Talk:Hermann Fegelein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

Both the DE and NL versions of wikipedia state that Fegelein was indeed executed. How come the EN wikipedia states that he was spared?

Allied interrogations reports which were at one time classified "Secret", released and published in the U.S. in the last 10 years, substantiate the fact that in the Bunker Hitler ordered Fegelein to be executed; however, the order was not carried out. Heinrich Himmler had tried to negotiate surrender to the Allies on April 28th, and this prompted Hitler to suspect Fegelein in a conspiracy against him and to summon him for questioning. When this didn't pan out, Hitler then suspected he was leaking info to the enemy. Fegelein was drunk at the time and cursed Hitler and the Nazis, and this enraged Hitler who ordered him shot. However, German military law prohibited this action against an intoxicated German soldier in court martial so the order was not carried out by the German soldiers who led Fegelein away from the Reichs Chancellery under guard to another building on April 29, 1945. The next day Hitler and Eva Braun disappeared from the bunker after participating in a multi-couple civil marriage ceremony held in the bunker for Hitler and a few other military people who wanted to get married. Adolf Hitler had been a millionaire since 1928 with always a dozen household servants and it is hard to believe that this simple and unadorned ceremony was anything other than a staged public relations event to try to fool the Allies about something. Even Eva Braun had been giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of furs, jewelry, books, clothes, and other gifts in the past week, yet nothing was done for this ceremony.

It is understandable that other survivors of the bunker would report Fegelein was shot by firing squard because this was what was reported to them and to Hitler at the time. Allied intelligence knew he was not dead and kept his parents under surveillance for a long time after the war in hopes of capturing him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.97.150 (talk • contribs)

The Problem

I'm editing this article with info from O'Donnell. The truth is: the entire circumstances surrounding Fegelein's death/execution/whatever are up in the air; at least I can detail the different theories. --L. 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Insert more subheadings, clean up English

Unfortunately I don't have time myself as I've got exams coming up, but the whole last section is a mess. The English needs to be polished up (the style is horrible and incomprehensible in parts), apart from the factual discussion above. Also, it needs to be split up in several subheadings (Death, Historical Discussion, Appearances in Popular Culture etc) A consistent use of Umlauts would please German-speaking readers.

Most of the text from just after my editing sessions was the abysmal copy-and-paste ugliness of the articles' fromer self. You have done a good job of it, as it is now unrecognisable from the original.

English clean up

I've done some grammatical editing of this article. With some more cleaning up, and the facts we have, this could end up as a featured article. Good luck in the exams, as i've just finished my A levels myself.

Do we have a reference for the bio info at the top? While my source (O'Donnell) is great for discussing Fegelein's end, and gives a general outline of what has been added, our contributors must have found a much better source. Can we list it? --L. 3 July 2005 15:20 (UTC

---

There is an interview between American military intelligence officers and the German officer in charge of the intoxicated Fegelein stating that Fegelein was not executed. Also, the Russians were in charge of this part of Berlin in May of 1945, and their top priority for Stalin, besides rape and pillage, was to account for Hitler. Even some German Red Cross nurses took care of their patients and then committed suicide rather than be raped and tortured by the invading Russians. Regarding this scenario of the advancing Russians, every corpose was closely scrutinized to see if it was Hitler's. No corpse ever found around the fuhrerbunker by the Russians ever matched up with Fegelein's, who was 6 feet and 4 inches tall, had two gold teeth(upper canine and molar), distinct receding hairline, slightly curved spine, large hands and rounded skull.

In the Fuhrerbunker, Hitler had every phone call tapped from the switchboard and played on a wall-mounted speaker in his office. The switchboard operator was still alive in 2006 and petitioned the City of Berlin to put up a marker where they found the original site of the underground bunker facility. There is now an outside bulletin board diagramming the spot. When Fegelein went to his Berlin apartment and called Eva Braun in the bunker and try to get her to leave Hitler rather than commit suicide, Hitler was eavesdropping on this conversation via the wall speaker and Eva knew this, so she played it cool with Fegelein so as not to compromise her own safety because Hitler was extremely volatile and it was a known fact that Germany experienced the highest rate of casualties of Army generals in WW II than any other country in the world.

Gretl did not have an abortion as this child's child committed suicide 2 or 3 years ago and this was reported in the media internationally. The soldier that would not marry Gretl was sent to the Russian front and died soon afterwards in battle. I note from this discussion that some source mentions paternity is in question. Gretl was living with Eva in the house in Munich purchased with Hoffman photo studio royalties from Hitler's pictures and it was Hitler who did not want any further public scrutiny to fall on the Braun sisters for the sake of his own public reputation. Hitler would occasionally visit this house at midnight in a black Mercedes with bodyguards for "sessions" with Eva. Gretl not only knew too much and could blackmail Hitler, which several other German relatives of his acquaintances had done, but both of the Braun's sisters' parents had written letters to Hitler, which were never delivered, complaining of his bad influence on Eva and requesting Hitler to end the relationship. The Braun parents eventaully accepted the arrangement and even visited the Berghof house as visitors.

Otto Hermann Fegelein had a brother who was in the military in WW II and he survived the war. His name is Waldemar Fegelein and here is an early photograph of them posing together:

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5500

and this link contains a picture of him in full uniform at his brother's wedding with the bride:  

http://www.thirdreichruins.com/berghofvisitors.htm

Hermann Fegelein's medal German nameplate from his uniform was found in Latvia and was sold on eBay two years ago, further reason to believe that since his body was not found by the Russians or Americans in Berlin, and his uniform got to Latvia (where he knew Count Puckler), perhaps he did too. Hermann Fegelein always had an Adjutant assigned to him, even though he was not high enough in office or responsibilities to have an Adjutant -- it appears this Adjutant was to do all of the paperwork and read letters to him.

In the summer of 1945 Hermann's father was told that Hermann had escaped on a submarine with Hitler in 1945 to Argentina to continue the fight: I completely discount this scenario because Fegelein had stabbed Hitler in the back in the bunker when Hitler had given him some papers from a safe to burn to keep out of the hands of the Russians, and Fegelein ignored the order and went to the car pool and and requisitioned a car from SS-Obersturmbannführer Erich Kempka, Hitler's long time chaeuffeur, who was in charge of the carpool for the Reichs Chancellery, to go to his apartment to meet up with a red-headed spy where they were caught red-handed with foreign currency and Swedish passports in other names; the female spy escaped out the kitchen window while feigning to prepare drinks for the SS men who had come to arrest Fegelein. The Nazi's took Fegelein back to the bunker to face the music alone. Actually, if he had the female companion with him, this would have certainly turned Eva and Hitler against him more violently and immediately as much time and effort had been spent to try to prop up Gretl into appearing to be a respectable person to the German public. This, coupled with the fact that Fegelein was supposed to have met Heinrich Himmler regarding the "separate peace with the Allies" deal they were working on with Count Bernadotte but traffic prevented this rendezvous, and Fegelein was arrested by the Nazi's with documents implicating him in the deal, makes me feel that Hitler did not take Fegelein with him on a submarine to Argentina with a ton of gold in May of 1945; however, Hermann Fegelein's father had no way of knowing this in 1945 or 1946 and it sounded good to him that Hermann was still a high ranking Nazi fighting for the Father Land. I think the intelligence agencies from UK/MI6, Russia and SOS/CIA were all tripping over each other feeding false information to try to flush out Nazi's in sting operations. 07:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Jan le Fey, Marseille68.211.85.31 07:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

---

''''''CITATIONS, REFERENCES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, weblinks can be added here''''''

ongoing 
no book written about Fegelein -- he is mentioned in various WW II books: 

Riding East by Mark C. Yerger

The SS Cavalry Brigade in Poland and Russia 1939-1942

ISBN: 0764300601

---

---

'''''discussion:''''' Hermann Fegelein was actively sought after by the Russians in May of 1945 as a war criminal because he was the regional Nazi commander of a large territory, the size of a US State, called the Pripet Marshes, part of Russia, conquered by the Nazi's. He approved of retaliatory raids to subdue the rebellious civilian Russians and random terror attacks and killings to induce submission to Nazi rule. Sometimes the Russian civilians would throw a rock at a German soldier or attack him and the respose from Fegelein was all out of proportion to the actual threat. While the Russians wanted to locate and verify Hitler's fate, they also, in May of 1945, searched the Bunker in Berlin diligently to look for Hermann Fegelein and failed to locate him or his remains. German prisoners held by the Russians who had been in the bunker in April of 1945 were questioned repeatedly about Fegelein's whereabouts as Hanna Reitsch, who had flown in Robert Ritter von Greim to the bunker, claimed that Heinrich Himmler's Junkers JU-52 was waiting at the Brandenburg Gate to fly Fegelein out of Berlin before the Russians arrived. In addition to von Greim being given Goring's Luftwaffe position and carrying Hitler's orders to Donitz, Hanna told U.S. Intelligence, while under de-Nazification interrogation, that she was given in the Bunker several letters from Eva Braun written to the German people saying that she (Eva) was giving her life for the fatherland, etc., and Hanna said it was all so nauseating, phony and disgusting that she destroyed these letters of Eva Braun out of fear that some uninformed person might believe them and try to make Eva Braun out as some kind of Germman hero, which Hanna felt she was not. In fact, Eva never showed any political proclivities all her life, including the time spent with Hitler and his entourage. She had a life of her own in Munich and many people that saw her did not know of her close affiliation with Hitler.

The Allies/Americans did not arrive in Berlin until July of 1945. When the Russians arrived in Berlin at the end of April, 1945, SHEAF's General Eisenhower ordered a media blackout of any news about Berlin, even though Allied troops had not occupied the city yet. Stalin was very secretive about what he found in Berlin and never made a full and accurate accounting to the British or to General Eisenhower or President Truman. As you know, Russia was never a signatory to the Geneva convention on treating prisoners of war kindly, and Russian soldiers were given small boxes they could mail home for free to encourage them to steal as many small valuables as possible from the German civilians. (Some of the Russian soldiers were so backwards that they stole light bulbs out of electrical sockets, thinking that the bulbs produced light independently like a flashlight.) Stalin also never said he had definitely found Hitler's remains and Stalin never requested Allied assistance in locating Hitler or his remains, which leads to speculation that the Russians had information which they did not want to share with the rest of the world regarding the Battle of Berlin in 1945. This is not about Hitler but the only "evidence" provided that Hitler's remains were retained by a Soviet agency was that after the burned corpse was found, they went to Hitler's last known dentist's office and could not obtain his dental records, so the dental assistant drew a sketch from memory of the dental work he remembered existed in Hitler's mouth. Also, the witnessess who supposedly saw Eva Braun's corpse being carried out of the bunker wrapped up in a carpet were contradictory: some said her legs where showing and that's how they knew it was her, other people said they could not see her legs at all. And of course, they said Martin Bormann was carrying it out to be burned! From all that I have read about the Third Reich, Martin Bormann would never pick up Eva Braun, dead or alive, but preferably dead.

It is next to impossible that Eva or Gretl Braun ever submitted to an abortion by Dr. Morrell. It is to Hermann Fegelein's credit that he caused Hitler to have Dr Morrell expelled from Hitler's entourage; however, Fegelein, being a newcomer to Hitler's inner circle, was unaware that Dr. Morrell's unconventional prescriptions to Hitler continued just the same under Dr. Ludwig Stumpfegger. Dr. Stumpfegger is the doctor who administered, at Hitler's request, a cyanide capsule to the German Shepherd, Blondi, so Hitler could see how fast the poison worked and would work on the German generals. As you know, Hitler had 5,000 cyanide capsules prepared for distribution to the top German military officers to Hari Kari on, since he blamed them for losing the war. The military officers had other ideas and were fast exchanging concentration camp loot for gold and fake passports to leave Germany and Martin Bormann and Herman Fegelein were conspiring behind Hitler's back to make sure this didn't happen and that the German officers would have a golden parachute and rat lines to South America. Bormann had already stashed millions in secret Swiss bank accounts and had the German military courier killed each time he made a trip to Switzerland to make a deposit, to cover his tracks.

In the 1940's, Dr. Morrell, who was in close collaboration with Martin Bormann to control Hitler and access to Hitler, plotted to kill Eva Braun. While at the Berghof one day, he convinced Eva to submit to a blood test. She was strapped to an examination table in his office. She and a female associate saw Dr. Morrell prepare a syringe which they considered to be poison and she became alarmed and felt she had been duped. Eva told her friend to get help immediately. An SS guard was told and he ran in the room and said that Hitler wanted to see Eva immediately so they had to stop the procedure. Eva was released but Martin Bormann immediately transferred the SS guard to the front and he was soon killed in action. Eva knew that she narrowly escaped death that day on Dr. Morrell's examination table. Due to the fact that this appeared to be the first time Eva had treatment from Dr. Morrell as she had to be coaxed into it, it is unlikely she had any treatment from him prior to this and certainly not after. Everyone close to Hitler knew Dr. Morrell was a STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) Specialist only, and not a general medical practitioner. In fact it was Dr. Morrell's treatment of Heinrich Hoffman for syphillis that brought him to the attention of Hitler and led to his position. He coddled Hitler and Hitler even allowed him to design his own uniform, which looked like a general's uniform, so he would blend in more unobstrusively in the military entourage constantly surrounding Hitler in his travels.

Hermann's brother, SS-Standartenführer Waldemar Fegelein, survived the war by several decades. 68.218.27.203 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)F.Eugen

---

Vandalism?

User from IP 122.163.34.236 made the following change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermann_Fegelein&diff=prev&oldid=156467610 Same IP undertook multiple acts of subtle vandalism latter in the day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.163.34.236

Since this isn't clear vanalism, and this edit took place hours before the latter vandalism, it may not have been by the latter vandal, rather by some other individual. I'll let you all decide if you want that changed back or if it's actually "cleaning up" the article, since I can't decide which is appropriate.

65.95.237.214 02:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Knight's Cross and other awards

It should be noted that according to historian Veit Scherzer, Hermann Fegelein, according to German law, was deprived of all of his awards after his court martial. Scherzer’s very thorough research of the German National Archives led to his work

• Scherzer, Veit. Die Ritterkreuzträger Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives (in German). Jena, Germany: Scherzers Miltaer-Verlag, 2007. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2.

In this book, among others, he de-lists Fegelein from the list of Knight's Cross recipients. Fegelein must therefore be considered a de facto but not de jure recipient. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's 'brother in law'?

Was he even alive when Eva Braun and Hitler married? If not, Can you say he was ever Hitler's Brother-In-Law if dead by that time? 98.246.62.216 (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right - one can only be an in-law if they're still alive. That's why there's no such thing as a "great-grandfather-in-law - see the inlaw entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.93.111 (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fegelein's father

Fegelein's father is described as "retired Catholic Oberleutnant Hans Fegelein". Is religious affiliation required here? Or did Hans 'retire' from Catholicism? It doesn't say what branch of service he retired from, so maybe Catholic is a typo. I removed it. Canstusdis (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Pripyat swamps (punitive operation)

He was head of SS Cavalry Brigade during Pripyat swamps (punitive operation), see linked articles. --Pjacobi (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem with sources

Material is sourced to Fellgiebel 2000 and O'Donnell 1978, but these books do not appear in the bibliography. There is an O'Donnell 2001, but the page numbers may not agree. Anyone have access to these books? Also, the quotation is too long; this material needs to be paraphrased or cut. --Dianna (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fellgiebel, Walther-Peer (2000) [1986]. Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes, 1939–1945: Die Inhaber der höchsten Auszeichnung des Zweiten Weltkrieges aller Wehrmachtteile (in German). Friedburg, Germany: Podzun-Pallas. ISBN 3-7909-0284-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• O'Donnell, James Preston (1978). The Bunker: The History of the Reich Chancellery Group. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-39525719-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Both editions of O'Donnell seem to be 399 pages, so you may be ok. Hope that helps. Alarbus (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Alarbus. I will work on this some more in the morning. --Dianna (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have the 1978 O'Donnell book I can check if you have any further queries. Also, please don't cut Mohnke's explanation to the Court Marshall and condemning to death quote too much. The detail is important to understand the events which up until 1978 were mainly rumor and unknown to any real degree. Kierzek (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Lengthy quotations are problematic from a copyright point of view. This quote is nearly 400 words; it will have to be paraphrased. Please keep an eye out and make sure I don't lose the gist of the meaning. --Dianna (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have any sources for the unsourced statements, this article might make a good GA candidate. Early life, the first part of the SS, the "golden boy" statement, details of the wedding. Also, Hitler must have known that Gretl was pregnant throughout the pregnancy; this was Eva's sister, so he would have known. Have you got any books that detail these things? --Dianna (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, have a look; I have done what I can to add cited detail; re-write with cited material (removed some uncited statements); ce & cn noted. Kierzek (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I listed for assessment at WP:MILHIST and Nick-D points out we need to add details of his role in the Pripyat swamps (punitive operation) to get the article out of Start-class. If you could please check your books for information about this action, that would be great. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done-check it for ce. Kierzek (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a page number from Miller for the date of Eva Fegelein's suicide I would like to source it to that book. The gossipy tone of Lambert's book leads me to believe it is not as reliable a source. Alternatively, we could just put the year of death. --Dianna (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Its after the last sentence of the group of three therein: Miller 2006, pp. 315, 316. However, we can just say 1971, that would be okay. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A GA reviewer would likely not ask for a precise date, but let's go with what Miller says. I will amend the article. --Dianna (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"The death sentence by Hitler on 28 April resulted in the loss of all orders, awards, and honorary signs" Actually that does not match what Scherzer is stating and my knowledge of the law governing the loss of orders, awards and honorary signs. It required a formal court martial which according to Scherzer was headed by Wilhelm Mohnke. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A court martial was opened but then closed by Mohnke due to Fegelein being of unsound mind due to being so intoxicated. BTW-I did not make that original addition conveying Scherzer; however, other sources are clear that no court martial was completed. What would you suggest? Kierzek (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Scherzer, pages 115 to 116, the following sequence of events occurred. On 27 April Fegelein was too drunk to be tried under the rules of a German court martial which required a sober state of mind. He was taken to the Gestapo basement under the Dreifaltigkeitskirche and interrogated by Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller for 24h. On the afternoon of 28 April he was taken back to the Reichskanzlei, witnesses are Bernd Freytag von Loringhoven and Gerhard Boldt . Fegelein, who had already been demoted to SS-Mann on the 27th, was tried again (2nd time) by Mohnke's court and sentenced to death for desertion. Hitler then ordered the execution to be carried out immediately. The difference is that the court convicted him, which led to the loss of orders and honorary signs, Hitler "only" ordered the sentence to be carried out. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that direct evidence from Mohnke himself only relates one:

"I was to preside over it myself...I decided the accused man [Fegelein] deserved trial by high-ranking officers...We set up the court-martial in a room next to my command post...We military judges took our seats at the table with the standard German Army Manual of Courts-Martial before us. No sooner were we seated than defendant Fegelein began acting up in such an outrageous manner that the trial could not even commence. Roaring drunk, with wild, rolling eyes, Fegelein first brazenly challenged the competence of the court. He kept blubbering that he was responsible to Himmler and Himmler alone, not Hitler...He refused to defend himself. The man was in wretched shape - bawling, whining, vomiting, shaking like an aspen leaf... I was now faced with an impossible situation. On the one hand, based on all available evidence, including his own earlier statements, this miserable excuse for an officer was guilty of flagrant desertion... Yet the German Army Manual states clearly that no German soldier can be tried unless he is clearly of sound mind and body, in a condition to hear the evidence against him. I looked up the passage again, to make sure, and consulted with my fellow judges...In my opinion and that of my fellow officers, Hermann Fegelein was in no condition to stand trial, or for that matter to even stand. I closed the proceedings...So I turned Fegelein over to [SS] General Rattenhuber and his security squad. I never saw the man again." O'Donnell, James. The Bunker, New York: Da Capo Press (reprint), 2001, pp 182, 183.

And a much shorter mention which Mohnke told to historian Thomas Fischer before Mohnke died in 2001; Soldiers of the Leibstandarte, J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing, Inc. 2008, pp 45, 46. Based on the above, Mohnke's statement of events should carry a greater weight as to events. Kierzek (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Do as you please but note only a formal court martial would deprive Fegelein of his awards! Anything else, including Hitler ordering him shot (murder), would not constitude as a court martial according to the German law, thus Fegelein would have retained his awards. The reasoning is that either court martialed and executed, leading to loss of honors, or murdered (ordered by Hitler) but this would not lead to loss of honors. Somehow this needs to be reflected in the article. This is my opinion MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am open to your suggestions MisterBee1966; you are more of an expert on Knight's Cross issues than I am. Kierzek (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Scherzer presents the most sound reasoning behind the loss of honorary signs. I would recommend to but his reasoning in a footnote. Personally I don't trust Mohnke's statement. But my opinion is irrelevant. I would like to see Ernst-Günther Krätschmer used in this article. Krätschmer, to my knowledge, is the prime source for most, if not all, of the Waffen-SS KC recipients. Krätschmer also links Fegelein's death exclusively to Hitler's decision. Both Krätschmer and Mohnke are former members of the SS. Both have good reasons to point to Hitler when it comes to Fegelein execution. Mohnke may have wanted to avoid prosecution by the German law. This is all speculation on my part. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well for the sake of argument only, I can tell you for one, that fellow court martial "judge" Rattenhuber told the Russians on 20 May 1945 the same as Mohnke and Krätschmer. He would have no reason to be worrying about possible issues of post-war German law at that time. His statement would lend more credibility to their statements; further, it is clear that after Hitler learned of Himmler's betrayal (and that Fegelein knew of same) that he wanted blood per the sources; and one can argue Hitler, either way, made the final decision for the action to be carried out. In the end, it does not really matter as Fegelein was a war criminal and would have been hanged if caught by the Russians or western allies. Anyway, per your request, MisterBee I wrote a footnote that paraphrased something I just happened to see you wrote long ago (above on this page) and I thought covered the issue herein. You and Diannaa check it out for ce. If you don't like that then consider: "Hermann Fegelein was sentenced to death by Hitler and executed after the court-martial. The death sentence resulted in the loss of all orders and honorary signs according to historian Scherzer." Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks ok to me, though I have not read the source. I think we are ready to try for a GA bid, unless you all have some more content that can be added. Please confirm --Dianna (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! I think this sentences addresses my concerns adequately. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A-okay with me, Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fegelein as an equestrian

According to the German Wiki de:Deutsches Spring- und Dressurderby, Hermann Fegelein won the turnament in 1937, his brother in 1939. It may be worth noting. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Abendblatt
• Der Norddeutsche und Flottbeker Reiterverein

It may worth reading Hitlers Liste: Ein Dokument persönlicher Beziehungen by Anton Joachimsthaler ISBN 3776623284. I have not read it myself but it appears that Fegelein is being characterized as one of the "worst and most disgusting careerists" MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead with any detail you wish to add. BTW-he was the coach of the Nazi Germany Olympic team in 1936, as well. Kierzek (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Speer and Shirer also had a low opinion. I have nominated the article for GA and will work in the equestrian stuff tomorrow. Please stand by to help with citations as I do not have access to all the sources on this one. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added the equestrian material, with one citation. We can use the alternate citation if the newspaper article suddenly goes 404 at some point in the future.

More on the low opinions: Shirer calls him "disreputable, illiterate and ignorant" (Shirer, 1960, p 1121); Kershaw characterises him as "swashbuckling, womanizing, and cynical" (Kershaw, 2008, p 942). Both these authors imply that he married Gretl primarily as a way to advance his career. Speer called him one of the most "disgusting people in Hitler's circle" (quoted in Fest, Die unbeantwortbaren Fragen : Notizen über Gespräche mit Albert Speer zwischen Ende 1966 und 1981, 2006 [p 143]). What do you think? Should a bit about this go into the article, and if so, should be use direct quotes or try to paraphrase? Whereabouts would it be included? I would possibly place it near where we are talking about the marriage, and change the header of that subsection to encompass this material as well. Opinions? --Dianna (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked it as I felt it needed a little more as to the point of his character; which is covered by the cites of Miller, 2006, p. 306 and Joachimsthaler, 1999, pp. 267–269, 285. See what you think and check for ce & GA. Kierzek (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's better than my version. Thanks, Kierzek. --Dianna (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for fixing the dates on the equestrian events, which I had reversed. --Dianna (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Relation to Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski

Berger page 71, claims that Fegelein knew Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski from pre-war riding tournaments. According to Berger, Fegelein had visited Bór-Komorowski in 1944 in Warsaw. If true, what was the reason for this visit? What do other sources state? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed pop culture movie trivia

I am not in favour of including pop culture movie trivia on Nazi war criminals. It is in very bad taste and unencyclopedic in my opinion. Also, the entire section was sourced to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source, as it is a wiki. If anyone wishes to discuss this, please post here on Talk, but I gotta warn you I have pretty strong feelings about this. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on its inclusion or not; with that said, I disagree it would be "pop culture trivia", such as, Youtube clips/internet parodies - they are in bad taste; these would be dramatic/historical film portrayals. Kierzek (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you feel about IMDb as a source, Kierzek? --Dianna (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

For limited use of id. of a film, actor and year of a film, I don't see why it should be a problem. BTW-If the section is included then only main works should be noted and not every small possible mention that may have occurred on TV or in film. Kierzek (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We can't deny the fact that Fegelein as a character is portayed in various films and tv shows. In my humble opinion it belongs in the article, facist, war criminal or not. However, I am open to debate on how this information should be reflected in the article. Deleting the information without proper discussion is bad practice. The IMDb has previously been accepted up to FAC review level. I will reinsert the info until a consensus is achieved. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I agree to its reinsertion for the time being. Hopefully more people will have an opinion and we can decide what to do next. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. --Dianna (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being open minded. I have posted the question on the Military history talk page MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the section header to "Film portrayals" so we don't open the door here to Internet memes, South Park episodes, and the like. Your wording is good; totally neutral. --Dianna (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to exclude film portrayals.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's probably OK to include them where he was a significant character in the movie or TV series. However, as his claim to fame is is relationship to Eva Braun and somewhat dramatic presence in Hitler's bunker in the last days of the war, its inevitable that he'd be included in history books, documentaries and the like and these shouldn't be specified. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I expect this is mostly driven by all the Downfall clips on youtube and that one scene. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyzkfTI-TB8 Alarbus (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The transcript below the youTube video is utter nonsense. The German dialog in no way matches the transcription. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Maybe this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQsNcS3cZb8 (they're humour). Alarbus (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have changed my mind and removed the content again for now. MrBee, the cycle is supposed to be bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-revert-revert. You should not have reinserted the content when I removed it, but should have come immediately to the talk page. Thanks. Please note that the version that just passed GA did not include any film trivia. --Dianna (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I cut this trivia and it should stay out; cover these roles in the articles on the films where it is appropriate. This just passed GA with out them so there's no reason to inflict them on the article at this point. Oh, and IMDB is not a reliable source and pretty much should never be used in real articles. Alarbus (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, a few things, so I'll list them:
    • First of all I disagree that serious film portrayals count as bad taste. As Nick says, we're not talking South Park episodes.
    • Secondly, while IMDB isn't a reliable source per se, and shouldn't pass muster at FAC, I'd have thought that for the very basic mention that was employed here, in a GA-level article, it wasn't an issue.
    • That said, all this could be avoided if any of his film portrayals were discussed in the sources used for the main body of the article. If a reliable source discussing his life mentions them, it hardly counts as trivia, and you wouldn't be using contentious references. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • None of the book sources mention these films. The only source provided is IMDb; I am not sure that IMDb is considered a reliable source at the FA level; pretty sure it is not. Fegelein is not the main character in any of the films. -- Dianna (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if the alternating opinion on this matter is discussed here and not ping-ponged around in the article. I am okay for now that it stays out until a consensus is reached. Secondly I would appreciate if the discussion over whether or not this is to be part of the article is separated from the discussion over the sources used. If the consensus is that the information belongs in the article, and do note that the film Downfall had been nominated for an Academy Award so it is not trivial media in my opinion, I would like to see its re-insertion. Alternative sources to cite this fact besides the IMDb are available. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

For your convenience visit DOWNFALL - The Official Movie Website and click CAST and then Thomas Kretschmann. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ya, we know that Kretschmann played Fegelein in Downfall. It's probably covered in Kretschmann's article and Downfall's. Albert Speer is played by Heino Ferch but there's no mention of it our Featured article on Speer. And Adolf Hitler is played by Bruno Ganz and our GA-class article on der Führer merely offers a link to the sad little article Adolf Hitler in popular culture. Please drop this ;-) Alarbus (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should I drop something that I am 100% convinced to be the right thing to do? An omission on another artilce is something we can address at later stage. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose my view is that that other crap doesn't exist. Please view this as a serious article. Alarbus (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The information belongs in the article. Caden ^cool 16:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The antagonists are debating the following passage, which was then deleted:

==Film portrayals== German actor [[Thomas Kretschmann]] played SS-''Obergruppenführer'' Hermann Fegelein in the 2004 film ''[[Downfall (film)| Downfall]]'' ({{Lang-de|Der Untergang}}).<ref>{{IMDb title|0363163|Der Untergang}}. Retrieved 13 January 2012.</ref> Fegelein was also portrayed by [[Volker Spengler]] in the 1989 film ''Hundert Jahre Adolf Hitler - Die letzte Stunde im Führerbunker'',<ref>{{IMDb title|0096735|100 Jahre Adolf Hitler - Die letzte Stunde im Führerbunker}}. Retrieved 13 January 2012.</ref> by [[Terrence Hardiman]] in the 1981 [[United States]] television production ''[[The Bunker (1981 film)|The Bunker]]'',<ref>{{IMDb title|0082114|The Bunker}}. Retrieved 13 January 2012.</ref> by [[Julian Glover]] in the 1973 film ''[[Hitler: The Last Ten Days]]'',<ref>{{IMDb title|0070184|Hitler: The Last Ten Days}}. Retrieved 13 January 2012.</ref> and by Julius Jonak in the 1955 film ''[[The Last Ten Days]]''.<ref>{{IMDb title|0048295|The Last Ten Days}}. Retrieved 13 January 2012.</ref>

Cross linking Wiki artilces is one of the strength of Wikipedia. Since some of the actors and some of the films have respective Wiki-articles linkage is broken if the passage stays out. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Antagonists" is probably too strong a word, as it implies hostility. I personally don't feel hostile or fighty about this issue. We are just editors discussing content :) The content has not been deleted at all; it is still there in the history and can easily be restored if that is the consensus. --Dianna (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the films are probably fine to go in. There shouldn't be a problem finding dead-tree sources for most of them. See for instance, the book Perspectives on European Film and History has a couple of lines and a footnote about Fegelein in Downfall; Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2009 provides a citation for Kretschmann as the actor who portrayed him. There are others available in Google Books for the other movies as well, it just takes a few minutes to search :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Mention was made of Speer, and Alarbus alerted me to this discussion. I wrote the Speer article, and have maintained it for three years or so. There was a film portrayals section. I took it out in the rewriting process. I consider them trivial. I feel they clash with the serious purpose of an article and make us look crufty. I recommend that here. Trivia keeps trying to sneak back into articles, popular culture sections, whatever. When you cross that bridge, you open the door to more of the same. Portrayal in print fictional works, gee-whiz facts about the guy, etc. I'm going to hit and run, but my advice is keep it out. \--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Referendum"

In order to bring some structure into the expressed opinions I took the liberty into classifying the different statements into the categories, include, exclude and neutral.

Inclusion

1. Caden
2. Ian Rose
3. Intothatdarkness
4. MisterBee1966
5. Nick-D
6. Parsecboy

Exclusion

1. Alarbus
2. Diannaa
3. Wehwalt

Neutral

1. Kierzek

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterBee1966 (talk • contribs)

---

Actually, Nick-D said "its inevitable that he'd be included in history books, documentaries and the like and these shouldn't be specified", which I interpret as a "no". And Ian Rose says, "If a reliable source discussing his life mentions them, it hardly counts as trivia", which could be interpreted to mean that the lack of mention in the cited texts means that it is trivia. MrBee, are you aware that this is not a vote? That the strength of the arguments is supposed to mean more than the numbers on each side? Caden, for example, states an opinion without giving a rationale of any kind. --Dianna (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that this is not a vote. At some point we need to come to a conclusion on whether we include or exclude this information and some kind of interpretation of the feedback needs to be drawn. Personally I am still inclined to include, but I am not religious over this matter. However I want to be convinced by arguments why this should be excluded. You are not there yet. I want to present my motivation once again. I try to envision the archetype of a potential reader of this topic, putting myself into the shoes of an unacquainted reader. Hypothetical scenario: This archetype reader may have come to Wikipedia because she/he has just seen the film Dawnfall. In this scenario the archetype reader may follow the link to Hermann Fegelein. I believe this archetype reader may gain value from finding information about other serious films portraying Fegelein as a historic figure, especially if the respective film/media merits a Wikipedia article of its own. I am fully aware that this needs to be counterbalanced by the potential threat which trivial media may introduce to the article. However, I always found the ease of navigating back and forth from one article to the other one of the strength of Wikipedia. Removal of this cross-linkage would deprive the reader from this Wikipedia asset. I acknowledge the fact that some practical jokers make fun of the movie and put these clips in youTube. One cannot prevent this kind behavior. I therefore think it is safer to proactively point to "correct" media. And to some point we have to let the reader judge by themselves what information to trust and what information to reject. This is how I see this, now educate and convince me why I am wrong. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't really say anything fresh about this, so I will just reiterate what I have already said somewhere above. I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia having a "pop culture" section at the bottom of all our articles, especially ones on serious topics like historical figures. Not all the world is American, and not all the world gives a care how the American pop culture movie industry has depicted Nazi war criminals or any other historical figures. (The film Downfall was produced in Europe, but the same logic applies, in my opinion.) Including this trivial information in our articles holds Wikipedia back from being viewed as being a resource for serious information. Many of our featured articles do not include movie portrayals: Richard Nixon, Anne Frank, Ernest Shackleton. It's something we have been doing in the past, but I think it needs to stop. If people want to know about movies, they can go to IMDb. --Dianna (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Being opposed is not an argument. I want reason that I can understand, you can do better. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"You can do better"? What a bad-faith way to denigrate someone. I'll do better; see below. Alarbus (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@Diana. I didn't think I needed a rationale. I thought it was obvious that I agree with the points made by MisterBee. I'm all for the readers and I say the information should be re-inserted. You have yet to convince me otherwise. I fail to understand your argument. Caden ^cool 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Having a pop culture section at the bottom of every article trivialises everything. It takes real-life people and events and makes them into sound bites and movie trailers. It makes the Hollywood fantasy dream world out to be as important as the real world (it's not; it's a money-making venture. It's entertainment). How Hollywood views history is not important, and should not be a part of our articles. Sorry if you fail to understand my point, but I really can't say it any plainer. Caden, you are of course not required to give a rationale, but if you don't, your opinion carries less weight, if you ask me. --Dianna (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have to disagree with serious film portrayals or even documentary films of historical people or events being lumped together with Youtube clips and films, such as "Battle of the Bulge", "Titanic" or "Pearl Harbor". There is a difference. I would not put, for example: "Downfall", "Das Boot", "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Shoah" in with the examples above. With that said, pop culture trivialises much in our society these days and BTW, I do think the "Downfall" article on Wikipedia needs some of the Youtube crap off the end of it. The point is that some discernment must be used in this matter. Kierzek (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Linking-off to pop-culture references, such as the movie depictions, is a disservice to readers because it presents a Hollywood version of Fegelein, not an accurate one as the rest of the article seeks to do. Truth is Fegelein was a nasty piece of work, and we need to convey that, not the entertainment version of him. I've still not bothered to look at the Downfall and actor pages; I don't much care about such unimportant topics, as they're trivial. There's a lot of talk about reviewed articles having higher standards, and I support that. Serious articles should not sport trivia sections, and that's what film portrayals are. Such things belong over in the trivial articles. I view this as a camel's nose situation; let Dawnfall in, and pretty soon you've got a Fegelein in YouTube culture section swamping any encyclopaedic content. Alarbus (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"The whole truth and nothing but the truth" is the basis on which I believe any article in Wikipedia should be founded. Deliberate exclusion of verifiable information, which can be based on more than one single source and is positioned neutrally and put in context, is form of censorship and in my value system. @Alarbus: "Truth is Fegelein was a nasty piece of work, and we need to convey that, not the entertainment version of him" I believe that any editor should approach any topic with the mindset of attempting her or his best at portraying the topic as objectively and neutrally as possible. Having an agenda like portraying him as a "nasty piece of work" is probably in breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I have treaded this topic more than enough; I rest my case and let others express their opinions now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We omit 'true' information all of the time: see WP:EVERYTHING, for example (and WP:INDISCRIMINATE). The trivial, for example, should be excluded. As to Fegelein's nasty work, see Pripyat swamps (punitive operation). Is that in Downfall? (I've not seen it). I have edited this article a few times, and don't think I've crossed WP:NPOV in the slightest. If you care to say he wasn't a nasty piece of work, feel free. I might bite my tongue. Alarbus (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that I started my post by saying "It's probably OK to include them where he was a significant character in the movie or TV series.", I find it pretty amazing to have that interpreted as a 'no'... I'm very much a 'yes', albeit only where he's a significant character. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Nick-D, I misinterpreted what you said, or did not read your post carefully enough. The movie Downfall, however, only included Fegelein in one scene, so he was not a significant character. I don't recall having seen the other films, so I don't know how prominent his character was in those. --Dianna (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Fegelein (parody)

I found it... funny. Alarbus (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Rank

According to Berger (page 70) and Krätschmer (page 267) Fegelein's highest rank was SS-Gruppenführer and Generalleutnant of the Waffen-SS. According to Scherzer (page 128) and Eberle & Uhl (page 430) he was demoted to SS-Mann. His article herelists him as an SS-Obergruppenführer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Berger, Florian (1999). Mit Eichenlaub und Schwertern. Die höchstdekorierten Soldaten des Zweiten Weltkrieges. Wien, Austria: Selbstverlag Florian Berger. ISBN 3-9501307-0-5.
2. Eberle, Henrik & Uhl, Matthias (2011). Das Buch Hitler: Geheimdossier des NKWD für Josef W. Stalin, zusammengestellt aufgrund der Verhörprotokolle des Persönlichen Adjutanten Hitlers, Otto Günsche und des Kammerdieners Heinz Linge, Moskau 1948/49 (in German). Bergisch Gladbach, Germany: Bastei Lübbe. ISBN 978-3-404-64219-9.
3. Krätschmer, Ernst-Günther (1999). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Waffen-SS (in German). Coburg, Germany: Nation Europa Verlag GmbH. ISBN 3-920677-43-9.
4. Scherzer, Veit (2007). Ritterkreuzträger 1939 - 1945 Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives (in German). Jena, Germany: Scherzers Miltaer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2.

Kershaw 2008 (p. 922) and Bullock 1999 (p. 719) also show SS-Gruppenführer. I am amending the article. --Dianna (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Miller (2006). Leaders of the SS and German Police, Vol. 1, R. James Bender Publishing. ISBN 9329700373; lists him the same way as the above.

I can only guess it is because of the Generalleutnant of the Waffen-SS additional rank bestowed on him. A "Lieutenant general" on US and UK charts was equal to a Obergruppenführer; where a Gruppenführer was equal to a "Major general" on the US and UK charts. However, on the German charts, a Gruppenführer was a Generalleutnant and a Obergruppenführer was a General. There is where the confusion must have come from, as best I can make out. Anyway, long story short, the German ranks should be followed: SS to Heer and reverted; as Diannaa just wrote ahead of me herein. Kierzek (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Very confusing, as a person could have one rank in the SS and a different rank in the Waffen-SS. Luckily Kierek has a copy of Miller, and was able to correct the part down below, which I was not sure about. --Dianna (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome Dianna, hey you beat me to the reply above : ) ; see you guys after the black-out (Dark Side of the Moon) on English Wikipedia. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want a blackout! I will have to temporarily get a life. Or I will catch up on my reading :) See you on the other side. --Dianna (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Fegelein's end

Fegelein's death, according to Eberle & Uhl, which is based on the interrogation reports of Otto Günsche and Heinz Linge differs from what is stated here. May I suggest to offer their story as an alternative scenario to what is currently based on Mohnke's view of his end? Especially since this scenario does make Mohnke personally responsible for the court-martial. On page 436 they claim that the second court-martial, headed by Mohnke, Obersturmbannführer Krause, Sturmbannführer Kaschula sentenced him to death. He was then escorted from the Bunker of the Neue Reichskanzlei, claiming Hitler wanted to see him. On this way, he was then executed with an unexpected shot in the back. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

First one must use some caution as to the book you cite; it was a Soviet book put together for Stalin and only edited by Eberle & Uhl. Second, as I said above when this came up recently, fellow court martial "judge" Rattenhuber told the Russians on 20 May 1945 the same as Mohnke and Krätschmer (the latter whom you cited). Third, when I get home, I can cite one or two books that will state Hitler sentenced him to death.

Addition to above: I have now reviewed Eberle & Uhl as I have the English edition of the book. On page 263, it only mentions one court-martial with different judges, but for Mohnke; no other source confirms that.

Fest, who granted is not the most detailed source states: "The court-martial by Mohnke had to be interrupted because of the inebriation of the accused...Hitler ordered Fegelein to be shot on the spot..." p. 100.

Joachimsthaler, states Günsche testified that Hitler originally ordered Fegelein be handed over to Mohnke for his defense forces. However, Bormann and Günsche told Hitler that Fegelein would only run away. Then Hitler ordered a court-martial. After the additional suitcase was found with evidence of Himmler's attempted negotiations, Fegelein admitted to knowing about them;"...Hitler ordered his immediate execution". pp. 277-278. Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Does your response here mean that you are opposed to presenting this alternative scenario (Mohnke was involved in his death sentence) in the article? Please note it is this scenario that leads Scherzer to come to his conclusion that Fegelein needs to be delisted as a Knight's Cross recipient. If the article indicates that he is delisted, which is currently stated in a footnote, then I think it may be helpful for the reader to understand why this is so, right or wrong I believe nobody can safely answer. Fegelein was somewhat a unique case but we can draw on other examples. Erwin von Witzleben for instance was officially expelled from the Wehrmacht, sentenced to death by Volksgerichtshof and then executed. His case is clear, based on the legal proceedings he is delisted as Knight's Cross recipient. With respect to the Knight's Cross, Erwin Rommel's case may be somewhat similar do Fegelein's situation, differing only in that Rommel committed suicide. The issue as far as I am concerned, and I tried explaining this earlier maybe not very well, was there a formal court martial leading to the death of Fegelein yes or no? Because the answer to this question (yes or no) can be an answer to the question of whether Fegelein needs to be delisted or not. The fact the Rommel is not delisted is either an omission on behalf of Scherzer or evidence to the fact that Hitler’s wish to have someone killed does not constitute as a court-martial. Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Final comment, I would be perfectly content if the alternative scenario is added to the footnote. Since the majority of the sources claim that Mohnke was not involved in the court-martial the main body of the article is probably best as it stands now. And remember, Fegelein was found drunken and arrested on the 27 April, his court-martial as depicted by Eberle and Uhl was on 28 April. It is not likely that 24h later Fegelein was still drunken, unless he was allowed to continue drinking while under arrest. This of course is pure speculation on my part. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The real query as I see it is the death sentence. I would not agree to it being added in the main body of the article but would agree to some comment in the footnote. Why don't you give it a whack. BTW-The Soviet info. in Eberle & Uhl was probably from Linge who had a habit of talking about things beyond his direct knowledge at times. Günsche is a much better source, but as you say our personal opinion does not matter in the end. Footnote: where are we on the inclusion or removal of the film portrayals. From a pure voting stance, the majority is yours. Kierzek (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will make a proposal. Regarding the film portrayals, I asked for an independent Military History Coordinator to mediate and judge the situation. I have expressed my opinion clearly taking a position for its inclusion, therefore I am lacking objectivity and I don't think that it would be fair and/or unbiased for me to judge the outcome of this survey. It would only stir the debate further, which is not in benefit of the article nor does it create a productive editing environment. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following footnote, please review: MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The NKVD wrote a dossier in 1948/49 for Josef Stalin based on the interrogation reports of Otto Günsche, Hitler's personal adjutant, and Heinz Linge, Hitler's valet. This dossier differs in parts from the account given by Wilhelm Mohnke. According to Günsche and Linge, Fegelein, intoxicated by alcohol, was arrested on 27 April and Hitler at first ordered Fegelein to be transferred to Kampfgruppe "Mohnke" to prove his loyalty in combat. Günsche after consulting with Martin Bormann, expressed his concern to Hitler that Fegelein would most likely attempt to desert again. Hitler then ordered Fegelein to be demoted and court-martialed headed by a court led by Mohnke. At this point the accounts differ to Mohnke's version. According to Günsche and Linge, Fegelein was court-martialed on the evening of 28 April headed by Mohnke. Court assessors were, SS-Obersturmbannführer Alfred Krause, supply officer in Kampfguppe "Mohnke", Sturmbannführer Herbert Kaschula, member of Kampfgruppe "Mohnke", and others. Mohnke and his officers sentenced Fegelein to death. That same evening, in belief that Fegelein was escorted to see Hitler, Fegelein was shot from behind by a member of the Sicherheitsdienst. Based on this chain of events, author Veit Scherzer concluded that Fegelein, according to the German law, was deprived of all honors and honorary signs and must therefore be considered a de facto but not de jure recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross.

This what I would propose; see what you think:

The NKVD wrote a dossier on Hitler in 1948/49 for Josef Stalin which was based on the interrogation reports of Otto Günsche, Hitler's personal adjutant, and Heinz Linge, Hitler's valet. This dossier differs in part from the account given by Wilhelm Mohnke and Johann Rattenhuber. ( I will add cites when I get home, later) Fegelein, intoxicated by alcohol, was arrested at his apartment on 27 April and Hitler at first ordered Fegelein to be transferred to Kampfgruppe "Mohnke" to prove his loyalty in combat. Günsche and Martin Bormann, expressed their concern to Hitler that Fegelein would desert again. Hitler then ordered Fegelein to be demoted and court-martialed by a court led by Mohnke.[1] At this point the accounts differ, as the NKVD dossier states that Fegelein was court-martialed on the evening of 28 April by a court headed by Mohnke, SS-Obersturmbannführer Alfred Krause and SS-Sturmbannführer Herbert Kaschula. Mohnke and his fellow officers sentenced Fegelein to death. That same evening, Fegelein was shot from behind by a member of the Sicherheitsdienst.[2] Based on this chain of events, author Veit Scherzer concluded that Fegelein, according to the German law, was deprived of all honors and honorary signs and must therefore be considered a de facto but not de jure recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross.[3] Kierzek (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will add two cites when I get home to the above; if you want you can transfer it over now and I will just add said cites later. The cites should be done in sfn format I believe. Kierzek (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the page cites: for Mohnke (O'Donnell|1978|pp=182, 183) and for Rattenhuber (Vinogradov|2005|pp=191, 192); along with Vinogradov's book: "Hitler's Death: Russia's Last Great Secret from the Files of the KGB". I think the page style citing could be better and I asked Dianna to look at it; when I mess with that stuff, half the time it seems to either turn out like crap or takes too long. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It all checks out fine! There is a post on my talk page about the mark-up. MrBee1966, you might like to read it too, as it gives a detailed explanation of why I changed the way you posted the explanatory note. User talk:Diannaa#Hermann Fegelein. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem for me! It looks odd but if you think it is better this way? keep it as you think it is best or technically right. I wonder if the break in citation paradigm goes well with the reviewers. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. I am following what I perceive to be best practices, but if our reviewer feels otherwise, we can deal with it at that time. --Dianna (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

If allowed, I would like to make some suggestions regarding improvement and further expansion of the article. I am not 100% sure of all the elements I will list bellow but maybe they are a good starting point for further investigation:

1. Fegelein was commander of the security detachment at the Dachau concentration camp (1935 – 1937)
2. I think it would be good to learn how fast he progressed through the different ranks, attaining what rank when. Especially since the article states that he made "rapid promotion through the ranks".
3. The list of awards and decorations should be augmented by text in the main body of the article. I think it would be good to learn for what actions he received what award, especially for the higher grades of the Knight's Cross
4. Relation to Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski? What motivated him to reach out to Bór-Komorowski in 1944? Selfish motivation as an option to save his rear end?
5. I think he had already participated in the invasion of Poland in 1939 where he was wounded for the first time
6. Are there similarities to Joachim Peiper? Both were close to Himmler.
7. It is worthwhile to have a look at Deutschlands Generale und Admirale: Teil V /Band 2: Die Generale der Waffen-SS und der Polizei. ISBN 3764825928. I have seen this book to be referenced a few times already. Rather expensive at 86 € and I don't own it (yet)

I will take the liberty to continue listing here what I believe might improve the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The most detailed book I have seen on Fegelein is: Miller, Michael (2006). "Leaders of the SS and German Police", Vol. 1. R. James Bender Publishing. ISBN 9-32970-037-3. I highly recommend it. It shows all promotions, awards, etc. As for wounds: Wounded by sniper 12/21-22/41 on Ostfront; wounded in action at Golaja 12/23/42; wounded again-south of Kharkov on 9/9/43. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The wording for the 157th Oak Leaves (according to Krätschmer) differs slightly from Fellgiebel's version. I added a note to reflect this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Michael Miller states the same as Krätschmer on the matter. Kierzek (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MrBee, I think it's wonderful that you have access to so many useful books and welcome any suggestions you may have for improving the article. It's a little thin and short for a GA and if you are planning on going to FA it will need more detail, for sure. --Dianna (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to "fatten-up" the section on his service and actions during World War II. I started with an addition as to his time in Poland. Kierzek (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Those close to Fegelein had nicknamed him "Flegelein". In German, one refers to someone as a Flegel if he has no manners and does not know how to behave appropriately. I guess the closest semantic translation is roughly "rowdy" or "brat". Flegelein is the hypocoristic form of a Flegel. Do you think this is a worthy addition to the article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I knew of the nickname and think it should be added with a cite; if you don't have one, it will take me some time when I get home to remember in which book I read it. Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It comes with age. I have the same problem. When I did my PhD many moons ago I had the content of hundreds, if not dozens (a tribute to René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo), of books in my head. Now I get yelled at by my wife if I forget one tiny item on the grocery list. :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fegelein organized a horseback riding tournament in occupied Warsaw in 1941 google books MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Role in meme

I'm entirely new to this, so I'm not sure what classes as relevant or irrelevant to wikipedia, but would this fellow's role in 'Hitler reacts to...' meme be worthy of mention? Just considering the fact that there is already a 'legacy' section here. 86.140.247.61 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There's already extensive discussion of this phenomenon at Downfall (film)#Parodies. The decision was taken not to include anything about it here. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it alright to add an extra bit at the end about his portrayal in the film Downfall, where he is portrayed by Thomas Kretchman? The reason is that, although I am not planning to write any Info about the parodies on this article, I know many users are rather touchy on this subject, so I was wondering if It would be alright to put Info about purely the film Downfall on this page without anyone deleting it?--Streona (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The decision was taken in December to remove pop culture mentions from this article, and that decision is backed up by the Wikipedia:MILPOP#Popular culture guideline. My opinion is that place for discussion of the film and the meme is the Downfall (film) article, not here. -- Dianna (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dianna; this was discussed and WP:Consensus was not to include such info. herein. Kierzek (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

Dianna, from Wikipedia Manual of Style:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

And from Introductory text:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning"). It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

And from Citations:

The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

And from Relative emphasis:

Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text.

Now, I'd really like to help you and Kierzek make this a better article, but I need your cooperation and that means we need to discuss it. Thanks. Canstusdis (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how these links relate to the material which you have been WP:edit warring over, which is the removal of a paragraph from the lead. Without this paragraph, the lead no longer meets the guideline set out at WP:LEAD. So in my opinion your edit makes the article worse, not better, so sorry. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead is to be a summary of the main body text. I am also puzzled by what you have in mind, Canatusdis, based on your removal and edits, thus far. Part of your most recent changes are still in place as I tried to tweak it to where the text is a cross between what was there before (which you objected to) and what you wanted put forth. Kierzek (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa, this is an untrue statement: Without this paragraph, the lead no longer meets the guideline set out at WP:LEAD.

If my boldness WP:Be Bold offends you I'm sorry but just copy/paste-ing WP:Copy-paste things into the lead is not making the article better. I suggest you re-read the guidelines set out at WP:LEAD, specifically those that I've posted above. I'm still not sure why you are hostile to me, but you should assume good faith WP:Good Faith on my part, since none of my actions deserve the accusation of WP:Edit warring. Again, can I ask you to cooperate with me and make the article better together? Thanks. Canstusdis (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kierzek:, thanks for the cooler head. I really am here to try to make the article better. Can we discuss inline citations in the lead? I think they are needed. Thanks. Canstusdis (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The WP:BRD cycle calls for editors to discuss their proposed edits on the talk page if they are challenged, not to repeatedly insert them in spite of the objections of other editors. I have restored the stable version of the lead on this basis. Canstusdis, please make your case here on the talk page why you think your version of the lead is better. If you are unable to gain consensus for your edit, it should not be implemented. My objections to the change are as follows: material in the lead also has to appear in the body. Many of our readers look at nothing but the lead, so it needs to be a stand-alone summary of the contents of the article. Therefore there's always duplicate material in GA level and above. See WP:LEAD for more information on this topic. Citations do not need to appear in the lead, except for direct quotes. That's because the citations are redundant, as the material in the lead is already covered in the body of the article. Please see WP:LEADCITE for more information on this topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa, I offered to discuss it above, and got no response from you. Reverting my changes without discussion is edit warring. That's on you, not me. Will you please stop referring me to WP:LEAD? I've read it over and over and it doesn't say what you think it says. Material in the lead doesn't have to appear in the body, nevertheless, my changes reflect and summarize the contents of the article. There doesn't have to be duplicate material in GA level and above articles if edited correctly. Citations can appear in the lead if that information is controversial. In this situation I think it's a good idea. And I reserve the right to improve the article in spite of Wikipedia guidelines per WP:Ignore all rules. Canstusdis (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you find working with me so frustrating. I didn't respond yesterday because I found your comments quite dismissive and rude and needed some time to cool off. If you could do me a favour and not emphasise text by bolding it, i would appreciate it. My astigmatism makes it difficult to read. Thanks.

Ignoring all rules will not get you very far in a case of edit warring, which in the case of 3RR is a bright-line rule. I am pretty sure I am not misinterpreting WP:LEAD. The part that I am referring to states that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The part of the guideline that states that nothing should appear in the lead that does not appear in the body of the article is where it says "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Adding the two citations for Shirer and Kershaw after "cynical and disreputable" might a good idea; I personally don't think it's necessary. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead as it reads now is good; although the sentence in relation to Himmler could be trimmed a little. I do think a sentence as to the fact he was a war criminal and his unit butchered Jews in the Pripyat swamps should be considered. The fact is, many general readers do either just read the lead or are pulled in to read the rest of the article by a good lead, Canstusdis; there are a few articles where cites in the lead are called for, like the Death of Adolf Hitler, but that is not the case here. With that said, if you and Diannaa want to add the the two citations for Shirer and Kershaw, go ahead. Also, remember with a GA article, "Ignore all rules" does not work. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Kierzek, Diannaa and I aren't doing anything together, not for a lack of trying on my part. But at least you've got her to consider changing the cut/paste feel of the original lead. Something I was unable to to do. Thanks. Canstusdis (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Rank as of 30 January 1936 and as of 25 July 1937

I have sources which state he was promoted to SS-Sturmbannführer on 30 January 1936, not 1937, as it now reads. And to SS-Obersturmbannführer on 30 January 1937 and SS-Standartenführer on 25 July 1937 (not SS-Obersturmbannführer on that date. And ofcourse, I am talking about his Allgemeine SS rank at these times. Kierzek (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I will fix this later. I failed to understand at first that he progressed in rank in the Allgemeine SS at a faster pace before he transferred to the Waffen-SS. In the Waffen-SS he then started again at a lower rank. This had confused me because he twice attained the rank of Standartenführer, the first time in the Allgemeine SS and a second time in the Waffen-SS. Sorry for the hick up. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean, it can get tricky with some SS members who were both in the Allgemeine SS and Waffen-SS, such as Fegelein. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for pointing out my error. I beleive I have now addressed the problem MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Amber Room

Fegelein pops up in conjunction with the lost Amber Room (Bernsteinzimmer). See Verlorenes Weltwunder - Das Bernsteinzimmer: Die Suche nach einem Mythos in Mitteldeutschland by Mario Morgner. Should this be worked into the article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

MisterBee: Was he working under Rittmeister Graf Solms-Laubach? What does it entail; more than speculation? I would rather see whatever it is put in the Wikipedia article are the Amber Room, itself. What do you think Diannaa? Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If there's solid proof he was involved in this incident, it could be added here or at he Amber Room article. What information did you find? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not in a position to comment how solid the information is. I agree that the various theories regarding the loss of the Amber Room should not be covered in this article. However, his name does pop in multiple publications, this should not be ignored. My suggestion would be to add a vague statement such as "Fegelein's name is sometimes mentioned in conjunction with the loss of the Amber Room. To what extend he was actually involved is still subject to investigation." MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I would still rather see that mentioned on the Amber Room page. It is just not much to go on as far as his involvement and what the facts state as to same. With that said, I will go with whatever the consensus is on this. Diannaa "what say you"? Kierzek (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Read yourself Verlorenes Weltwunder it makes reference to the work of Herbert Gold MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot access either of these books or read German. I think we should follow the same unwritten rule here as we do on the Hitler article: speculation stays out. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My German is not great but the book is about the search for the Amber Room treasures. There was a GDR search, but I find it telling that the promo section for the book states, there are: "Many legends" as to the fate of the valuables today. No one can explain its "whereabouts". Kierzek (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A-class icon?

Shouldn't the icon in the top right corner be that of A-class and not GA-class? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at other examples, the icon should be the GA icon. The article is both A-Class and GA-class. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• It needs the duplication and triplication in the court martial section sorting out though. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Portrayal in the media section

Hey all, I would like to find consensus for re-inclusion of the portrayal in the media section. This was previously discussed on talk page, where a summary recorded 6 people in favour of including it, 1 neutral and 3 against. On top of that I would like to make the point that this is a pretty unknown nazi, who is not in the basic history books, so most people will find this article after seeing him portrayed in one of the films, on tv or because of the meme. These people want to confirm that this is the person they saw and want to know more about, and listing these portrayals serves that purpose.

I had this myself, I saw the meme, didn't know what it was about, and came here looking for information on the guy, but after reading this page i still didn't know if this was the right guy or not, i even clicked through to his brother with the same name, but that didn't help me solve the question either (until i found the previous deleted section, but most users won't look for that).

I'm all in favour of keeping the pop-culture content low, but this is a handle for those people who come here looking for more information about an historical figure and it's wikipedia's purpose to facilitate this. People might come to this page because they read about it in some source that's not sophisticated enough for your taste, but if we help them they can leave with genuine historical knowledge.

Also the section as it was[1] is pretty neutral and concise, it doesn't give any overdue attention to popular culture, it just lists big mainstream film and tv portrayals without too much detail, and briefly mentions the existence of the meme. What do you think?--83.128.126.218 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel pretty strongly that we should not include it. WP:MILPOP states that we should not include pop culture trivia in military history articles "unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic". Neither of these conditions is met, as Fegelein has not had a notable or lasting impact on popular culture (the page has not had to be protected for meme-related vandalism for two and a half years), and the previous material in the article was sourced to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source for this wiki, and I daresay is totally inadequate sourcing for an article that has already reached A-Class status. The parodies are already covered at Downfall (2004 film); perhaps we could add that as a see-also — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Concur; the section did not meet the ""unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic" test. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

edit conflict - As I was just writing, I agree with you Diannaa and your assertion; the film Downfall could be included as a See also, linking to that film portrayal. Kierzek (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Portrayals are not trivia. I'm not suggesting adding any pop culture sources that just reference him, just portrayals of the guy in places where people might have seen him, and for this lesser known guy, like I said, it's the way most people will hear about him, it will serve the users of wikipedia and the furtherance of their historical knowledge to link those portrayals to the real guy, so they might learn stuff about the real him instead of leaving this article totally confused. How come you totally disregard that argument?

Also if you would actually read WP:MILPOP and look at the examples those are about items that appear in about every WW2 movie and other namechecks and quick references, not about rare actual portrayals of a historical figure that is otherwise virtually unknown. This is not an 'in popular culture' section. It is a section of portrayals of an historical figure in major movies and tv series.

If the reliable source is really a problem, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of reliable resources that account of the existence of major hollywood movies and their casting lists and I wouldn't mind finding them for you. But first tell me if that would be enough.

Also are you disputing that he appeared in these films, or are you just crying for sources just to get your way? Please read WP:GAME.

A "see also" is a solution that has the worst of both sides, you are still including it, even though you think it should not, but you're not placing it in a properly named section where people will actually find it, and why would you only include that portrayal and not the others? Because of the meme? --83.128.126.218 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact is there is not much in the way of "historical" film portrayals of any real substance for this person. The most prominent one to feature him is "Downfall"; he also appears to a lesser degree in the HBO TV film, The Bunker (1981 film). You write as if there are many films and TV shows in which he is part of but do not list any. Further, it would make no sense (considering the level of this article), nor be helpful to readers just make a "laundry list" of anything he may have a mention or cameo. No one has stated that he has not had some limited appearances on film; but, you write in such general terms, it is hard to guess which portrayals "in major movies and tv series" you believe should be included and why; not the mention, you have not provided any RS sources which could be used for citing. I thought the "See also" was a good compromise; it provides a name, link for any interested readers and does not have to be cited. Kierzek (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I linked to, and mentioned the previous included list of which a 2/3rd majority of wikipedia contributors thought it should be included, which lists 7 portrayals. And my point is not to give information about these portrayals because these portrayals are so incredible important, but because it helps link the portrayals to the real life historical figure, so people that come here looking for more information on the person they saw in the movie or on tv (which as I argued before, is the majority of the people finding this article) will know they reached the right article and will learn things about the real historical person. "see also" is an afterthought, meant for people who have read the article and want to know even more, but I'm arguing that this article should make these portrayals findable in the beginning, by including it as a section in the article, so it's also in the table of contents, and people looking to see if this person was portrayed in the film or tv series they just watched, can find that information. --83.128.126.218 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no reliable sources been presented that demonstrate that Fegelein has had a large or lasting impact on our culture. Brief mentions in list-type sources are not what we are looking for; what would be required is in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, not mere proof that films exist (that fact has not been called into question). The results of the previous discussion can no longer carry any weight here, as consensus can change; the previous discussion was five years ago. This discussion currently stands at three people opposed and one supporting, so it looks like the consensus is to leave it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You are still ignoring my argument that including the portrayals helps people looking for more information on this guy, to find what they're looking for. --83.128.126.218 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And if the consensus is about the number of people opposing and supporting, can you explain why you ignored the 2/3rd majority for inclusion consensus with 10 people giving their opinion the last time and still kept the information out? Is that because you're an admin and consensus is whatever your opinion is? You know that that is the reason why the number of wikipedia contributors is only dropping and dropping.. anyone new editing is immediately reverted even though it goes against all policy. --83.128.126.218 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I conclude that I've successfully addressed your objections and I can proceed with making the necessary edits? --83.128.126.218 (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You do not have a consensus to add or change anything at this point, but for a "See also" which was suggested. Kierzek (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well can you address these questions then?

You are still ignoring my argument that including the portrayals helps people looking for more information on this guy, to find what they're looking for. --83.128.126.218 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And if the consensus is about the number of people opposing and supporting, can you explain why you ignored the 2/3rd majority for inclusion consensus with 10 people giving their opinion the last time and still kept the information out? Is that because you're an admin and consensus is whatever your opinion is? You know that that is the reason why the number of wikipedia contributors is only dropping and dropping.. anyone new editing is immediately reverted even though it goes against all policy. --83.128.126.218 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.123.77 (talk)

I do understand why you think the material should be included; the fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am ignoring your argument; it merely means I don't agree with you. The reason you don't find him in the major history books is because he was not a major historical figure. The only reason most people have even heard of him at all is because of the Downfall meme, and that aspect of the story is already covered at the article about the movie. Since the current discussion has three editors opposed to inclusion and one in favor, it looks to me like the current consensus is to not include the pop culture material. The previous discussion included ten people, of whom four are administrators and two have a huge number of Featured Articles, so I don't think my opinion carried any more weight than anyone else's. It looks to me like discussion of the matter simply ceased after a few days, likely because nobody in favor of inclusion cared enough about the issue to pursue it any further. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks for this reply which is already a bit more constructive. It is true that the fact that you don't agree with me doesn't mean you are ignoring my argument. The fact that you are not replying to my argument means you are ignoring my argument and I have no idea why you are not doing that, maybe because it's hard to come up with a counterargument? And you are again not doing it in this post.

I am glad you acknowledge that "The reason you don't find him in the major history books is because he was not a major historical figure. The only reason most people have even heard of him at all is because of the Downfall meme". Now I take that to the logical conclusion: Mentioning these portrayals helps link the portrayals to the real life historical figure, so people that come here looking for more information on the person they saw in the movie or on tv will know they reached the right article and will learn things about the real historical person. And you still haven't given a counter-argument to that.

And what exactly is your message of your explanation about the previous discussion? that it's fine to ignore a clean majority, as long as you keep pressing the issue long enough? Well, I can do that. --83.128.126.218 (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested correction of inconsistency in section - War against the Soviet Union

In the 9th paragraph of this section it is stated that:

"On 20 April 1943, he was appointed commander of the SS Cavalry Division.[42](...)"

By March 1942 the SS Cavalry Brigade had formed the cadre for the creation of the 8th SS Cavalry Division Florian Geyer. The names are regularly used interchangeably as the 8th SS Cavalry is seen as THE successor the SS Cavalry Brigade but to my knowledge there never was a SS Cavalry DIVISION named as such. Fegelein had several stints in the brigade unit and its successors. On the date mentioned in the section of the article for sure it was the 8th SS - so my suggestion would be to change that to reflect it:

"On 20 April 1943, he was appointed commander of the SS 8th SS Cavalry Division Florian Geyer.[42](...)"

This is also consistent with the link - which goes to the 8th Division page and not its precursor SS Cavalry Brigade as well as the footnote.

TrustyJules (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Specific Date of Death of Eva Fegelein

The article is incorrectly citing the date of death of Eva Fegelein. The article sources this fact to a book written by Michael D Miller in 2006 entitled Leaders of the SS and German Police where the date of death of Eva is of little to any signifigance. It is a minor error and likely the result with briefly conflating the age of her death, 25, with the date of her death. Nevertheless there are reliable images of her grave marker which clearly show a DoD written in European style as 8.4.1971. The issue ultimately is the WEIGHT of the sources. Its clear that the gravemarker should have greater WEIGHT than Miller given that the gravemarker was made at the direction of people who cared about Eva, presumably her mother and step father. Furthemore, her date of death is of such minor historical signifigance that fabricating evidence of her date of death strains credulity. On the other hand Miller is making a footnote incidental to the purpose of his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.129.196.147 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

https://ww2gravestone.com/people/braun-fegelein-margarete-berta-gretl/ is not a reliable scholarly source. We can't use it.— Diannaa (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Its the picture of the gravemarker though and its on numerous websites, but then really it should just be changed to April 1971 because the source cited isn't reliable for that particular factoid. This is simply ignoring the weight of the credible evidence. There is no reason to suspect anybody would fake that picture to historically alter the DoD of this minor historical person. None, zero.

Interestingly if this were an actual court case and Mr. Miller were called in to testify, his testimony would be hearsay and excluded.

The gravemarker would be in as an exception to the hearsay rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence: "(13) Family Records. A statement of fact about personal or family history contained in a family record, such as a Bible, genealogy, chart, engraving on a ring, inscription on a portrait, or engraving on an urn or burial marker." {This is why you can testify as to your date of birth even though you have no memory of it.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.129.196.147 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I will look into it further when I return from being out of town. Diannaa is correct you must use and cite what is considered reliable sources; see WP:RS. Your sources given are not RS. Kierzek (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have access to the source book that we use in this article, but I will check and see if it's mentioned in Lambert's book The Lost Life of Eva Braun. Someone has it checked out until the 15th so we will have to wait. I don't think it's mentioned in Görtemaker. The exact date of death is not important, so I am removing it for now.— Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

First, Miller's book has a highly detailed section on Fegelein. It covers his entire life, including early life, Nazi and Waffen-SS service and family. So, it is not "just a foot-note" as to his daughter. The date I cited in the article in the same and he gives in his book: 25 April 1971. We can all agree on April 1971 and I believe, if need be, it can be left at that in the article. Kierzek (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Lambert says she died on 28 June 1971 (source: "Information from Gertrude Weusker"). So that's no help - I think we should leave it as is. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 16:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Add "Internet memes" category?

He is a part of "Downfall" movie lore. 85.193.204.141 (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No, per WP:MILPOP, we are not looking for Internet trivia or memes. — Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)