Talk:Paul Blobel

"elimination traces"

"From July 1942 to 1944, he was entrusted with Aktion 1005, the task of eliminating all traces of mass murder and massacre carried out by the Germans in the Soviet Union. This was carried out by exhuming the bodies from mass graves and burning them, a task that Blobel optimized with techniques he had developed: alternating layers of bodies with firewood or the use of rails as grills." I think these claims are somehow absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.251 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody care how these claims appear to everyday people? Historiography wouldn't get far if people's feelings had to be catered to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:500:D200:71E4:75DE:11A9:E465 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Was this part of Babi Yar? His technical ability has never been equaled in history. Even ground penetrating radar and aerial photos ( done at the time of the crime ) were able to uncover the crime scene. He accomplished his job so well that only rumor and witness statements were ever found.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There are Nazi records detailing the massacre they committed at Babi Yar, and Blobel himself admitted to it (although he said he "only" killed about 15,000 people and said he was just folllowing orders). He also testified that he didn't have time to get rid of all of the bodies, and the Soviets found remains at the site. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The soviets never have shown us such corresponding remains. If testimony and records show you one thing, but the physical evidence tells a different story, what's the scientific conclusion to draw? --154.69.13.188 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "us"? Your butt buddies at codoh? Kindly read through the many volumes of the Soviet State Prosecutor's Report of Crimes committed by the fascists. If you come up with the excuse of "I don't trust anything Soviet" and point to Katyn, you lose any and all credibility as a scholar who proves or disproves the evidence at hand rather than using other cases as proof of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:500:d200:71e4:75de:11a9:e465 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

I restored the image to infobox; it's a better choice in this context: [1]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• @K.e.coffman: We've had this discussion before at the biography of a different Nazi German functionary, SS-Obersturmführer Hermann Schaper, convicted of similar war crimes after World War II. Please describe in detail what "better choice" means to you, because I'm having hard time understanding your rationale behind replacing career photographs in uniforms, with postwar civilian photographs. I'm sure you have your reasons, but at the other article I said: the one of an SS functionary currently in the infobox is far more relevant to his career. The one in civilian clothing is not telling the full story... Template:Infobox military person is for military persons illustrated accordingly. Please tell why is a court defendant photograph better in your opinion? I'd like us to reach some kind of agreement here for the future. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 04:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been the long-standing version of the article: [2]. Re infobox, I would say that no infobox is fine, or perhaps infobox criminal as the subject is best known for his crimes. Re lead image, the 1948 image is clearly preferable: it’s higher quality; the face is not obscured by headgear; and you can you can see his eyes. In general, when a later image is available, it’s better to use it. It’s also avoiding potential veneration. This version moved the image to the appropriate section, where it’s best placed, IMO: [3]. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: adding a ping. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I would love to hear a third-opinion here. Some of us specialize in this area, for example Kierzek, Beyond My Ken, Obenritter, Woogie10w. Blobel made himself look like a peacenik for the trial (with that philosopher's beard), because he hoped for leniency no doubt, but his crimes of a pathological killer were exceptional. His ominous photograph in uniform has just become available. That's how Wikipedia works. I don't understand the 'veneration' argument here? The only reason many relevant articles are illustrated with the trial mug-shots is because these mug-shot are available to us free of charge. Photograph without the face masking facial hair is clearly preferable. Poeticbent talk 14:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You would love to hear from woogie, well I'm here. I would put the mug shot in the info box. Picture aside IMO the info box description battles= World War I, World War II is misleading because he was as an SS killer not a combat soldier, I would change it to criminal charges= war crimes,genocide, crimes against humanity ||criminal_penalty=Capital punishment|Death--Woogie10w (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that his fame/notoriety stems from his affiliation with the Nazis, it makes sense to put him in Nazi uniform as the leading photograph. Like K.e. coffman, I do find it very important, however, to include images of these murderers as the criminals that they are as well (when available). For most of the civilized world, photos of people in Nazi uniform are not in any way flattering to them—racist neo-Nazis being the exception, but they are fringe wackjobs.--Obenritter (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I would concur with Obenritter on this, per his reasoning stated above. For the info box the uniformed photo would be better and certainly added later into the body, the "trial mug-shot" of this war-criminal/murder should be placed, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

On further reflection, I believe that the "Infobox criminal" (with "infobox SS career" module) is the best fit for the subject. Preserving here by providing thi link. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Photo Caption Is Wrong

The photo of Blobel ins his black SS uniform with the caption "Blobel in SS uniform, c. 1940" is without doubt absolutely incorrect. It is wrong in three respects. The first is the most obvious and that is by the end of 1939 all full time RSHA staff were using the grey uniform not the black uniform.

Secondly in the odd chance that somehow he wasn't wearing the grey uniform the date would still be wrong for the black uniform as his cap is clearly using the small eagle which went out of use around March 1936.

Lastly and probably the most conclusive evidence that the date is wrong is that in the photo he holds the rank of "Oberscharführer" - 2 silver pips. He was first promoted to this rank on 15.05.1934 and his next promotion was to "Untersturmführer" on 25.03.1935. So that picture can be accurately dated to be be somewhere in between May 1934 and March 1935. Source For Promotion Dates: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=125844#p1275027 T.Nuvolari (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the year; it's possible that whoever uploaded the image to Commons made a mistake in dating the photo. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Last words

I think that his last words should be removed because they appear to be a form of holocaust denial while adding nothing to the article. Spencer707201 (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• I removed the passage; preserving here by proving this link; my rationale was: "undue w/out proper context". --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)