I'm politically correct anyways, but I know its rude, and I've seen germans wince at its usage to describe them during those years. Sam Spade 22:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I'd appreciate the anon weighing in @ Talk:Nazism and Talk:National Socialist German Workers Party. Cheers,

Sam Spade 23:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about political correctness. A Nazi doesn't equal to a member of the NSDAP. If you consider the English Wikipedia definition of a Nazi (National socialist). A member of the NSDAP is a Nazi but prior to WWII there were leftist National socialists, who weren't member of the NSDAP and tried to form a coalition with the democratic socialists to form a coalition against the NSDAP. Today there are other National socialists groups around the world just google nazi (Worrysome). In the English Wikipedia in the Article about the NSDAP, there is a photograph of Adolf Hitlers membership card. It says: "Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei" or DAP which means German Workers Party. It was later renamed into NSDAP. There was simply no party called "Nazi". Titles like: early nazi party is just wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hitlermember.png

I'm convinced that Nazi is a popular term in English textbooks. Therefore it should be mentioned in the article, may be like that: "NSDAP (aka Nazi party)". If you are using the term Nazi for National Socialist. I would use National Socialist as it is defined by the English Wikipedia. Cheers P.S. Sorry I don't really understand what Mr Sam Spade has written in his post scriptum. Andreas Schmid

Er hat gesagt das dem Wort "Nazi" ist eine schlectes Wort das die Americaner uber dem NSDAP gesagt hat. Es ist nicht ein Wort im Deutschland und gefellen die Deutschen Person nicht. Auch es ist im all Amerikanishere Bucher uber dem Zweite Welkkreig also es ist auch im Wikipedia als dem Wort "Nazi" wiel wir sind eine Americanise Internet Platz. Hope that explains it in both languages! -Husnock 20:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was saying I would like you to say these things at Talk:Nazism and Talk:National Socialist German Workers Party, if you would like. Cheers,

Sam Spade 21:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation but I had only an understanding problem with the post scriptum = P.S. I'm convinced that in American literature the word Nazi is frequently used. And I think that is ok. It all depends on what Nazi means. And according to the English Wikipedia Nazi is the abrevation of National Socialism. So the Nazi party means the National Socialist party. Ok. Which one do you mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany_%28NPD%29 http://www.americannaziparty.com/ http://www.nazi.org/ Whith all due respect this is not "eine Americanise Internet Platz" this the Wikipedia the "free" Encyclopedia. If you mean by Americanise, United States then rethink that quickly. America is bigger then the USA. And America does not include a lot of English speaking countries! What about England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Tasmania..... If one constantly uses the wrong word for something, it doesn't get right time after time: America, Nazi......

"American Internet Place" was the best description I could think of, simply meaning its a website whose master server is based in America. Remember, as English is not your 1st language neither is German mine! I image my grammer was pretty bad, too, but its the effort that counts. -Husnock 21:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the Title - It is loaded terminology and not really defining.

Up to now a lot of people use the colloquial term "Nazi" - in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the main German speaking countries. Including myself, an Austrian, native speaker of German and fully aware of the meaning. It was used also in wartime, in the Third Reich itself and after 1945 by Nazis and Non-Nazis. Members of NSDAP were denoted by "he is in the party" or "he is (was) a Nazi". Sophisticated debate. Things should be kept simple; this thing is one of these. (Sorry for my English: See above). --charlandes 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a fine line between NPOV and simply ignoring the truth in the name of political correctness or offensiveness. Himmler was a Nazi. --Banime (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cover story in FT 196

The cover story of this month's Fortean Times (Issue 196) is titled Himmler's Fortress of Fear and covers the occult practice rumors of prominent Nazis. I thought it was an interesting read and might be worth noting here, or perhaps adding more to Mysticism in Nazi Germany instead, or both. — FJ | hello 22:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Here's the article online — FJ | hello 03:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

His interest in Occultism and mysticism needs ot be mentioned. Look at the books and documentaries on Nazi mysticism article for further information. But, you must read The Secret King to do this justice. FK0071a 17:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To explain Himmler's interest in occultism, paganism and eastern religion was well detailed in the History Channel's TV documentary: Himmler's Obsession. fascinated with his narrow-minded, but genius level view on anthropolgy. Himmler was personally convinced the Aryans exported and created civilization around the world, so he led anthropological expeditions to the opposite ends of the earth. His first and most famed was to Tibet and Nepal in 1939, followed by incompleted excursions to Ethiopia and Sudan, and to Mexico and Peru, in Himmler's theorotical search of "evidence" to support his debunked claim: Racially superior "Aryans" from Northern Europe founded the great empires in Asia, Africa and the Americas. + 63.3.14.2 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Colour photo?!?!

How come we have a colour photo of Heinrich Himmler? Surely colour photographs did not exist in 1945!! ==Rebroad 11:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Photography...

Color photography did exist at the time, although it was not widespread. (The 1939 film The Wizard of Oz was filmed in color.) However, I cannot vouch for the photograph's authenticity. —Wayward 23:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous authentic color photos of all the Nazi leaders. While b/w photography was still mainstream there are both WWI color photos and films.

The first colour photograph was in 1861, the first colour photograph in a magazine was 1910 chrisboote 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the videos or picutres that you've seen of WWII were actually in colour. They were later turned to what we are used to... I think it preserved the pictures/film better than if they were in colour. Something along those lines. -G

Walter Frentz, not well known as a photographer during the Thirties and later assistant of Leni Riefenstahl, took pictures in colour from the Berghof (Obersalzberg) and lot of prominent German Nazis with special permission by Hitler. In his archive colour pictures of Hitler, Himmler, Bormann, Keitel etc. can be found. Some recently (2003) published. --charlandes 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Death of Henrich Himmler

Is there any truth to the possibility that Himmler was assassinated by the British, as described in a node at Everything2? If so, the Wikipedia article ought to be revised, as it seems to indicate that suicide by cyanide capsule is surely the cause of death. - McCart42 (talk) July 5, 2005 00:26 (UTC)

Himmler probably took a capsule of Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) as used in the vials by other Nazis (e.g. the Goebbels family and Göring) for suicide. It works a little different than Potassium Cyanide (KCN) which needs the Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) of the stomach to set free HCN. The reports about Himmler's death are reliable and consistent with HCN (given by Colonel Michael Murphy and Captain Tom Selvester, according to Fraenkel/Manvell: Himmler). Though three men including a physician worked on him it was not possible to rescue Himmler. (See also my remark in Hermann Göring discussion. --charlandes 19:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Whoops, didn't read through it completely, and jumped to conclusions. Still, maybe the recent forgeries should be discussed in the main article. - McCart42 (talk) July 5, 2005 00:29 (UTC)

Himmler was arrested on 22 May and died on 23 May but was scheduled to stand trial with other German leaders as a war criminal at Nuremberg? Does it make sense? How could they have scheduled the trail in less than a day? 88.97.164.254 (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Himmler was already on the allies' Most-Wanted list before the war was over. They were looking for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alandeus (talk • contribs) 12:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Himmler documents

For the record, some original documents signed by Himmler are now posted at: Talk:Reichsführer-SS. They came about as a result of a discussion regarding the proper way Himmler's rank was spelled. I wanted to record the posting of the photos here, as well, for future reference. -Husnock 21:34, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't Himmler the one whose wife ordered that all of their kids be poisoned and then her and Himmler killed themselves. And their bodies were burned? 147.153.251.188Babsi147.153.251.188 16.05 Uhr 23.August 2006

No. That was Joseph Goebbels' wife Magda. MarkThomas 10:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Goebbels' and Magda's bodies were partly burned, not the corpses of the children. Gas (benzine) was short at 'Führerbunker'. The last 180 litres (not easy to get) were used up to burn Adolf and Eva Hitler. --charlandes 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle name 'Luitpold'

A personal linage scroll which Himmler had made for himself, shows a very little known facet; his middle name was Luitpold. I uploaded the scroll in question to verify here; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/HimmlerScroll.jpg (note; 10800x1296, 753 KB) Nagelfar 17:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Himmler is never refered to by his middle name. I don't believe it should be in the title, bolded and all.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a biographical article entry, what other point to information on an individual is there if some of it is purposefully repressed? Wikipedia should be a resource for rare information that cannot be found readily elsewhere; what else is the utility of a "wiki" if not for informational fecundity from disparate areas of knowledge? The individual who took upon your advice saying gives Himmler a weightier and perhaps "nicer" feel to use middle name; this is a backdoor POV of far-rightists IMO. is exactly POV itself in saying that it "gives Himmler…nicer feel" & even saying "IMO" which is what POV is. Nearly every other biographic entry gives the full name in the title, it's not like it is a redirect in the name of the article itself. I can't conceive there's a logical reason for limiting the information in this regard, so until further argument I'm adding it back. Nagelfar 23:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

There has been, in my opinion, a very silly conspiracy theory put in the article that Heinrich Himmler was executed by British secret agents instead of committing suicide. The "source" is one book written by a British author. There are thousands of documents, testimonials, and archival records that state Heinrich Himmler died when he cracked a cyanide capsule in his teeth prior to medical exmaination by doctors and died within seconds. Hundreds ogf well respected historians, including John Keegan has backed up these facts. I have removed the theroy for now until a better source can be provided. -Husnock 16:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• The anon user is continues to press this rather silly issue, putting in the article that this book about Himmler's murder is very well verified and accepted by main stream historians. I challenge that most strongly as the only place Ive been able to find this "new work" is on three websites and two of them were revisionism websites. See this one and this one for an example. I hate to bite the newbie and be the champion reverter, but the claims being made I feel are not based in fact. Opinions? -Husnock 23:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The "evidence" of a single controversial book is not enough to make claims of truth or that the commonly accepted theory will no longer be accepted. -- Necrothesp 11:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The documents on which the book's claims are made have been shown to be forgeries (1945 documents printed on a laser printer...) as is reported here: http://travel.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/02/nhimmler02.xml Geoff97 09:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think at this point we need a page protection. The page has been hit no less than 5 times by anon IP user acocunts, making statements that Himmler was killed by the British as this "convincing new work" is now accepted as fact. This article should be protected until whoever is trying to make these changes gives up and goes away. -Husnock 18:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have reported the situation here. -Husnock 21:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No need to worry. I support these reverts. Heinrich Hoehne and others state the suicide by cyanide as a fact. Andries 22:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I fully agree with Husnock. These claims have been totally refuted and are not worthy of an alternative theory status. Unfortunately, the Administrator has not accepted this. Geoff97 22:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I've protected the page for now. Mark¹ 23:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We at last got some kind of reply from the person who was making these changes. See my talk page for the comments. -Husnock 18:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page for now, hopefully any further issues can be resolved on the talk page. Enchanter 13:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't have a reference for it yet (just been searching) but last year BBC Radio 4 in the UK carried a programme which included interviews with the various British and American soldiers and officials who had taken Himmler, had him under their control in the prison, etc. Most of the people interviewed are now dead and they were taken about 10-20 years ago. They were very convincing and anyone who heard it would not doubt the official version. Most striking was the former US intelligence officer who listened to some of Himmler's ramblings and discovered he was the first to make Himmler realise that far from a future involved of high-level negotiations, the bloodsoaked former bank clerk was going to be examined like a laboratory specimen before being tried and hanged. It was soon after this that Himmler committed suicide. Also fascinating (and not mentioned on the Wikipedia pages) were the stories (also shown in the BBC programme "The Nazis - a Warning From History) about Himmler's pathetic retreat to hospital in the closing stages of the war, and his hilarios "generalship" as commander of eastern forces - he sat in an immaculate train parked in a siding sipping tea and nibbling cakes and issuing orders to bemused generals which were ignored. The lunatics had been running the asylum and were now fully out on the grass, awaiting their fate. At the end, Himmler was just a scared little rabbit.MarkThomas 22:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

--== more made by those who worked under him ==

historians have argued Himmler was more made by those who worked under him rather than by his own designs. What does this mean? His image was made? His personality was made? His policies? Mark¹ 19:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Though this sounds quite plausible this sentence needs to be attributed. Andries 22:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Such a sentence needs real citations. It is however very revisionist even if it is a theory held by some modern historians, there is much clear evidence of everything Himmler himself put forward in the regime. Even things as minor as the idea for passing the first manditory bicycle reflector laws in history. The times I've heard this theory most usually are from crypto-neo-Nazis who have a fetish for the blond Reinhard Heydrich, and try to use some similarly Nazi racialist reasoning that someone of Himmlers 'type' could never have achieved the things that he did. Though we have many examples of Himmlers "type" of everything, even persona, such as Beria, who were of the same ruthless efficiency & keen reasoning for coming up with new ways of achieving a totalitarian policing system. Nagelfar 07:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but also I think it's an example of not being able to really believe how so many people could have been so manipulated or so willing to come out and do so much evil for these imaginary great men who in fact were weaselly wimps in big uniforms barking out mad orders all day long. Himmler was to my mind the classic small man who managed to grow into a big job, and whilst it may be true that he was pushed from above and below, many reports indicate the fear and trembling that affected people as they were sent to see him for example. The office had transcended the man and because lots and lots of big burly SS thugs were willing to carry out his orders, and he had the whole machinery of deportation, slaughter, torture and degradation at his disposal, something which even ordinary Germans knew about, he could be terrifying, efficient and sadistic, even though in another reality he was a pathetically inadequate, weak and cowardly man. Most striking is the collapse of his domineering persona during the last days of the Reich, and his pathetic misunderstanding of the way the world really saw him - and his eventual demise at his own hand when he realised at last what was coming to him. The same fate that he had dished out so eagerly to others. One final thought; he sometimes appears to have had flashes of concience whilst wading in slaughter; in the BBC series "The Nazis, a Warning from History", one of his secretaries recalled him coming out of a conversation with Hitler, slumping against a wall, and saying "My God, the things he makes me do". This was basically a weak man dominated, but also drawing on hidden reserves of sadism and egomania.MarkThomas 07:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What Historians have the view that he was made by his subordinates? --Carbojnr 23:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in relation to the documents being announced as fake, what should we make of this, (besides the fact that it is David Irving speaking here, of course)? http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/death/PRO_docs_story.html --72.92.8.6 09:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Himmler's personal beliefs

I think something should be added on Himmlers rather unusual personal beliefs for the time. In his own words would be best, but something should at least be stated about his anti-Christian leanings. I was considering adding something like this, but no area seems appropriate due to the time-line nature of this article, so the possibility of adding it to the point where the speech was made seems reasonable; something like this, under the 'consolidation of power' paragraph, my addition bolded;

"...considered a headquarters branch of the SS. Himmler at this time became more open with his unconventional views of race and culture, to the point of openly attacking Christianity, as stated in a May 22nd speech of the same year in Brocken, Germany that; "The German people, especially the youth, have learned once again to value people racially-they have once again turned away from Christian theories, from Christian teaching which has ruled Germany for more than a thousand years and caused the racial decay of the German Volk, and almost its racial death". Germany's secret police forces were also under Himmler's authority in the form of..."

This speech is verifiable as it is part of the U.S. National Archives (microfilm T175, roll 89, item EAP 161-b-12/81). If someone would find a more suitable place for an addition like this that would be preferable, as I don't want to make this seem to be some unilateral biased decision on my part. Nagelfar 00:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

How about creating (the beginnings of) a "Personal beliefs" section between the Peace negotiations, capture and death and References sections? Your excerpt is intriguing and, coupled with the source reference, should be a welcome addition to the article!  Best wishes, David Kernow 03:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good start, and there are other items of interest for such a section as well, there are many citations that Himmler believed he was somehow the 'reincarnation' or spiritual successor of Henry the Fowler. I believe I have even read that other SS leaders of the time heard him claim something along such lines, though I'd have to find verifiable sources first. Nagelfar 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll add this first to Nazi mysticism, but there should be a brief mention here since it has to do with Himmler, at least a link to Nazi mysticism. Nagelfar 16:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Himmler was very delusional on many things, in fact he believed himself to be reincarnation of Heidyrich, the Alemanic tribal king of Wolfenburg in southern Germany of the early 3rd century AD. Legend holds Heidyrich pushed back the Roman incursion with "god-given" powers from the Germanic pagan gods and was victorious to drive back Roman legions away from ancient Germany to save his Teutonic people. Oddly, Himmler used a historic castle by the name Wolfenburg to perform his occult rituals to ensure his Nazi party and army colleagues a victory in the war. According to one witness, Himmler dug up a skeleton he called "a great Viking leader" from ancient burial grounds in Northern Germany (or Scandinavia?), and tried to use an electrical circuit on its' skull to "activate" power to bring his soul back to communicate with Himmler...and get in contact with dead Nordic/Viking chiefs, kings and gods. This is totally weird, but true and pinpoints Himmler was edgy on his quest to obtain supernatural powers for his spirituality by a mystical occult. + 63.3.14.2 08:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Was Himmler anti-semitic?

The category classifies Himmler as anti-semitic, but I have the impression that Himmler executed the Holocaust out of a sense of duty, not because he hated Jews. This is very much unlike e.g. Goebbels and Hitler himself. Where are the references for the assertion that Himmler was anti-semitic? Andries 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

He seemed to have adopted words and executed speeches with an anti-semitic tone, but whether or not this was an example of his coming into line with party ideology, showing ideological unity within Nazism, I do not think anyone can say for certain. Though Himmler usually qualified any anti-semitic remark, at least to my knowledge, in his most famous speeches such as "...and each one has his decent Jew" etc. Though I do not believe Himmlers belief in the superiority of the idealized Germanic blond type was influenced by Nazism, rather, this seemed to be something he believed more truly in than other top Nazis and he was the main one to actually spread the concept within the regime. Though I don't think he contrasted this 'German' racial ideal to the jew so much as to the slav.

"Whether ten thousand Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an antitank ditch interests me only so far as the antitank ditch for Germany is finished. We shall never be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. We Germans, who are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude toward animals, will also assume a decent attitude toward these human animals." -Himmler. Nagelfar 01:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Himmler and war crimes

We have a user who is removing Himmler from the war criminal category stating he was "not convicted". Himmler was, in fact, convicted posthumously on dozens of war crimes charges, the most significant of which was being the source for the creation of teh Einsatzgruppen. it is true he was not listed at the main Nuermburg trial of major criminals, but his actiosn were brought up and condemend at the hundreds of smaller traials at Nuremburg as well as the dozens of local trials held by the French, Russians, Poles, and many other nations. There is more than enough evidence to say that Heinrich Himmler was a war criminal. As I said on Amon Goth, it is not POV, it is a legally documented fact by finding of several different courts. -Husnock 14:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace of Alois Hitler?

In the article on Heinrich Himmler is the statement

....that Himmler escaped to Ebbw Vale, South Wales, birthplace of Alois Hitler.....

but the article on Alois does not mention anything like this and I find it extremely unlikely.

Has someone been messing with the page???

Colin

Strange to see such alarming rubbish on something as good as Wikipedia, I frankly marvel that pages like the ones on WW2 and the Nazis are as good as they are, and feel worried that they will descend into barbarism as more and more of the fringe whackos become obsessed and blitz the knowledgeable people who run these pages currently. Anyway, end of rant. Alois Hitler was born in Dollersheim, Austria.MarkThomas 22:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Adolf Hitler was born in Braunau am Inn, Upper Austria. A part from his family came from Döllersheim, Lower Austria.--charlandes 19:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Alois Hitler and Adolf Hitler are two different people--Gcpeoples (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical View Section

Am I the only one who finds the "Historical View" section on this page a bit strange? Comments about "respected by colleagues" sounds like a reflection on an esteemed university professor. What exactly did they "respect" him for - his skill in substituting murdering women and children with hails of bullets for murdering the innocent suffering with gas in icy bunkers in Poland? These few little lines hardly represent a modern authoritative historical view on the head of an organisation that terrorised Europe for many years. I will work up a revision for this bit and post it in this discussion in a bit. MarkThomas 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm?

Why no mention of him prior to the age of 20? Parents? Childhood? We've got some major gaps here. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 08:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This was due to vandalism that wasn't properly reverted. Nagelfar 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was strange, too, so I went back and recovered the info. I trust it is accurate. I removed what sounded speculative (the connection with royalty). Fishhead64 08:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Proper German?

"all members were of Adolf Hitler's "Aryan Herrenvolk" ("Aryan master race")."

Wouldn't the original be something like "Arisch Herrenvolk" or "Arier Herrenvolk"? Or are we using "Herrenvolk" purely as a lone word? If so, shouldn't "Aryan" be excluded from the parenthesis? Nagelfar 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. Proper German is "Arisches Herrenvolk" or "(das) arische Herrenvolk". Although I don't know whether Hitler ever used this term. 217.85.109.16 12:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Luitpold

As per discussions above, I have rm'ed "Luitpold" from the titles, this appears to be either misconceived or an attempt to "nicify" Himmler, he is always known as "Heinrich Himmler" and the only place his middle name is used widely is in neo-Nazi writings. MarkThomas 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What "neo-nazi" writings use "Luitpold" when refering to Himmler in full? Can you claim one source? Though I still don't see how it can "nicify" Himmler. I in fact remember discussion about when political figures became involved in scandal, there was this media tendency to use their full names, which was discussed as being a psychological factor of labeling one in trouble or to be shamed. For example at the time of the U.S. impeachment charges put against then president Bill Clinton; the media began to often refer to him as "William Jefferson Clinton", this was brought up as a subject of serious rather than close, informal and personable labeling of a known figure. Though the main reason the name should be left, is because it is NPOV to add as much viable information to the individual in question; especially something as pertinent as a full name. A biographical entry shouldn't be engineered to give a certain feel or perception, it should be impartial and factual. Nagelfar 23:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I also have trouble seeing any nicifying of Himmler by including his middle name. However, I feel that since it's very seldom used, it should somehow be pointed out. Like having it after the title and in italics. I've had the same issue about including middle names in biographical articles about Swedes, since the names are with very few exceptions never used to refer to these individuals even in quite formal situations.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine with the edits as they currently stand, his middle name is not of no interest, and is OK in the start line. The point I was making Nagelfar is that I don't regard the current page as fully neutral; it's difficult when discussing people in history who have committed terrible acts to be "neutral" in the sense of being "objective" without being sometimes foolish to the obvious; therefore I'm a bit watchful on pages like this, as I think for example terms like "respected by his colleagues" and using the middle name under photos add an air of friendly respect to the page which itself would be an astonishing dismissal of the realities of this man who not so long ago presided over the wholesale slaughter of countless millions. I'm arguing that an NPOV in these circumstances should not consist of a tendancy to neutralise awfulness, which, on the side, is a line also used by genteel back-door neo-nazis like Irving, who try to "humanise" the nazi leaders as a method of "justifying" what they did. Not that that is what you're saying, but I'm trying to define the line between NPOV and POV here and I don't think it's a POV in this context to protest being "nice" to Heinrich Himmler. Similar problems by the way on the SS page which sounds at times like a friendly german gentlemans' club from the Wikipedia reading. All grist to the mill of bored journalists lacking a story who can always fill a column by sneering at the latest faux-pas on Wikipedia. Himmler was "respected by colleagues"! MarkThomas 11:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly, Mark. If you think being respected by fellow nazis (I repeat, nazis) is a good thing, then your aim must be to portray Himmler as a demon-servant of the Dark Prince. And, no, a middle name bears neither a positive nor negative connotation. It's just a middle name.

Try keeping in mind that even downright evil humans are still humans and usually have someone that they treat with respect and probably even love. For example, Hitler loved children, his dog Blondie and was a vegetarian, but that doesn't exactly put him in the black in terms of his moral debt to humanity.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Try to concentrate Peter and not call people "silly" as well if you can help it. :-) I did say his middle name "was not of no interest" - I was merely commenting on what I perceive to be subtle or not so subtle efforts on Wikipedia to humanise Nazism and Nazi leaders, much along the lines proffered by David Irving, and saying that I am watchful on that. I certainly don't think Himmler was as you put it "a demon" but my point is, are these Wikipedia articles really focusing squarely on the horrors committed by these Nazi leaders and their henchmen? I have to say, from my readings of them, no - there is a fake NPOV going on, where neutrality in this context is treating them as if they are interesting but essentially uncausative agents of Nazism, which is exactly the line taken by many of the cleverer neo-Nazis. Have you read Irving? Start with Hitler's War if you don't believe me. It is also incidentally playing directly into the line pre-arranged between Hitler, Heydrich and Himmler where everything was deniable and left to minor operatives in Aktion Reinhard. So I'm saying that in the context of these articles, there should be more focus on their active role in these massive crimes, and not backdoor attempts to make them into "ordinary, everyday, bureacrats and mass murderers, not really willing agents, respected by colleagues". We should wonder about the perspectives of the people who wrote that. MarkThomas 20:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What the...? Iriving-related guilt-by-association? Made-up quotes? Please stop being paranoid and accept NPOV at face value, not your own POV:ed version of it. We're not a soapbox.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no made up quote, I was paraphrasing what I take the tone of the article to be. I think we're talking about different things. There isn't one absolutely linear and scientific version of NPOV anyway. Certainly not being paranoid, just aware that there are in fact a heck of a lot of people out there who for a wide range of reasons, some just confusion, others deliberate distortion, want to give a particular view of the Nazi leadership that slightly waters them down to make them seem just a little bit more acceptable and everyday than the calculated murdering dictators they actually were. MarkThomas 08:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

His suicide

Would it be okay for someone to give some more detail regarding the suicide. Of course I believe it happened, but I would like to read more details about it.

I have heard in prison it is easy to get something you want. Is this the way he got the cyanide? Did a friend or other inmate get it delivered somehow? Anyway if possible I would like more detail. Bryan 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Himmler was never imprisoned, he had the cyanide with him before he was captured, hidden in a false tooth. Such cyanide capsules were distributed to many SS men before they left their areas of administration to escape or lay low among the populace. Nagelfar 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not correct that Himmler was not "imprisoned" depending how you define that; he was briefly held captive by British Army before he killed himself.MarkThomas 18:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How else can you define it other than being put inside a prison? He was captured, kept watch in the living room of a small apartment. Which doesn't amount to imprisonment. It was definitely a transitory situation in which he committed suicide. 67.5.157.208 05:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I added additional detail re. Himmler's suicide, but it was removed for being (supposedly) "stupid" and the article was "previously far more accurate". Won't bother to help again. Nabokov 09:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Himmler did not use a 'pill', much less a 'suicide pill' (which smacks of original research to me). The Nazi prisoners of war used capsules, not tablets. A pill is a tablet. There is a difference. That's why I reverted. The Crying Orc 09:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough you're right about the term 'suicide pill', though it's really just a matter of semantics. It is true that they more closely resembled capsules than anything else - and this is made clear in the description contained in the linked Wikipedia article (ie rubber coated oval ampoules) that you deleted. In popular parlance these devices are usually referred to as "suicide pills" or "poison pills" so I saw no need to change the name. When someone takes medicine they don't generally say "It's time to take my capsule". Rightly or wrongly people often refer to capsules as pills. Also, the design of "L-pills" (the term used by SOE) weren't much like conventional pills/tablets/capsules. Generally, pills (or capsules or tablets) are designed to help people and they always dissolve when swallowed. Capsules are made of 2 pieces of gelatin slotted together. Suicide pills/capsules/pills were made of rubber-coated glass. In contrast purpose-made lethal pills (as opposed to a simple overdose of conventional drugs) were of highly unusual design eg wouldn't dissolve even if they got wet - unlike pills/capsules/tablets. Additionally, they were harmless if the user simply swallowed one whole. They had to be crushed between the user's back teeth to release the concentrated cyanide solution contained within, at which point they actually fractured into glass fragments inside the user's mouth. It would do no harm to compromise on the semantics. I suggest as a reasonable compromise that you insert a link in the Himmler & Goering saying that they killed themselves via "suicide capsule" which then links to "suicide pill". I've updated the link which it refers to. Nabokov 13:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

List of the dead

I wonder if we are getting into the usual controversy about the list of the Nazi's victims at the top of the article. Obviously there were legions of different victims, some of whom, such as resistance fighters, aristocrats, aboriginal peoples and so on, we have not mentioned. Do people think we should reduce the growing list to the _main_ victims by _number_, eg, how about "Jews, Slavs, Poles and many other people classed by the Nazis as politically, socially or racially unacceptable and therefore worthy (in their eyes) of extermination". ? This has long been a bone of contention in Holocaust studies, and not in any way to diminish from any group that suffered, but the list gets very long and also I think loses focus on the enormity of the murder of Jews and Slavs (primarily Jews as organised extermination; Slavs were murdered as a secondary by-product of non-feeding, overwork and just indifference to their fate) and this can play into an anti-Jewish wish to reduce the primary Nazi crimes by relativism. MarkThomas 18:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That part should just be deleted. I don't think that a list is needed in this page of nationalities/ethnicities killed by the Nazis it is unnecessary and makes the introduction look unencyclopedic.--Jersey Devil 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted totally and hope the recent mods I did to it have resolved it. Himmler is mainly infamous for his bitter hatred of "inferior" races and I think some sort of mention of that is key; unfortunately there were so many other victims of his pathetically cruel organisation that it's hard to keep track in just one page. However, I would welcome more comments on this. MarkThomas 19:07, 8 June 2006 (UT

This section is almost humorous - "to reduce the primary Nazi crimes by relativism". Almost sounds like dead gypsies are anti-Semitic for stealing some thunder.

According to Otto Ohlendorf at Nuremberg trial: "There was no distinction made between Gypsies and Jews, the same order applied to both." [1]. As far as I know, German generals had orders (archived), to kill as many Russians as possible. The siege of Leningrad was thought be one great and cheap extermination camp. --Alex1011 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention to mention the fact that many (most?) of the Jews killed were of Central and/or Eastern European origin, thus often of (partial) Slavic stock themselves; also, how was the killing of non-Jews any less "organized"? But my real question is: since when were "short people" sent to the concentration camps? (does this mean dwarves? [or midgets, or whatever's politically correct to say nowadays?] )Critic9328 (talk) 02:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My Honour is called Loyalty

The "quotation" Heinrich Himmlers ("my honour is called loyalty") is not at all from it! Adolf Hitler wrote 1931 after the so-called "Stennes-Putsch" (Walter Stennes, a former captain of the German imperial army and commander of the citizens of Berlin SA) the citizen of Berlin SS leader Kurt Daluege, to a former SA Gruppenführer, which only 1930 had come to the SS, in a thank letter the famous conclusions: "SS man, your honour is called loyalty"... Himmler modified 1932 this saying! I find, one should remove this "quotation"! Only to the Infomation: the citizens of Berlin SA the headquarters of the gau leader Josef Goebbels and the handful of SS men of the house stormed dreadfully together-struck... therefore come this quotation!) Postmann Michael 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ausrottung debate

In the Posen speech, ausrottung, is translated to be extermination. That’s fine by me, BUT this word also means extirpation (and even evacuation). Unfortunately for orthodox "Posen speech" historians, that means that Himmler's speech is not the final word (the nail in the coffin of H.C. Deniers per se) that they make it out to be. Still, I think we can put two and two together, but we should not be dishonest: Himmler's words do not accomplish this on their own.

In German, tötung means killing and mordet is the literal translation for murder (z.B. “umbringen" and "totschlagen")...why Himmler wouldn't just come right out and say this about exterminating Jews to hardened SS Veterans is beyond me. Secondly, there is no evidence that Himmler's preceding statement about "evacuation" was meant to have quotes around it, which we took the liberty to insert.

Nizkor says this:

"The revisionist Carlos Porter has translated this speech into English; some excerpts are available on the CODOH web site. The usual caveats for Holocaust-denial material apply. (Their translations of ausrotten and other words are erroneous; their claim that the eminent Robert Wolfe supports their translation is misleadingly removed from context; there are other errors less egregious.)"

Can a German linguistics expert explain why this translation is "erroneous", aside from the fact that it leads to a different conclusion? I know German and "extirpation" works just as well. I was also disappointed that Nizkor didn’t even bother to compare this use to the rest of the speech. they simply just thumbed their noses at obvious complications in German grammar and pretended they didn’t exist. That is not professional because…

later in the Posen speech, Himmler again uses ausrottung, this time the past tense (ausgerottet) to refer to a sort of profiteering of things taking from the Jews. I filled in all uses of the word:

...but we don't have the right to enrich ourselves even with one fur, one watch, one mark, one cigarette, or anything else. Just because we (had) eradicated/eliminated/exterminated a bacillus, after all, doesn't mean we want to be infected by the bacillus and die. I will never permit even one little spot of corruption to arise or become established here. Wherever it may form, we shall burn it out together.

ausrotten appears again, this time in reference to tactics on the front line:

Sometimes it goes so far -- not, thank God in our divisions -- that soldiers no longer dig in. They seem to think: a Master Race doesn't dig in. It allows itself to be killed, but it doesn't dig in. I want these things to be eliminated/exterminated/eradicated as radically as possible among us, so that they cease to be a habit.

when Himmler speaks of killing, in a context similar to exterminating people, he uses the word ’’umbringen’’(killing):

...coolly and soberly to kill <umbringen> anyone who, in any position, no longer wishes to go on fighting in Germany -- that can happen under stress.

I'm not sure if this warrants a change to the article though. Still, maybe it would be a good idea to insert the German word (ausrotten) in quotes after "extermination", just to be honest about what we are communicating.--72.92.8.6 09:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ausrotten is a word that appears to need context - like many English words. Fortunately Himmler in the opening sentence gives us this context - "evacuation from Europe". I would think this speech would be of little use - maybe best shelved - in an indictment against Himmler. Do you have anything better? I frequently hear this speech mentioned and little else - I was shocked ( well surprised to see deniers accused of trying to label this speech as a forgery to bolster their viewpoint. I would think they would print it in big letters - particularlty the first sentence when ausrotten came up in debate.

The meaning of Ausrottung is clear and unambiguous

User wrote:

In the Posen speech, ausrottung, is translated to be extermination. That’s fine by me, BUT this word also means extirpation (and even evacuation).

Ausrottung simply does not mean evacuation. I speak German fluently (and have for over 20 years), but do not take my word for it; ask any native German speaker. Consult any German dictionary, especially one from that era. Or ask Google. No native speaker will fall for this, and no German Holocaust-denier has ever dared to suggest it to a German-speaking audience.

why Himmler wouldn't just come right out and say this about exterminating Jews to hardened SS Veterans is beyond me.

He did. "Wir haben das moralische Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht unserem Volk gegenüber das zu tun, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen." In English, [w]e have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us." The text of his speech is up on the web.[2]. You can listen to Himmler's speech here.[3]

Can a German linguistics expert explain why this translation is "erroneous", aside from the fact that it leads to a different conclusion? I know German and "extirpation" works just as well.

Extirpate means "to remove or destroy totally; do away with; exterminate." Is there really confusion about the meaning of the word "extirpation"? Also, why would you need a "German linguistics expert"? Just consult ANY German dictionary. See Der Sprach-Brockhaus deutsches Bildwörterbuch, F.A. Brockhaus, Wiesbaden. Consult either their 1972 or their 1935 edition. Die Ausrottung: völlige Vernichtung. If you really spoke German, you would know that völlige Vernichtung means total annihilation.

later in the Posen speech, Himmler again uses ausrottung, this time the past tense (ausgerottet) to refer to a sort of profiteering of things taking from the Jews. I filled in all uses of the word:

Incorrect. He does not use the word in reference to the plundering of Jewish corpses by the SS men at the camps. Here are his words: "Denn wir wollen nicht am Schluss, weil wir den Bazillus ausrotten, an dem Bazillus krank werden und sterben." In English: "Because at the end of this, we don't want, because we exterminated the bacillus, to become sick and die from the same bacillus." It is impossible to imagine a successful translation of that sentence in which bacteria are deported. He used the term ausrotten in reference to the Final Solution, "die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes."

Ausrotten is a word that appears to need context - like many English words.

Within the context of living things - such as bacillus or Jews - the verb ausrotten or its noun Ausrottung refers to killing in the sense of eradicating something so that it can never come back. It does not mean "displacing," "evacuating," or "deporting."

Fortunately Himmler in the opening sentence gives us this context - "evacuation from Europe".

Listen to Himmler's voice as he explains the meaning of the code word "Judenevakuierung." His audience was aware that "Evakuierung" was a code word. Himmler's voice goes up for dramatic effect before pausing briefly for dramatic effect; and then as he reveals that it really means "extermination," the tone of his voice falls. Here is the euphemism, he is saying, and here is its meaning.

If he were simply saying the same thing twice in different words, why would the first version be phrased straightforwardly, and the second with such gravity?

Plus, he had just emphasied the need for secrecy. By 1943 everyone knew that Jews were being deported. Why the need for secrecy?

but we should not be dishonest

Sir, we are not the ones being dishonest here. Your attempt to muddy the waters concerning the meaning of Ausrottung is transparent. I might be crossing a line here to suggest this (and mods, please let me know if I am), but I do not think that your criticisms of the Himmler article are in good faith. IddAhazi 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

As a native (German) speaker I hereby add an attempt of a translation of that part of Himmler’s “Posen Speech” to his SS-“generals” (please just name their rank “Gruppenführer” (!), because those guys definitely do not deserve to be called the same way as ordinary military personal). First you see the original German text and there after my translation. Hopefully it does not appear to you as “too broken” but surely I did my very best to avoid misunderstandings and any interpretation, which in all translation is almost impossible to avoid.

German text (original): Ich will hier vor Ihnen in aller Offenheit, auch ein ganz schweres Kapitel erwähnen. Unter uns soll es einmal ganz offen ausgesprochen sein, und trotzdem werden wir in der Öffentlichkeit nie darüber reden. Genau so wenig, wie wir am 30. Juni 1934 gezögert haben, die befohlene Pflicht zu tun und Kameraden, die sich verfehlt hatten, an die Wand zu stellen und zu erschießen, genau so wenig haben wir darüber jemals gesprochen und werden je darüber sprechen. Es war eine, Gottseidank in uns wohnende Selbstverständlichkeit des Taktes, dass wir uns untereinander nie darüber unterhalten haben, nie darüber sprachen. Es hat jeden geschaudert und doch war sich jeder klar darüber, dass er es das nächste Mal wieder tun würde, wenn es befohlen wird und wenn es notwendig ist.

Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes. Es gehört zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. – „Das jüdische Volk wird ausgerottet“, sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse, „ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, Ausschaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir.“ Und dann kommen sie alle an, die braven 80 Millionen Deutschen, und jeder hat seinen anständigen Juden. Es ist ja klar, die anderen sind Schweine, aber dieser eine ist ein prima Jude. Von allen, die so reden, hat keiner zugesehen, keiner hat es durchgestanden. Von Euch werden die meisten wissen, was es heisst, wenn 100 Leichen beisammen liegen, wenn 500 daliegen oder wenn 1000 daliegen. Dies durchgehalten zu haben, und dabei - abgesehen von Ausnahmen menschlicher Schwächen – anständig geblieben zu sein, das hat uns hart gemacht. Dies ist ein niemals geschriebenes und niemals zu schreibendes Ruhmesblatt unserer Geschichte, …

English translation: In front of you I shall openly also mention some extreme hard matters. Just among us and just for this time only it is to be spoken about this frankly, but in spite of this (only exception) we shall never ever talk about such matters in public. Since performing our office in June 30th 1934 by putting those comrades who failed to the wall and shooting them without hesitation we have never talked about those occurrences and we shall never do so. Thanks to God we have a certain feeling for tact that makes us neither chatting among us nor telling others about it. Though every one of us was horrified it has been clear to anyone involved that he would act the same way again if being ordered to do so and if necessary.

(But) now I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the wiping out of the Jewish people. It is just so easy talking about it. Every one of the party's comrades reflects on this: “Of course, the Jewish people is wiped out. Annihilation of the Jews, wiping them out, that’s what we do. It is part of the party’s programme.” And then all of those well-behaved 80 million Germans come into this and each of them presents the one nice Jew: “Of course, all the rest of them are just pigs but this one is an extraordinary good Jew.” Every body talking this way has never watched what happens, has never gone through all this withstanding the challenge. The most of you know how it actually feels when 100 dead bodies lay on the ground, when 500 lay down or when 1000 lay down. Gone through this –regardless some exceptions of normal human failures- we have kept our sense of decency. That’s what has hardened us. All this is one page in the historical book of our honours, but this page has never been written and must never been written, …

Dionysos 08:30, 2 February 2007, (UTC) (soenkepeters@juno.com)

The language in the article re: the Posen speech contains dubious references - Holocaust-denial literature and a fellow nazi who says he knows Himmler didn't make the statements because Himmler was addressing tension between Nazi groups. Huh? 165.189.169.190 (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

---

A link to the entire Posen speech would be helpful. The short excerpts confuse the issue. The speech is very long and dull in most respects. The comtext of the entire speech and the context of relevant documents cast more than a little doubt on the Posen speech being a "smoking gun" ( several Jewish historians admit that no "smoking gun" has yet surfaced). If Jewish historians see no "smoking gun" in this speech or any where else, it appears that wiki is doing a little original research here.159.105.80.141 12:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is improving?

I have tried today to improve the writing of the article. If any of my changes look like vandalism, then I have merely been incompetent. I hope readers will accept my changes as good faith attempts to improve the article. Rexroad2 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heinrich "Albin Starälv" Himmler?

Heinrich Himmler's middle name was Luitpold, and I cannot see why his main photograph is entitled "Heinrich Albin Starälv Himmler".

I'm going to temporarily set this to "Luitpold" for now, as I can find no evidence (on google, in this article, or otherwise) as to why this should be. If anyone has any comments, let me know. Jeremy Bright 01:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't standard on the Nazi leader pages - look for example at Joseph Goebbels who is Paul Joseph Goebbels in the introductory line but Joseph Goebbels above the photo. I think the name above the photo stands out and should be the one he is most commonly known as. I believe this is an attempt to make Himmler seem a bit more human, and whilst he was a human being, most people in Europe knew him as Heinrich Himmler, mass murderer. MarkThomas 06:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a fan of Himmler - never met him myself, but I doubt anyone during WW2 knew of him as a mass murderer. That was a story that evolved over time - here is one area that I believe evolution can be proved.

Himmler was widely known during the war to be a mass-murderer and criminal - he was specifically cited this way by Churchill and Roosevelt and was singled out repeatedly by BBC broadcasts as a monster during the war. MarkThomas 08:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Freikorps?

Hoehne wrote that Himmler was in his time as a student a member of the organizations Reichskriegflagge and Artmanen. I think that both of these organizations were not Freikorpses. Andries 13:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Time of Birth/Death

Do we really need the precise time of his brith and death, surely the date is sufficient. Rob.derosa 15:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but Himmler and other Nazis had interests in astrology, occultism and supernatural forces. The Thule Society was an avid fraternity focused on German folklore, "Aryan" civilization, pre-modern European mythology and Eastern mysticism (India, China, Japan, Persia, Arabia, etc). Himmler wasn't a strong Christian, later in life he became a neopagan and was outspoken on the damage that "Jewish" Christianity (esp. Roman Catholicism) caused Europe to decline for thousands of years, and the alleged "miscegenation" of Aryans with "Judeo-Christian" Semitic races has done to the "Aryan racial soul". The man was strange and wicked, Himmler would appear anti-social or unable to achieve anything...if it weren't for his chances to enter the army and German politics in the Nazi party. It's said Hitler and Josef Goebbels thought of the holocaust, but it's Himmler who was given orders and direction to carry out the atrocities in the death camps. Himmler and Goebbels weren't anti-Semitic at first, but was convinced by Hitler on "Jewish conspiracies" and their own radical political ideologies. Goebbels was leftist with his own dislike of the "Liberal elite" and Himmler was a "prussian" conservative to hold originally different worldviews. It's said the Nazis in the beginning was a "National Socialist" party, but are vividly anti-communist and hated leftists, but with Himmler in the party attacked Christianity and mainstream conservatives at the time. The birth date and time of Heinrich Himmler isn't necessary, but he felt by looking at it was a destiny to rise into power. + 63.3.14.2 08:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-standard in war leader infoboxes and unencyclopedic; the fact that some claim (controversially) that Nazi leaders were obsessed with astrology is not justification. Removed. MarkThomas 08:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Heinrich Himmler..JPG

Maybe non-standard for infoboxes, but for the purposes of a wiki and giving thorough information it might be mentioned in the body of the article, for example; "Himmler was born on... at (such & such time)" and "he died on... (at such and such time) from such & such cause." 67.5.156.51 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

photo

A number of colour Nazi propaganda photos are being added to Nazi leader pages, and the one on this page is an example. I believe this is based on some kind of sneaky revisionist agenda, but have no proof. Do we really want the image for this page to be "Heinrich Himmler, nice friendly uncle, you'd leave your kids with him" or the more familiar one from his visit to watch concentration camp inmates being killed which I put on earlier and has been reverted? I leave you to decide. MarkThomas 17:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Photos shouldn't violate NPOV policies -- so you're both wrong. The portrait should accurately depict his appearance (physical characteristics). It's not meant to show him in a negative or positive light, no matter what type of person he was. The same would go for someone like Gandhi. --Novaprospekt 17:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my point - the previous photo was intended to cast him in a positive light. MarkThomas 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated the colour photo. Colour is much better, because people are in colour, so it's more realistic. It is also a much better psychological insight into the complexity of the whole person, and though it may have been intended as a friendly uncle, I find it extremely chilling. The one replaced is here for comparison. That is obviously a propaganda picture of Himmler as indomitable god superhero, and surely only a one-sided portrayal, which limits understanding of a mentality that contains warmth, ruthlessness, greed, intimacy, smugness, pleasure, insecurity etc etc. Additionally, when I first saw the replaced photo, I thought it had been vandalised with the face coloured in (I'm still not quite sure!). This is not a good start to the article. I think it should be in there somewhere, but certainly with an explanation as to why it's coloured - and also presumably that it's signed. Tyrenius 04:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all still very POV. An image should be 'straight faced', 'front on' and show a depiction of the individual facial features for purposes of recognition. Many photos in WWII were in black & white, but the one close up picture of Himmler in color is quarter profile, squinting, and smiling; definitely not straight faced. 67.5.156.113 23:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

I suggest that the lead section treats the holocaust very briefly, but should not go into details about it. I personally think that the lead should emphasize that Himmler was important for being the leader of the SS the formidable powerful large and diverse organization that he build up. Andries 20:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

May be we can also mention in the lead that he was an occultist. Andries 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Quality Standards

I think that this part of the text: "In contrast to Hitler, Himmler inspected several concentration and war camps. Once Himmler was present at a mass shooting of Jews in Poland and was said to have vomited after brain matter from a victim splashed onto his coat. After that the Nazis were searching for a "more hygienic" and "humane" (though perhaps "organised" is the best word) way to kill which culminated in the use of the gas chambers. Humane, that is for the executioners, who were to be spared the unpleasantness of such methods, as some of them suffered from psychological problems as a result of their activities in this area.

Is quite subjective, the opinions are not proper of a serious Encyclopaedia. It must be edited. (Unsigned comment was made at 12:19 on 27 May 2007 by user Ehrenritter)

How is this "quite subjective"? This is factual information which has been sourced. What is your source?71.162.248.100 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheSpear.jpg

Image:TheSpear.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace?

The article said 'Munich, Germany' in the 'Early Life' section. So i corrected the info box to say Munich aswell because it was claiming he was born in "Tokyo, Japan".DestinationAndromeda 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Commentary inserted into Fabrications and Conspiracy Theories

An anon user inserted the following text into this section, which I have moved to here:

DO YOU PEOPLE REALIZE THAT THESE COMMENTS YOU KEEP REPOSTING BELOW ARE UNTRUE OF THE AUTHOR, DEFAMATORY and LIBELOUS? Do you understand that? If you do, why do you persist in reposting it, rather than posting factual statements? Have any of your moderators actually read the book (s) in question? Suppose the book was published by Spartacus house? Would that make the author pro-communinst? You really need to distance yourselves from these McCarthy type tactics. They are unbecoming of an Encyclopedic reference source. Do you always cite calumnious blog spots as your primary reference for individuals? You would do well to dispassionately stick to issues and the subject matter rather than repeating libelous gossip.

Darkspots (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the author of these comments aware of the recent work posted at the National Archives regarding Martin Allen? Has he read the mountain of evidence regarding the forgeries? Peterlewis (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User Peter Lewis is correct. Whilst conversely, an extremely bizarre and threatening rant from the clipped entry is quite unacceptable!

It begins by hyper-venting, screaming and shouting at people in CAPS, but then threatens and demands that others be "dispassionate" … ?!?!?! Rational people disregard such rants and threats as double standards and hypocrisy that frequently emanate from irrational dogmatists.

What "calumnious blog spots" what is that all about? Another unsubstantiated accusation. Who has authenticated that the material is anything but factual. Only one blog is referred to, and it quotes directly from the (poorly written) material of an obscure Himmler fantasist.

It provides direct sources for an obscure writer Joseph Bellinger, and his own words, accusations and statements as well as the writer’s bizarre and flaky ditty, which makes fun and frivolity of torture, suffering, genocide and the murder and extermination of Jews --all to the anti-Semitic writer’s sole, sadistic sense of mentally sick and perverse amusement. The highly-strung rant is without any merit.

There is absolutely nothing "LIBELOUS" in anything that has been placed in the section. Quite the contrary, the material is mutually factual, and referenced with thoroughly credible sources. The section is more encyclopaedically notable for both its volume, and meticulous use of references.

The ranter is simply ill-informed and ignorant, and isn’t aware that the BBC, The Australian newspaper, the British National Archives as well as the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, are not "blogs" but legitimate and valid sources. The clearly erratic and excitable personage (possibly the threat-making Joseph Bellinger himself) needs to get educated.

The section also requires protection and is being vandalised by Nazi activists.

You may want to read more carefully. Darkspots did not author the text. He/she merely moved it from the article to here. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Amended.

Joseph Bellinger links to a Wikipedia article on a U.S. Representative that died in 1830. I doubt that that is relevant to the current discussion, User:Mateat 05:12 Aug 10 2008 (UTC)

Updated this section to include new references to the latest British police investigation on the exposed forgeries.

Hm? I note that the pro-Nazi POV pushers have been very busy vandalising in one form or another, including feigning and faking, that they are Himmler haters.

If they are so ruthless as to penetrate and vandalsie the British Archives with their lies and fabrications, on wonders what hope does Wikipedia have?

Seriously?!

Copyediting

I'll start copyediting this article and can hopefully remove the copyedit tag shortly. --Banime (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I went through and copyeditted this article and believe I have fixed most of those types of mistakes. Although the article still needs more citations and various changes to content, I believe the copyedit tag can be removed. Also I'm not quite sure there should even be an "In Fiction" section for Himmler, but that's a topic for a different discussion. I am removing the copyedit tag, discuss here if you disagree. --Banime (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Himmler & Gita

The source cited is Padfield, Peter Himmler New York:1990--Henry Holt Page 402 , He is a mariner and not in anyway qualified to make such an assertion . In addition , this line of thinking is pushed by a certain group and as such not a good choice to be included in this article. I will add tags unless , some one finds more authoritative sources to back the claim.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"He is a mariner"? What on earth are you talking about? This fact is very well known and is not disputed. Paul B (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to make of this... --Banime (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is being re-added by a certain user without giving any reason. Association with Gita is a view held by a fringe community and it should have no place unless more reliable sources are cited.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the reason is clear. It is an undisputed fact that is referred to by almost all of Himmler's biographers. It is not "a view held by a fringe community" (and what "fringe community" would that be?). It is held by reliable historians, who are properly footnoted. It is therefore neither fringe nor unreliable and you are falsely claiming it is for rather jejune ideological reasons. Paul B (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Here are some more quotations from reliable sources:

"[Hauer's] interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita, for instance, influenced Himmler and the SS. Indeed Himmler defended his lethal decisions and his detachment from their consequences with just those Buddhist and Hindu ideas that Hauer popularized" [4] Karla O. Poewe, New Religions and the Nazis, Routledge.

"Himmler read and held in high esteem the Bhagavad Gita" John Michael Steiner, Power Politics and Social Change in National Socialist Germany Walter de Gruyter, 1976. Paul B (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bharatveer, you cannot invoke wp:fringe just to remove any piece of information you happen to dislike. It's disingenious. --dab (𒁳) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

False combat service claim?

"He was discharged without ever seeing battle, although he later falsely claimed that he had.[citation needed]"

He may have made the claim, but as noted, where, and to whom? His SS adjutant stated that Himmler told him he (Himmler)had NOT served in combat. This is contained in an interview with the adjutant that can be seen on "The World At War" DVD set (produced by Jeremy Isaacs), in the "bonus" content section (Volume 5), under the subtitle "The Final Solution".

Anyone find anything else more about this? Unfortunately I'm not an expert on Himmler, I usually focus more on earlier things, or I'd check my books. Is there any good source for this? --Banime (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

All political positions.

I think a collapsible exhaustive list of all his political positions, as was there but removed in August, should be reinstated in a way such as this:

All government & political positions held

*Reichsführer-SS (RF-SS: “Reichs leader of the SS”) in the NSDAP (1929–1945) Reichs- und Preussischer Minister des Innern (Reichs & Prussian minister of the interior) of Germany (August 1943–1945) Chef der Deutschen Polizei (ChdDtP: “chief of German police”) (June 1936–1945) Chef der Heeresrüstung und Befehlshaber des Ersatzheeres (Ch H Rüst u.BdE: “chief of army equipment and commander of the replacement army”) of Germany (July 1944–1945) Reichskommissar für die Festigung des Deutschen Volkstums (RKFDV: "Reich commissar for the strengthening of Germanism") in the NSDAP (October 1939–1945) Verein Lebensborn e.V. ("president of the ‘Fountain of Life’ society") of the NSDAP (September 1936–1945) Verein Das Ahnenerbe Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft (“president of the ancestral heritage research & teaching society") of the NSDAP Beauftragter der NSDAP für alle Volkstumsfragen (“Nazi Party commissioner for all racial matters”) Generalbevollmächtigter für die Verwaltung (“plenipotentiary for administration”) of Germany (August 1943–1945).

The source for these positions in particular is a very common restricted (at the time) U.S. military manual for use on information about the German military during WWII. Now it is sold in bookstores as a large softcover grey book, I cannot now find it for a direct reference though maybe someone else could. Nagelfar (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

?

"He realized that if the Nazi regime was to survive, it needed to seek peace with Britain and the United States." lol, what? I first thought to place a weasel word thing there then I thought it's irrelevant, and started thinking of requesting citations, but then I thought how the heck is someone to cite somebody's thoughts unless he/she was a WWII veteran mind-reader. I'm deleting that part and if anyone has an arguable problem with my deletion of that kind of style usage in general please let me know here before reversing the edit. Dimitrakopulos (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A whole section on a china factory?

What on earth is that for? That particular brand of Nazi porcelain might be notable enough to have its own article, but it isn't notable enough in the context of Heinrich Himmler's life, seeing as how Himmler was master of concentration camps all over Europe. It appears to be an interpolation. I am taking that out of the article, and will include the text in the article for Allach porcelain. Vidor (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Allach porcelain

I went and restored the inforamtion about Allach porcelain because it was important to Himmler. It is relitive infromation because it show a side of him that is not normaly seen. He had a love for the art of porcelain. Sure he used it for political and propaganda reasons but it was something he probably enjoyed. He also had the Julleuchter made by Allach porcelain and given to all SS soldiers. It fits in with his occultism as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasweed (talk • contribs) 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Vidor (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you. I will keep restoring the information to the article. Your “No it isn't.” comment is not any argument or discussion against it. It was something he enjoyed and had gifts made there for all the SS soldiers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasweed (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC).

With further thought I see that other subjects associated with Himmler are placed in the “See Also” area. I will remove the Allach porcelain info and place links to it in the see also area. Nicholasweed (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC).

He was the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany, after Adolf Hitler.

Is this not a matter or opinion? In my opinion, Hermann Goring was the second most powerful man in Germany. He was named Hitler's successor, and had his own name of 'Reichsmarschall' created for him by Hitler. Does this not make him the most powerful man after Hitler? Jakisbak (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

True, Göring was the number two, but only nominally. Himmler, through his control of the SS and other police forces, had more actual power at his disposal, which he made use of. Therefore, the term "one of most powerful men" is appropriate for Göring together with Himmler. Alandeus (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, its a matter of opinion really. Thanks Jakisbak (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)DIDNT HIMMELER WANT TO HAVE SS STATE IN SOUTHERN GERMANY?Thanks!Andreisme (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

his other children

What were the fates of Helge and Nanette Dorothea? Kingturtle (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Himmeler's perception

What intrigues me are these comments of Himmler:

"We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill this people which wanted to kill us."

"As to the Jewish women and children, I did not believe I had a right to let these children grow up to become avengers who would kill our fathers and grandchildren."

What "knowledge or experience" made Himmler come to this perception (and how would we react if we had lived in the same days and in the same environment and had the same "knowledge or experience" as Himmler did)? This question needs to be handled in detail, for this article will not be complete without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.243.40 (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A fascinating question indeed, and one, by your very use of the conditional, which could only be answered by conjecture, and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia. Also, I don't see the point of putting "knowledge or experience" in question marks - You don't seem to be quoting anything in particular and it appears you're trying to give more weight to the words by using a dishonest turn of phrase. Also, this seems like a veiled attempt at race-baiting. Which I guess is my way of saying that I beg to differ, and that this article can certainly be considered factually complete without what seems like an unwaranted digression into the hypothetical redeeming qualities one might have re: spouting anti-semitic propaganda. I would remove this, but I'd rather call bullshit. (Also, I like the word "also")--69.70.144.146 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

weird golf vandalism

There is strange vandalism about his father being a golf pro. It goes back many revisions and I think an administrator needs to sort it out and prevent it from recurring, since it seems to. Bigmac31 (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Atamanen society

In Rudolf Hoess' book, he talks about meeting Himmler in 1930 at the meetings of a Atamanen Society in Saxony. Does anyone know what he is talking about? oops.. thats artaman? ok.. that has quite a few hits... hrm...

Photo Flipped

It appears someone went in and saved an upside image of Himmler's body ontop of the old picture that used to be in this article. I tried 4 times to get it back, but kept coming up with the upside down image. Probably need an administrator. -Husnock 13Feb05

Looks like it got fixed

Link?

A First person narrative about Heinrich Himmler This link at end appears to go to a work of fantastical fiction, and has no business being here. Removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.91 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Religion

He was with the time an adherent of Pagan ideas. So stating he was a Catholic is not quite correct. -- 119.94.207.13 (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Greatest mass murderer of all time"

I've moved this claim out of the lead and into the section regarding his legacy and public perception in Germany. The statement by Der Spiegel accurately describes him as a staggeringly calculating mass murderer, but the "greatest?" No way. The numbers simply just don't add up. Hitler himself has been tabulated as only the 3rd most prolific murderer in world history, being (greatly) eclipsed by both Stalin and Mao and just beating out Lenin in the #4 position. Pol Pot is #5, for the record.

When assigning titles such as "greatest", Wikipedia requires concrete numbers, not public opinion. Otherwise the definition would be meaningless from one country to the next. For example, in much of the Middle Eastern world, George W. Bush or Ariel Sharon would likely be currently considered amongst the greatest mass murderers in world history, despite not having the actual body count to back it up. If Der Spiegel wants to present numbers which suggest he actually murdered about 25,000,000 more people than is currently believed, the claim can go back. Bullzeye ^contribs 03:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It would indeed seem appropriate not to have this claim in the lead. Further down in the Historical views section there is a comment on Der Spiegel's assessment which reads "While reflecting his continued public perception in modern Germany, statistical research on democide shows this claim to be a severe overestimate, even when his personal responsibility is considered collectively with Hitler and his other lieutenants. And after all, Der Spiegel is an opinionated magazine, such work does not seem fitting for an encyclopedic lead. Lt.Specht (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Circumstances of death?

In a TV documentary I saw it was presented that after a few days in camp as an unrecognized POW, a disguised and weary Himmler turned himself in and said "I am Heinrich Himmler". (Perhaps he believed he would be given VIP treatment.) At that point he was taken into custody. He was forced to undress for an examination that included a search on his person for hidden poison. When the doctor began searching inside his mouth for a capsule, Himmler jerked back and bit on it, causing death.

This account disagrees with that presented in the article. Had Himmler continued to hide his true identity, he might have eventually escaped his certain trial and execution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.96.60 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there more specific info about "reprieve" for prisoners or specifically Jews?

I am referring to this quote "He tried to buy off their vengeance by last-minute reprieves for Jews and important prisoners. " What are the specifics? Perhaps we should somehow link to whatever it is that he did or tried to do? On a related note, I recall reading about an alleged attempt of Eichmann to sell the release of some Jews in return for trucks, but I don't think Himmler figured in it. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of Jews killed by Himmler (citation needed)

Wikipedia should be based on facts. To claim that 6 million Jews were killed by Himmler is irresponsible since there is no historical record to support this number. Wikipedia should be keep separated from political agendas be an impartial source of information. --Ehtz28 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ehtz28 sounds like Holocaust denial. Alandeus (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, Wikipedia should be keep separated from political agendas and be a source of historical reference. Facts like these, which are polemic, must be supported by historical records. --Ehtz28 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My request for a citation () was removed once more. Historical truth goes by evidence and not by emotion. --Ehtz28 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is emotional here. The 6 million figure is generally established and accepted by historians (refer to citations again and elsewhere in Wikipedia). Of course, it is an educated estimation that may be off by a couple thousands at such dimensions. That is a reason why the text says "some" six million. Alandeus (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We should then provide official Nazi and ally historical records to support such a large number of Jewish deaths (6 million). Otherwise this enters the realm of philosophy and not science fact. --Ehtz28 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you actually want an answer read Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll. Paul B (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the original sentiment of this section, but by the fact that an order for a killing is not a killing per se. Himmler did not kill a single jew, saying *he* personally killed the jews he ordered killed is aggrandizing him. 184.76.53.217 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Himmler and the Gita

The passage of the article that talks about this references two books as sources for the information it contains.

The first is "A Second Look at the Second Coming: Sorting Through the Speculations." The book is published by a Christian ministry named Conciliar Press Ministries, Inc. and lacks academic credibility and neutrality.

The second book the passage cites is "Hitler-Buddha-Krishna." This book too lacks credibility. Victor Trimondi, the author of the book, has accused the Dalai Lama, as a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism, of engaging in "a belief in spirits and demons, secret sexual practices, occultism, [and] mind control." (http://www.trimondi.de/EN/interv03.html)

Could we find better references? Thank you. 75.187.114.241 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The section used four references, not two. You removed all of it, inclding the undisputed and reliably sourced parts. The fact that Himmler subscribed to the "Aryan"/neo-pagan aspect of Nazism is well known. That there were also Nazis who claimed to be Christians (including Hitler) is also well known. The second part was certainly exaggerated and poorly sourced. More accurate and reliably sourced text could be constructed. Paul B (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for deleting that first part of the passage in haste. Thanks for restoring it. 75.187.114.241 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit (horrible grammar)

I just wanted to imporve one sentence but don't know how to get around the semi-protection. Near the end, under "Awards": "...to which his duties as Chief of the SS and Police would almost certainly have qualified him for" has redundant prepositions "to" and "for" that perform the same function. The sentence should end: "...for which his duties as Chief of the SS and Police would almost certainly have qualified him." Axel 03:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelHarvey (talk • contribs)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but you seem to be an "established user" that can edit semi-protected articles, what happens when you try? I made a small change to the article earlier today and I am not an administrator or such. (Your suggested change is a definite improvement.) --CliffC (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree it should be fixed and it has been done. Kierzek (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)