Talk:Roland Freisler

Comments

It's entirely unclear what the last entry in 'Fictional Portrayals' means - apparently something in Dutch? 'Still one has to shout these days: "smerige heterokoek, smerige nazijuristen van Gent, ik wil mijn stemrecht terug en daar zo snel mogelijk van op de hoogte gebracht worden' There's no attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.194.83 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

imho, the excerpt from the questioning quoted in the article does not show any methodology, the guy just abuses the count. But I don't want to remove that significant a part from an article without a second opinion, so I'm asking for comments on that one. Any objections?

And, I'm not sure about the proceedings of the Volksgerichtshof, but removing belts, suspenders and neckties sounds like a perfectly normal way to treat prisoners, not a special way "to make them ridiculous".

Freisler had people even remove their denture, clearly on purpose to humiliate them. David 62.224.199.122 06:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

They mean before the trail, where it would be recorded for show in the news. These man where given horribly old clothing, not of the right size. Thus, without belts or supsenders they had nothing to hold up their trousers, end making them look ridiculous.

The fact that we can say they had no intention to ridicule their prisoners by removing their clothes...that is scary. Such are the words of people that do not learn from someone else's mistakes. Please go ahead and repeat history. --88.89.69.222 (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Orrrr it's SOP to remove items that could be used to hang oneself when incarcerated. What an embarrassing oversight from you, huh? REPEAT HISTORY96.245.85.214 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Also I have trouble believing that the Nazis would be dumb enough to put a guy who quotes the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland in court (as claimed in the next paragraph) in charge of important trials like the one against the White Rose people. Are there any reliable sources for this? Eliot Stearns 16:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I removed the mentioned quote now. Criticism of course welcome... Eliot Stearns 18:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't object to the removal of an unattributed quote, but I find your statement, I have trouble believing that the Nazis would be dumb enough a bit odd. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities that they could have put anybody at all in charge of the court. There are certainly mountains of evidence of some far dumber acts on the part of the Nazis...um, genocide? ethnic cleansing? just to name two. --Easter Monkey 01:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point, of course the Nazi ideology is against everything humanity should be. But I don't think genocide has anything to do with the Nazis being stupid in the sense of clownish maniacs dancing through the courtroom and screaming "off with his head!". A profound lack of ethics and human behaviour is not the same as obviously making a fool of yourself in a formal context - and in being formal and restrictive, they were experienced, I'd say.

And, for clarity, the quote I removed on Oct. 19th was the excerpt from an interrogation I mentioned in my first paragraph above, not the Alice in Wonderland one. Sorry for being ambiguous. Eliot Stearns 19:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A connotation to Freisler's death: Since my english is not so brilliant, i don't want to mess around in the article. In newer german literature it is mentioned, that Freisler didn't die in his cellar, but was struck by a piece of a bombshell. Interestingly, a passing doctor was asked to treat Freisler, but he declared Freisler to be dead. Still he refused to sign a death certificate. He - the doctor - was on his way to Freisler's boss (Thierack, Minister of Justice) to plea for mercy for his brother - who was sentenced to death shortly before that incident. This is described in a book "Der Hinrichter" from 1993 by Helmut Ortner(citation can be found - in german - at http://www.zeit.de/2005/06/A-Freisler?page=5 ) Anyone keen to look for an english source? David 62.224.199.122 06:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So why didn't you correct the article on that important point, citing your sources? If your English is not brilliant, someone else will fix it. JBarreto 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

---

"Between 1942 and 1945, more than 5,000 death sentences were handed out, and of these, 2,600 through the court's First Senate, which Freisler headed. Thus, Freisler alone was responsible, in his three years on the court, for as many death sentences as all other senate sessions of the court together in the entire time the court existed, between 1934 and 1945." - doesn't follow at all, since there is no mention of how many death sentences were handed out by other judges between 1934 and 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.219.49 (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wannsee Conference

The reference to the Wannsee Conference is incorrect. It is true that he "stood in for Minister Franz Schlegelberger". But the second part of the sentence "as regarding the detailed plans of the Final Solution, the murder of all European Jews" does not follow logically. He stood in at the conference, he did not "stand in as regarding the murder of all European Jews". Furthermore it is incorrect as a summary of the Wannsee Conference. There were no "detailed plans for the...murder of all European Jews" discussed at the Wannsee Conference.122.59.167.152 (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roland Freisler/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I think the article is weak. As noted a citation is needed for Freisler. Though not impossible in the chaos of post WWI Germany, the sudden conversion of a "fanatical communist" to a Nazi, needs a reference. The problem is compounded when the movie's subtitle has Sophie's communist handmaid say that Freisler, "as a Soviet Commissar, will need to put on a good show for his rehabilitation." This is significant because this film is the 2nd on the White Rose. The 1st, titled "The White Rose," was a perfectly fine film. This raises the question, why the need for a second film? To pass critical muster as a film of historical biography, "Sophie Scholl: The Last Days," must show itself free of factitious anti-communist intent. The "White Rose" has a number of spoken references to linking up with communist resistance circles, and a vivid scene of Sophie colluding with a female Russian P.O.W. to plant duds in the shells they're assembling at the munitions plant. In contrast this film takes great pains to distance the White Rose from communists, and to paint the youth in distinctly nationalist hues, representing the submerged conscience of a "German people" yearning beneath the surface to break free of totalitarianism. It seems this film ought to be controversial as a post-DDR remake, analogous to "The Lives of Others," and "Goodbye, Lenin" (anti-ostalgie and ostalgie films respectively). At the least a credible citation is needed re Freisler. Otherwise it ought to be scrapped or tagged as "controverted" in some way. Rmontgomery 03:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)RMontgomeryRmontgomery 03:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Shouting vs. Yelling

"...The ugly bald prick was often shouting and occasionally yelling at them ..."

What is the distinction between shouting and yelling here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

(In this context) Shouting means talking very loud in general, yelling is shouting at somebody. --Yhdwww (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Freisler's widow

Freisler's widow survived the war, and decades later there was a dispute in the former state of West Germany whether she should receive a state pension (on the basis that her husband had been a civil servant). She lost the dispute. Is this worth mentioning, and if so, does anyone have a suitable reference? 86.154.101.56 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The latest judgement of a german court

First of all: I beg your pardon for my awful English. The German version of the same article about R.F. says: "2017 urteilte das Oberlandesgericht München, dass der Vergleich eines Richters mit Roland Freisler eine Wahrnehmung berechtigter Interessen darstellen könne, sofern der Vergleich im Rahmen eines anhängigen Gerichtsverfahrens erfolge und die juristische Argumentation im Kampf ums Recht nicht völlig in den Hintergrund trete. " Is it possible to transfer this in the English article? Greetings from Munich, GermanyErwinLindemann (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Robe colour

"...wearing a blood scarlet judicial robe..."

The German constitutional court judges dress up like this even today. Perhaps it's just a legal tradition and doesn't have very much to do with Nazis and Freisler?2A02:AA1:161E:A51C:A8C0:2BA2:8D5A:DCF3 (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"Another version" of his death on Februar 3, 1945 - ?

Another version of Freisler's death states that he was killed by a British bomb that came through the ceiling of his courtroom as he was trying to save two women, who survived the explosion - The day of his death is not questioned, it was February 3, 1945, wasn't it ? Why then a "british bomb", if there was only an US attack this day ? Very strange "version", indeed. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Marion Freisler

His widow's Wikipedia article should be consolidated into Roland Freisler's article. She is completely non-notable in her own right. 65.88.88.56 (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

While her notoriety is linked to her husband's legacy, most of what is notable about her occurs after his death, regarding state widow's pensions due to her, or not, and inheritance denied her, and so on, these are not facts relevant to this article, but they are notable. She contested these decisions and they were matters of public discussion at the time and are of continuing interest, which I think does reach some criterion of notability. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Closing, with no merge, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)