Talk:Adolf Eichmann/Archive 1

Removed
i had to remove this sentence because there is no citation. you just cant claim whatever you want.

"For the next two years, Eichmann performed his duties with incredible zeal, often bragging that he had personally sent over five million Jews to their deaths by way of his trains.".

Chief Executioner?
"Therefore, he is often referred to as the 'Chief Executioner' of the Third Reich."

Really? By whom? National Socialist topics like this seem to get lots of sensationalist one liners.

---

The part "post 1945" is somewhat unclear, i think. if he left germany in 1947 and hid in an italian monastery for some years, then how come, he managed to secure a passage to south america in that exact year? O_o

--

An event mentioned in this article is a May 11 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment) --

The trial caused huge international controversy. -- I'm not sure that is a reasonable summary. There was controversy over the kidnapping from Argentina and lesser controversies over some aspects of the trial, but the sentence makes it sound like there was a "huge" controversy over the trial itself. I don't think so. --zero 02:45, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--

According to Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem, there were other issues of controversy regarding the trial. Two that I can remember off the top of my head are that some of the counts were charged retroactively under a different system of law than that of the defendent's state's, and also that what (in some people's opinion) should have been an international affair was being executed by Israel (whose objectivity was called into question). Ben-Gurion seemed to be pushing for a "show trial," although the three Israeli judges went to some lengths to prevent such an occurence.

Also, there is a discrepancy between the date and time of the death of Eichmann as stated in Arendt's book and the date/time in the wikipedia article. Arendt says a few minutes before midnight on 31 May, whereas the article says a few minutes after on 1 June. Arendt mentions in chapter 15 of the above mentioned book that one of the contributing factors in accelerating the execution was to avoid having the execution on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday (all of which are, according to Arendt, "religious holidays" of the three main faiths in Jerusalem).

-dws


 * According to reliable sources the execution was somewhat delayed and was carried out on 12:01 AM (00:01) June 1, 1962. Rienzo 03:24, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

What reliable sources? I don't want to make an ant out of a molehill, but I think it's important that this information is correct. If someone uses Adolf_Eichmann as a reference for the date of death, it could be embarrasing for them (and misinforming) if the date of death is incorrect.

Sources dating death 31 May: http://www.pbs.org/eichmann/timeline.htm, Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem

Sources dating death 1 June: - http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Adolf%20Eichmann

Here are some other Internet sources that dates Eichmann's death 1 June:
 * http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/biografien/EichmannAdolf/ (very reliable)
 * http://www.shoa.de/p_adolf_eichmann.html
 * http://www.wsg-hist.uni-linz.ac.at/Auschwitz/HTMLd/Eichmann.html


 * Rienzo 01:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Interesting. What should be done to the main article? Leave it be or parenthetically mention the various discrepancies?

An eyewitness

William L. Hull, a Canadian Pentecostal pastor, who had several talks with Eichmann prior to his execution, was an eyewitness at the hanging. He writes in his book The Struggle for a Soul (1963) that the execution took place at 12.02 a.m. on June 1, 1962. Rienzo 08:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The most sources say May 31. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.193.22 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC) ________

IMO, It's important to say more on the trial itself and it's effect on Israeli (or Jewish) society. Is there anyone willing to delve into it?

The main picture for this article looks kind of goofy. Considering that the man was a Nazi war criminal, could we find a different picture? -Branddobbe 07:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ask and you shall recieve! -Husnock 20 Nov 2004

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Adolf_Eichmann article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 00:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The most sources say 31 may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.193.22 (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Post WWII Section
Maybe I'm dumb, but I find the first part "Post World War II" section somewhat confusing; the first paragraph describes how Eichmann secured passage to South America and the second paragraph says that "Eichmann bought a plane ticket to Buenos Aires." Is this plane ticket the "passage" described in the first paragraph? I'm inclined to say yes, and if so, these two paragraphs should be combined to make this more explicit. --Bletch 02:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will someone please clean up the "Pre-Nazi" section, it's really a mess with all the articles plopped in there.

The comment that he became the only Israeli civil execution does not belong. The Wiki for execution (legal) states that execution is execution with or without a trial, making Israeli assassinations of people within its own boarder executions, such as Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. I am not trying to make a political statement, but I think the comment is supurflous and could be seen as lacking neutrality.

Red Cross Passport
Minor detail: Eichmann did not travel on a fake Red Cross "passport" (actually a laisser-passer. The document was obtained by using a fake name- but it wasa legitimate document. (see http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/travel-document-feature-310507?opendocument) I'm going to effect this change Raphael

From what I've been told, he traveled on a Vatican passport - Argentinian officials said he did. Is this not the case? Did the Argentinians lie, or was my source wrong? FlaviaR 04:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion perhaps?
First off thanks for all the info. Its fantastic.

Secondly, I was a bit unsure of the specifics of what he did in order to be tracked down so many years later. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they must have been bad, I just didn't get too many examples of it. Thanks.
 * Done! -- sgenevieve

I want to second the above, the section on the capture in particular is very engagingly written.

IMHO, what would bring this article up a class would be to flesh out the activities for which he was hunted. That is to say, as it is written now, it is weighted much more to the capture than to the reasons for it. Yes, I get it that he's a war criminal, but what's there now reads more like his CV, talking about his titles & that, instead of what did he do? Where? How did he use/exceed his authority? What's this about him trying to desert at the very end {my word not yours}? If I understand that correctly, that also is very interesting & could be expanded a little. I found one sentence stating how many people he sent to the gas chambers. THAT had to have a chronology...

My suggestion is that the section on what he did to be hunted match in detail and be as engaging as the hunt. Which like I said, was very nicely done. 75.10.128.3 (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Movie?
There was an HBO movie some time ago about the Mossad's capture of Eichmann. Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article? --Micahbrwn

Karl Eichmann
In Shirer' Rise and Fall of the Third Riech Eichmann is caleld Karl. Why is that? Just an error of Shirer? Or is Karl is he real first name?, but he's known as Adolf in the West, kind of like Speer being known as Albert in the West while his real first name is Berthold.

Some simple research gives me an answer to my own question. He was born Karl Adolf Eichmann. Ill add it to the article

Why did you take out the NVOP?
We should keep on working on this article specially in the Trial part. It has a nazi view of the thing.

But because my english is not so well (it's not my first language) and i don't know how to write here i propose to go on working on this.

Kidnapping
Eichmann was kidnapped as kidnapping is defined as any illegal capture and detention of persons against their will. If you find it necessary to revert, please explain why. Großhauptsturmführer 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The section is best described as the "capture" of a war criminal. Eichmann was an escaped Nazi war convict (from an American internment camp) who fled to Argentina where he lived under an assumed name. "Kidnapping" is somewhat of an ambiguous term in this context, as the word usually entails a criminal capture in order to extract a ransom.  I don't see a problem with using the word in the context of the section, but as a title it is misleading. --Viriditas  | Talk 23:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

he was in argentina. the jews had no right to go into a foreign land and take someone out. eichmann was then tried in a court that did not exist at the time the "crimes" were comitted.


 * he was a nazi and the creator of the final solution. Jews had every right not only to capture him but kill him on sight. He was tried in a court for his war crimes, internationally able to be tried anywhere no matter when the court was created. Amoruso 17:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are speaking to someone who is not going to listen: when he says "jews [sic] had no right", you can tell where his real ire is, as well as the fact that he puts the word "crimes" in quotes, as tho' what he did was no crime. FlaviaR 04:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

kill him on sight? we dont kill people on sight without a trial. and he was the creator of the final solution? where is the order from him? where is the order from Hitler? this is just more jewish propaganda like most of the stories of the holocaust. how do you think the jews would feel if we went into israel and kidnapped Sharon and tried him for his war crimes? Or if the British had kidnapped Begin and tried him for the bombing of the King David Hotel? the isreali court that "tried" eichmann was a joke. the court and the country didnt even exist. get your head out of your zionist butt. i see you live in israel....what a shock.


 * I don't know why I'm answering since you're not even signed.


 * The person to whom you are replying is not trying to be educated; he is spreading hate.FlaviaR 04:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

About Eichmann and the final solution, why don't you educate yourself and read some books on the holocaust ? Start with a certain conference transcript perhaps and then go back and forth during the period. It doesn't matter if the court existed or not according to international law and the crimes that Eichmann was accused for. Not that it matters, it actually makes me happy that nazi supporters are annoyed by this. Eichmann should have been tortured to death and killed with or without a trial. A trial made it more sweet in the end. Amoruso 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am educating myself quite a lot on the subject, and I am finding a lot of unanswered questions. The first thing I notice is that it seems to always be the Jewish victims that are mentioned. What about the non-Jewish victims. Why are they ignored in most of the stories of the holocaust?

Second of all, there is no way 6 million people were gassed and then cremated. The cost of it would have drained the war fighting efforts.

Third, where are the photos of the dead children? There is a claim of 2 million dead children. I contacted the holocaust museum twice now and have received no answer on where the photos are. All the photos of holocaust victim are skinny and sickly looking. If they were starved, they would have swollen stomachs. If they had been gassed then they wouldn’t have been emaciated.

I don't doubt that Eichmann was a bad man, as were most if not all of the SS and the Nazis. I am not a supporter of the party or the philosophy. But I do resent the way the Jews are allowed to do whatever they want with no consequence. I mean, it is a crime in France to deny or downplay the official story. Thank god I live in America. keltik31


 * ofcoruse photos are available, hundreds of them. Go to nizkor.org and educate yourself. If you want to talk about holocaust denial or other nazi philosophies I suggest go to a forum on the internet that accepts such views. There are plenty, like the nazi web-site stormfront. As for non Jewish victims, again go to nizkor.org and see what it says on the top - the number of killed. Dedicated to 12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime. That includes both Jews and non Jews. Jews were the largest in that number consisting 6 of the 12. Amoruso 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any article related issue here? Remember, we're trying to build an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. :) Cantankrus 06:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

i looked over nizkor.org. i didnt find any photos of dead children who had been gassed. i contacted two holocaust sites and one said that the 230,000 children that were gassed were never photographed. i cant find any evidence of the gassing of children. why not? maybe because it never happened? keltik31


 * if you really looked you might have noticed such pictures like this. http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//maidanek/images/Maidanek_Crematorium.jpg and this http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//maidanek/images/maidanek-02.jpg and this http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//dachau/images/corpse-laden-cart.jpg and this http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//dachau/images/dachau03.jpg and this http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//dachau/images/viewing-corpses.jpg and this http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//dachau/images/smoldering-remains.jpg and this http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//dachau/images/81465.jpg

or these : http://www.auschwitz.dk/Star/Photos.htm or here : http://www.oskarschindler.com/Albums4/album3.htm or this one : http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blchildren3.htm

Amoruso 19:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

those are shocking photos and very sad. but i dont see any evidence of mass gassing of 2 million children. the photos of the dead children show emaciated bodies, likely to be caused by typhus, and not by starvation or by gas.you see, when i ask a simple question about proof this is what i get. 2 million children? what a gross exadgeration of the truth. and where is the order from hitler to exterminate the jewish population of europe?


 * I'm not sure that anyone (except you) claims that 2 million children were gassed. Let's even suppose that they died of typhus (as opposed to starvation and other conditions rampant in the camp, or gassing). Since it was the Nazis that created the conditions of squalor and poor sanitation which Typhus breeds in, and Eichmann continued to force deportations despite these conditions, the Nazi's would still be criminally responsible for the deaths.
 * As for "the order", this is an ancient Holocaust Denial tactic. There is lots of evidence given in Public for Hitler's views about the Jews. Cantankrus 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

dying from Typhus is not the same as being marched into a gas chamber and gassed. and of course the nazis are responsible for the deaths. i would never make such a claim. but i think the whole thing has been exaggerated to a great extent to drum up sympathy. god help you if you question the "offical" story. in france you can be jailed. god bless america. i am not a holocaust denier. i am just searching for the facts. what a man says in his speeches cannot be automatically translated into an organized plan for mass extermination. and why is it that the jews are so hated? why, if they had done nothing wrong, were they rounded up and put into camps? because they practiced Judaism? i dont buy that story at all. there has to be some reason for this and i have yet to find one. what were the jews doing in germany that pissed so many people off? i have asked more than one jew and i cant get a straight answer. why not?

i am just looking for facts. i am just looking for proof. and the numbers and the theories just dont add up. 6 million? aint buying it. i feel that the unjust death of one innocent person jewish or not is a holocaust. keltik31


 * Dying from Typhus, being worked to death, starving, being shot or gassed are all exactly the same: the victim ends up dead. And because the Nazi's had foreknowledge of the conditions (they established them), they all had the same effect.
 * If you are really looking for the facts about World War 2 and the Holocaust, it would be best to check with a History book. Asking "more then one jew" about events is like asking "more then one German" why the Nazi's were evil. Strangely, you won't get a consistent answer there, either.
 * We should be talking about Eichmann and the article -- I apologize for the tangent here. Cantankrus 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

dying from typhus or any other cause is a tradgedy. but it is not the same as an organized plan to exterminate one group of people which is what is claimed. eichmann was never given an fair trial, he was tried in a phony court in israel and no person who has ever studdied the law could argue that the laws he was tried under were valid. i have read a lot of history books, and i still dont buy the mass extermination plan because the numbers just simply dont add up. keltik31


 * You can read about Holocaust in the holocaust article. 5-6 million Jews and 11-12 in total are all established undisputed facts as well as the gas chambers of course as well as the final solution which Eichmann was repsonsible for. As for the motives, I suggest read the anti-semitism article too. Going back to Eichmann issue, Israel's fully independent court is regarded highly in the whole world and according to basic common traditional law it was completely valid of course, not only because nazi regime violated jus cogens law of genocide and others, but because of Israel's unique position as the Jewish state. Amoruso 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

i have read the holocaust article. and the "facts" are disputed. the official death toll at one camp was reduced from 4 million to less than two. the actual amount of effort it would have taken to kill this many people just doesnt add up. i have read many articles saying that there were no gas chambers in poland. how can you say such stupid things? that the court that tried Eichmann was "fully independant"? are you serious? the court was in israel, a country that didnt even exist at the time of these atrocities. the laws he was charged with werent even laws at the time of the "crimes". this is what is called ex-post-facto and is outlawed by the US constitution. thank god for that. what common traditional law are you referring to that can put a man on trial for doing something against the laws of a country that didnt even exist at the time the "crime" was committed?

if the story of the holocaust is sooooo true, then why do people get so upset when someone says that the story is made up? why is it illegal to downplay or deny it happened? photographs of people standing in line doesnt prove that they were marched into a gas chamber and murdered. where are the photos of otherwise healthy dead bodies??????????? cant find any.


 * the facts aren't disputed. the signifcance of death toll change aka the holocaust denial stupid claim is answered here . As for court, representive of the jewish people, and jus cogens violation according to international law anyone could have tried him. as for the last question, holocaust deniers are neo nazis, that's why people get upset. proof has been made in the weizental center connecting every prominent holocaust denier to neo nazi group or ku klax klans. you're possibly a neo nazi too. now kindly sod off as this is not a neo nazi discussion board. Amoruso 14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

first of all, dont tell me to sod off. the facts are in dispute. that is why there is revisionism, thank god. you resort to calling me a neo-nazi because i question the validity of a story? your argument is weak. i dont deny that there were atrocities. but i also do not deny that eichmann and others were never allowed to tell their side of the story. in every documentary about ww2 we never hear from Nazi party members, we never hear why they felt the way they did or did the things they did. all we hear about is how the jews were rounded up and murdered for being jewish. this is a story i just dont buy at all. there had to be some reason for the actions of the nazi's. i am just searching for answers. and isnt it interesting how the jews can go to argentina and kidnapp eichmann, but they refused to return a jewish man who had comitted murder here in the united states? can anyone say "double standard"?

i am not a neo anything. i am just asking questions and pointing out inconsistancies in this vast zionist tale. so you sod off, fuck off or go bang a goat for all i care. keltik31


 * Ok, this is the last time I feed the troll, I promise.
 * All revisionists/deniers only "question the validity of the story". Unfortunately for them, the only "questions" they have are about one small fragment of the History of World War 2.
 * As for not hearing from "Nazi party members" - How about all of the members of the Nazi SS (most were party members too) who testified? Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz wrote a memoir too.
 * Now that we've gotten that little shouting match out of the way, is there something about this article to discuss? Cantankrus 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * indeed. WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOT, WP:TALK are the relevant policies regarding this feeding of the troll. Wise my friend. Amoruso 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"feed the troll"? how colorful. i heard once about civilians in either korea or japan who were "forced to rape their mother's and fathers". wartime propaganda just like most of the stories of the hoaxacaust. we all know that a man cannot rape someone unless he is aroused.

the testimony from any nazi is suspect becuase you dont know under what circumstances it was obtained, either through tourture or the threat of. i think it was wrong to go to argentina and put this man on trial. he did not recieve a fair trial. keltk31. and you resort to name calling because it is all you have.

where can i find the results of one autopsied body that proves the person died from being gassed?

Stop this rant it is irritating. Everyone that really observed the story (be it hyperbolic in some senses and judocentric in some others), knows dead victims have been burned. Complaining about the factual accuracy while neglecting obvious facts is useless, germany even admitted finding a meters thick layer of human ashes near berlin, and that is only 1 incident. You may assume that the factfinding after (and during) the war has been hampered by antisemitism, wicht is an understatement, because the whole thing couldn't have happened without the neglecting consent of international circles. That now the jewish don't want to admit (but still do at points) how they erred in calculations and assesment, and themselves ignored, seemingly ignored or undervalued other victims, has probably a lot to do with the hardship to get the attrocity anyhow recognised.(eg. 1933 or 1934) Such is not good, but it might be the story of any minority on this planet. I think they fear the extreme scale and proportion of the event will be lost from public memory when people are allowed to question the official version. It works out completely ridiculous, in such a way that for example the whole arab population gets a bias raised against them, and people critisising official government statements in general are implicated for reasons alien to them. That is a completely different point, that would be in its place in eg. a study of 20th century international relations, or general 20th century sociology, but in any case not here, on a page about eichmann that is well recognised for his role in these events , the details of them being so and so or such and such whatsoever.It's the political agenda of propaganda and selfrighteous proprietaires(the same people responsible for the international acceptance of this a holocaust), that uses the tool to incriminate opponents who generally have not the slightest antisemite intend. That is the nasty thing about it, and i have no idea where in wiki it should be placed yet, because we are still the repressed mass and not the rich ignorants filing their "justice " of no appeal on the poor. Just like then. btw. i like the term abduction, in my dutch mind it's translation is the most technical description of what happens when a person gets hijacked without his/her permission.77.248.56.242 11:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lother Hermann
Re the paragraph - ''Also instrumental in exposing Eichmann's identity was Lother Hermann, a half-Jewish worker who fled to Argentina from Germany following his incarceration in the Dachau concentration camp..... He contacted Israeli officials, who worked closely with Hermann over the next several years to learn about and formulate a plan to capture Eichmann.''

I am currently reading Isser Harel's 'The house on Garibaldi street' which talks about Hermann in the first 30 pages. According to Harrel Hermann stumbled upon Eichmann but in his eagerness to solve everything himself and get money from the Israelis, he passed on some of his guesses as facts, because of which the Israelis lost their trust in him. By 1959, they had stopped contacting him.

The clues which lead to the capture of Eichmann came from another source (don't know if his identity is revealed in the book, haven't reached that far), at which point the Israelis recognised that Hermann had been right. But the usefulness of Hermann or the data that he provided in capturing Eichmann seems to be nothing, as per Harel.

Do Arendt or Cesarni talk about it being otherwise ? Tintin 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * According to the same source, Hermann is Jewish (not partly so) but was married to a (apparently non Jewish) German. Hermann says in the book that his parents were murdered in the conc. camps and he served a term himself and I have Jewish blood in my veins, but my wife is German and our daughter has been brought up according to her mother's traditions (The House on Garibaldi street, Isser Harel, Viking Press, 1975 edition, Page 18). I am changing the article accordingly Tintin 13:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

regarding the comment that eichmann became fascinated with judaism, and in his reading developed a hatred for jews is unsubstantiated. where did you get your sources for this? the evidence leads to the conclusion that eichmann had no hatred for jews whatsoever. this is infinately more troubling.


 * hermann was shocked when he found out, that his daughter sylvia became a friend of eichmanns son klaus, so hermann immediatly wrote a letter to generalstaatsanwalt fritz bauer, which informed felix shinnar, which informed harel. the mossad checked 1958 only hermanns assumption that eichmann was the owner of the house in chacabuco-street, but dindn't check that eichmann was lodger. (irmtrud wojak: eichmanns memoiren. frankfurt: campus, 2001)

correct History -- 24.12.1959 Fritz Bauer said Eichmann KUWAIT  Press-Archiv

The blind man Lothar Hermann reported 1957 Eichmann alias Francisco Schmidt to Germany

26.12.1959 G.Schurman by Lothar Hermann Coronel Suarez Eichmann alias F.Schmidt

Mai 1960 Eichmann alias Clemens -- CIA alias-- Mafia-alias

Golda Meir April 1972 Money 10 000 US Dollar to Lothar Hermann

Simon Wiesenthal -- no role -- Eichmann

IKG-Wien attacks Wiesenthal

Special Collection 8 Learning Center Wiesenthal

Story Tuviah Friedman absolutely correct- Document Germany National Bibliothek

Letter Lothar Hermann dat.2.6.1971 attacks Israel and Fritz Bauer ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.211.248 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a Debate but it's not about the Holocaust
No there are probably no photographs of children who have been gassed. Not surprisingly since the later Auschwitz gas chambers were combined with crematoria. The evidence for the Holocaust is so overwhelming, not least from Nazi sources, that it is not worth arguing. What should be mentioned is that probably less than half the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and yes we should not forget the Gypsy/Sinto, Gay, Communist and other victims, were gassed. Up to 2 million were shot and large numbers, maybe half a million, simply died through hunger - 'death by hunger' as Hans Frank, Governor General of the Generalgovernment exclaimed.

But why is this being debated? Eichmann himself never denied the Holocaust. In the extracts from his 1955 interviews with the Dutch Nazi journalist, Wilhelm Sassen he states, as a matter of fact, that ''Where I was implicated in the physical annihilation of the Jews, I admit my participation freely and without pressure. After all I was the one who transported the Jews to the camps.... Yet what is there to "admit?" I carried out my orders. It would be as pointless to blame me for the whole Final Solution of the Jewish Problem as to blame the official in charge of the railroads over which the Jewish transports traveled. If I had sabotaged the order of the onetime Fuhrer of the German Reich, Adolf Hitler, I woudl have been not only a scoundrel but a despicable pig... In 1941 the Fuhrer himself ordered the physical annihilation of the Jewish enemy. What made him take this step I do not know." And in a section headed 'the Chambers at Maidenek' Eichmann describes the beginning of the construction of the gas chambers in 'the latter part of 1941' which is indeed borne out.  As the 'euthenasia' programme was wound down, after the outcry led by Bishop Galen of Munster, so the vans used to gas the handicapped were taken to Poland.  And describing the shooting of thousands of Jews at Minsk he asks rhetorically'Why did the scene linger so long in my memory?  Perhaps because I had children myself.  And there were children in the pit.  I saw a woman hold a child of a year or two into the air, pleading.  At that moment all I wnted to say was,  "Don't shoot, ahnd over the child..."  There is a section entitled 'The Gas Chambers at Auschwitz'.

All of this was freely given in an interview when Eichmann was at liberty, under no compunction to admit anything. [" 'I Transported Them to the Butcher,' Eichmann's Own Story: Part I" Life November 28, 1960 reprinted in '51 Documents  - Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, Lenni Brenner, pp. 264-274, Barricade Books. The suggestion that there were no gas chambers, when all the historical evidence says otherwise is ludicrous. Even David Irving in his libel suit against Penguin admitted to the use of mobile gas chambers in the Action Reinhardt camps (Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec).

The more important point, which the Eichmann trial deliberately steered clear of was the question of Kasztner, leader of Hungarian Zionism and the friendly relations established between him and the SS which led to a train of the Prominents (Kasztner's words) in exchange for silence about the Auschwitz Protocols that Rudolph Verba and Alfred Wetzler had brought out when they escaped from Auschwitz. These Protocols were handed to Kasztner on April 29th according to the deputy head of the Slovakian Judenrat Oskar Neumann. Kasztner himself launched a libel trial in Israel in 1953 against his detractors and found himself the accused as the nature and scope of his collaboration was revealed. Assasinated he was cleared on largely technical and political grounds by the Israeli Supreme Court but the facts of his going to Nuremburg to testify for Nazi war criminals was upheld as were the facts of what he did.

This evidence was deliberately excluded from the Eichmann trial with Vrba giving a deposition at the London Embassay of Israel but not being called because of what he might say. Likewise the last surviving member of the leadership of the Jewish Fighting Organisation (ZOB) of the Warsaw Ghetto, Marek Edelman, was not called as he was an anti-Zionist. In many ways the Eichmann trial was Israel's answer to the deep trauma and embarrassment of the Kasztner trial, which went on until 1957 and led to the fall of one Israeli government.

Tony Greenstein

Lother Hermann
Re the paragraph - ''Also instrumental in exposing Eichmann's identity was Lother Hermann, a half-Jewish worker who fled to Argentina from Germany following his incarceration in the Dachau concentration camp..... He contacted Israeli officials, who worked closely with Hermann over the next several years to learn about and formulate a plan to capture Eichmann.''

I am currently reading Isser Harel's 'The house on Garibaldi street' which talks about Hermann in the first 30 pages. According to Harrel Hermann stumbled upon Eichmann but in his eagerness to solve everything himself and get money from the Israelis, he passed on some of his guesses as facts, because of which the Israelis lost their trust in him. By 1959, they had stopped contacting him.

The clues which lead to the capture of Eichmann came from another source (don't know if his identity is revealed in the book, haven't reached that far), at which point the Israelis recognised that Hermann had been right. But the usefulness of Hermann or the data that he provided in capturing Eichmann seems to be nothing, as per Harel.

Do Arendt or Cesarni talk about it being otherwise ? Tintin 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * According to the same source, Hermann is Jewish (not partly so) but was married to a (apparently non Jewish) German. Hermann says in the book that his parents were murdered in the conc. camps and he served a term himself and I have Jewish blood in my veins, but my wife is German and our daughter has been brought up according to her mother's traditions (The House on Garibaldi street, Isser Harel, Viking Press, 1975 edition, Page 18). I am changing the article accordingly Tintin 13:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

regarding the comment that eichmann became fascinated with judaism, and in his reading developed a hatred for jews is unsubstantiated. where did you get your sources for this? the evidence leads to the conclusion that eichmann had no hatred for jews whatsoever. this is infinately more troubling.


 * hermann was shocked when he found out, that his daughter sylvia became a friend of eichmanns son klaus, so hermann immediatly wrote a letter to generalstaatsanwalt fritz bauer, which informed felix shinnar, which informed harel. the mossad checked 1958 only hermanns assumption that eichmann was the owner of the house in chacabuco-street, but dindn't check that eichmann was lodger. (irmtrud wojak: eichmanns memoiren. frankfurt: campus, 2001)

pre-Argentina mess
As someone just noted, the 1945-1950 parts of the story are confused. My understanding is that he remained in Germany until 1950 (not 1947), then he went to Austria then Italy. In Italy he posed as Ricardo Klement and obtained a refugee passport under that name with the help of a Franciscan monk (but was it a Vatican passport? Actually I think it was a Red Cross passport.). Then he got an Argentinian visa and arrived in Argentina about Aug 1950. My sources of information are not good. If someone has a solid source, please fix the article. --Zero 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Referat IV D4 vs. B4
The agency that Eichmann headed was actually Referat IV D4 (see Browning, "Origins of the Final Solution", pg. 59). A large number of online biographies state that his referat was called "B4". This is an error. A number of online biographies correctly state the referat name as "D4". I've corrected this in the article, but perhaps a mention should be made of this ambiguity, since some high-profile biographies, notably Nizkor, make this mistake. Primaryspace 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * the reichssicherheitshauptamt was re-structured many times. eichmanns referat changed from IV D 4 to IV B 4 in july 1941. in spring 1944 even to IV A 4.
 * Any references? I can't find any reference to IV A4, or any restructuring information.  Considering Browning, it looks like an error. Primaryspace 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly about this, but what was IV J, & who was in charge of it? I understand that IV J was "in charge" of the Jews, and a quick Google to find about this made me stumble on a non-recommandable site which claims that Eichmann was in charge of IV-J. I know from reliable sources that André Tulard gave his lists of Jews to Theodor Dannecker, who later handed them out to IV-J. Nizkor cite Gawlik's testimony during the 1946 trials which states:

The evidence has not shown that the SD Amter III and VI of the RSHA participated in the extermination of the millions of Jews. All Jewish affairs were dealt with by Amt IVm, Eichmann's section. Eichmann belonged to Amt IV and was the Head of Section IV B 4. This is shown by the organizational plans of the RSHA of 1st January, 1941, and 1st October, 1942, Document L-185 and Document L-219 submitted by the prosecution.

The chain of command for the mass murder of Jews was Hitler, Himmler, Muller and Eichmann. Not one of the witnesses has indicated that Amter III, VI and VII, or any of the local branches of these offices co-operated in the extermination of Jews. In this connection I refer in particular to the testimony of Wisliceny, Page 751 of the record of the Commission, according to which there was no connection between the department of Eichmann and the Amter III, VI and VII, and further, to the record of Dr. Hoffmann (German text of Commission record Page 1793). Hoffmann stated that Amt IV was competent for deportations and that Eichmann was responsible for the final solution of the Jewish question.

In the occupied territories, also, all Jewish affairs were handled by Amt IV, Eichmann Department. The initial IV J on Document RF 1210, submitted by the prosecution shows that a department of Amt IV dealt with the Jewish questions in France. This is confirmed by the testimony of the witness Knochen (Pages 475, 476, 1105, 1113 of the Commission Record), and by the Laube Affidavit SD 54 which I submitted. They show that Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker, who was sent to France by Eichmann, also belonged to Amt IV and received his instructions directly from Eichmann himself. Thus, no connection existed between Amter III and VI and Eichmann's department.

I don't know the reliability of this testimony. But again, reliable sources do claim that Tulard gave his papers to IV-J, and it was my understanding that Eichmann was ultimately in charge. I can try to look the exact page reference of that if you want. So, IV-D is pretty clear, B4 seems to be an error unless it changed as said one user, and IV-J also seems to be correct... Tazmaniacs 18:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it's possible to find Document L-185 and Document L-219 that were presented at the trials. Primaryspace 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are really important, they are probably cited by historians. I don't know enough about that - and we should

be careful about "primary sources". But it would certainly be interesting seeing them. Tazmaniacs 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Video
The video in this article doesn't seem to work. I tried renaming it to .ogm (.ogg is audio) and it still doesn't work. Is it just me? I tried several media players such as BSPlayer and VLC. -- Ynhockey 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for clarification
"In Cairo they met a member of the Haganah but the purpose of the meeting is disputed." Unless anyone objects, I am going to remove this sentence. I cannot find any dissent as to what happened by reputable people. If you disagree, can you please supply links about this "dispute"? Where 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted --68.211.68.10 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of literature on this. A source other than Brenner is F. Nicosia, Zionism in National Socialist Jewish Policy in Germany, 1933-1939, Journal of Modern History, vol 50, No. 3 (1978) D1253-D1282. Eichmann&Hagen's report to their superiors still exists; parts can be found translated in Brenner, 51 Documents. According to the report, Polkes told them "The Zionist state must be established by all means and as soon as possible so that it attracts a stream of Jewish emigrants to Palestine. When the Jewish state is established according to the current proposals laid down in the Peel Paper, and in line with England's partial promises, then the borders may be pushed further outwards according to one's wishes." Then later, "Nationalist Jewish circles expressed their great joy over the radical German policy towards the Jews, as this policy would increase the Jewish population in Palestine, so that one can reckon with a Jewish majority in Palestine over the Arabs in the foreseeable future." --Zero 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation
The quote: "Long live Germany. Long live Austria. Long live Argentina. These are the countries with which I have been most closely associated and I shall not forget them. I had to obey the rules of war and my flag. I am ready." can be found in Arent, H. 1979. Eichmann in Jerusalem, Penguin. P.252.


 * Actually that source has a different version: "After a short while, gentlemen, we shall all meet again.  Such is the fate of all men.  Long live Germany, long live Argentina, long live Austria.  I shall not forget them.".  If a better source is not found, I suggest we use this. --Zero 10:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Eichmann's son
I don't think that Eichmann's son deserves mention. --Zero 13:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the context - an overview analysis - it's fine.FlaviaR 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

His name
The recent edit is correct: his name was Otto Adolf Eichmann. The previous version "Karl Adolf Eichmann" was probably a confusion for his father's name "Adolf Karl Eichmann". His trial report says that this information came from Eichmann himself. However, that leaves us with a problem: why is he here called "Adolf Otto Eichmann"? We know he used "Adolf" as his personal name, but what is the evidence that he actually reversed his name? Most people who go by their middle name don't do that. We need a solid source, not just a web page. --Zero 10:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless someone comes up with a proof that his name was Adolf Otto which is better than the proof in the previous paragraph that his name was Otto Adolf, I propose to change the article accordingly. I'll leave this notice for a few days. --01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The new serious biography "Becoming Eichmann", by David Cesarani, says his name was "Otto Adolf". I believe that clinches it unless someone can come up with a birth certificate or something. --Zerotalk 00:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

postcard story
The story about Wiesenthal and the postcard isn't quite accurate. Wiesenthal was not who the postcard was written to. A doctor had told him to get a less stressful hobby than chasing Nazis, so he took up stamp collecting. He was shown the postcard about Eichmann by another stamp collector because of its Argentinian stamps. I think the story is in "Eichmann in my Hands" by Peter Z. Malkin. I don't have a copy to refer to but maybe someone who does can edit the article with the details. Phr (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

---
 * I've read reports that Eichmann was part of a deal with an Israeli organization to trade trucks for 1,000,000 Jews. The deal supposedly fell through for some reason or other. Can anyone verify? NightShade 06:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

September 21, 1939 reunion in Berlin with Heydrich
There is no mention of the September 21, 1939 reunion in Berlin in which Heydrich, Eichmann, the bureau chiefs of the RSHA and Emanuel Schäfer were present, in which the Nazi decision about what "to do" with the Jews in Poland (see de:Emanuel Schäfer for more details) seems to have been taken. Maybe someone who knows a bit more (or reads German) could introduce this here. Tazmaniacs 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Book of Samuel
I removed this unsourced story: "Ben-Zvi replied quoting a passage from the Book of Samuel: "As your sword bereaved women, so will your mother be bereaved among women." (Samuel 1:15:33, Samuel's words to Agag king of the Amalekites)." This sounds as if Ben-Zvi used this quotation in his official reply to Eichmann's appeal for clemency, but in fact Ben-Zvi only gave a formal reply: "The President of the State of Israel has decided not to exercise his pererogative to pardon offenders or reduce sentences in the case of Adolf Eichmann" (NYT, June 1, 1962). The quotation from the Book of Samuel is supposed to have been written by Ben-Zvi on a telegram he received from Eichmann's wife Vera who "begged him to show mercy for the 'mother of four children'" I don't think this anecdote meets the notability criteria. (NYT, June 2, 1962). --Zerotalk 09:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Added ref. He replied to request with this quote as a formal succint reasoning. Amoruso 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't a formal succint reasoning or any other sort of reasoning. What does the source state exactly? The NYT version is more credible since the quotation exactly fits Vera Eichmann's petition. --Zerotalk 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble understanding how any source could be more credible than Ben Zvi himself. It's written that this is the reason he gave when confronted with the letters of the clemency and asked this passage to be written. I've written this down when I read the book, I don't have it with me here right now so I'm not 100% sure that Vera isn't mentioned in one of the pages (Though I'm pretty sure), but I fail to see how it matters, it seems more formal if it really was written to Vera. Amoruso 14:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, it does make sense, as Eichmann didn't write something himself and I think this was indeed written for Vera. You can add that this was his reply to Vera using the NYT source if you wish. Amoruso 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you misread this. The source says that this was a reply Ben Zvi wrote it's of course the best source possible for Ben Zvi therefore WP:RS and very important. You can add that NYT added it's for Vera if it's true, it doesn't diminish the source. The very fact it's mentioned there shows how important it is. It's not an anecdote, it's something that was important to Ben Zvi to write not because Vera btw, it's a metaphorical sense. Amoruso 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

*Culture Reference*?
I'm not sure if this would be article worthy, but I'm curious, in a South Park episode where Eric Cartman is hunting hippies, one of the hippies is always talking about the *big corporations* and saying something about the *little Eichmanns*. Is this a reference to Adolf Eichmann? Or someone else? or am I hearing it incorrectly? Magu 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but I think this will be inappropriate in the article. Amoruso 05:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That is making fun of comments by Ward Churchill. 69.156.58.123 22:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Jordan

Still some Nazis in Argentina?
I think this sentence: "Argentina was and is a haven for many former Nazis.", contains speculations that should not be part of a Wikipedia article. Are we certain that there are still some Nazis in Argentina? What is true for the pas might not be true for the present. Unless we have some serious and documented doubts about nazis still living in Argentina, the sentence should be shortened to: "Argentina was a haven for many former Nazis." Hugo Dufort 01:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was he, the way he was?
 * Good question. You might find the recent book "Becoming Eichmann" interesting.  --Zerotalk 13:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BIG pic?
What is that BIG CV doing in the middle of the article? It's making it hard to read the article! --Lhademmor 16:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Who hanged him?
Since Israel had not judicially executed anyone before Eichmann, I wonder whether they ever had a trained executioner. This link gives the name of the Yemenite prison guard who opened the trapdoor under Eichmann's feet. But who prepared the scaffold, decided on the length of drop to give, positioned the noose? These are no trivial tasks; any mistake may lead to a disgusting result. I wonder whether Israel received "technical advice" or even "technical assistance" by a friendly government. Of course this is one of the most unimportant details for an article on Eichmann; I know that. --Kauko56 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a very interesting link, thank you. Amoruso 16:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a kidnap
The jews who kidnapped him have no arrest powers in Argentina. They are not police or intelligence officers of the Argentine state. They should have acted like decent and civilized people by asking the Argentine government to arrest and extradite Eichmann, not employ mafia tactics and kidnap him. Just because a bunch of arrogant jews think they are above the law and can kidnap people they don't like, doesn't mean that they are right. A kidnap is a kidnap.


 * If you want any kind of credibility, sign your posts, and keep the hatred out. Freshacconci 16:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Here, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap where the article itself mentions that the capture of eichmann and vanunu are illegal kidnappings. And don't make a fool of yourself accusing me of "anti semitism" because I'm far more semitic than most people you'll ever see.


 * Please keep the insults out of the discussion. It only serves to discredit you. Freshacconci 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And how does that link prove anything? Your additions and changes are opinions, not fact, and violate wikipedia N:POV rules. Freshacconci 22:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF? Can you try to be coherent, for once? YOu asked for sources to support my arguement, and you got one, on the wikipedia site of all places, now you're saying it doesn't prove anything? What do you want? And no, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. An illegal kidnap is an illegal kidnap. Calling it anything else is white wash.


 * Yes, sources for Eichmann, not generic definitions of a word. Try to calm down. It's only an article. Freshacconci 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As depicted and explained above, Eichmann was a nazi war criminal who escaped justice and was a fugitive - it's why he had an alias if you didn't notice. So of course it's a legal capture by any standard, but the word capture doesn't even imply legality while the word kindap implies illegality. See sections above, it was already discussed and decided long time ago. Amoruso 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As Amoruso says : the word capture doesn't even imply legality while the word kindap implies illegality. For NPoV, this is clearly captured that must be used. (arrested < > captured < > kidnapped - same as eliminated < > killed < > assassinated)Alithien 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this may all be a bit nuanced, and, let's just say it, rational, for some people.Freshacconci 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Capture" is fine, though a small paragraph about the legal issues could be included. As far as opinion goes on international law, it is practically impossible to find an authority arguing that the capture was legal. Of course it was a violation of the national sovereignty of Argentina and there is no legal principle that overrides that. Israel was perfectly aware of this, and that is why they first claimed that Eichmann came voluntarily and then claimed that the abductors were private citizens and not Israeli agents. The Israeli court did not attempt to argue the capture was legal, and neither did Eichmann's prosecutors. They could not have done so credibly since the relevant principles of international law are very clear and in the meanwhile there had been a Security Council resolution (#4349) confirming that the capture was illegal. What the prosecution and Court argued (paras 40-44 of the judgement) was that the illegality of Eichmann's arrest did not imply that his trial was illegal (called the Ker doctrine after an 1886 case). The several legal scholars I have read agree with that argument. In summary, even though Israel illegally captured him, it could still legally try him. (Here is an example of a legal paper explaining this. I can give more but they need subscription.) --Zerotalk 13:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's just an opinion. International Law in this sense is not a matter of legal or not legal, there is no one consenus of international law except the rules of jus cogens (+consent, +customary law which is related usually to consent), and these rules include the crimes that Eichmann was responsible for. The country that was actually violating international law was Argentina for holding Nazi war criminals in its country and providing for them safe haven. At any case, one could argue Israel violated a certain international law principle in capturing Eichmann (it would not make it illegal in the traditional sense of course), but International Law has many mechanisms which one can use in exceptions as in duress and emergency or a cause like this would certainly be such an exception. Amoruso 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon, I do not understand what you are saying. Is "capturing" a person over whom you have no jurisdiction not illegal? In my vision, "capturing when no legal authority" = "kidnapping".--RedMC 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Per argentinian law obviously. But there's no such thing as illegal in international law except the examples I listed. As for jurisdiction, One could easily maintain that as the representive of the Jewish people, Israel has jurisdiction to catch any war criminal in the size of Eichmann regardless where he's hiding. Amoruso 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If they needed to do a covert action, it is because it was illegal. And no, Israel has no jusrisdiction of foreign land.--RedMC 04:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it has nothing to do with it. Amoruso 04:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your opinions against my facts. I think this end the conversation, doesn't it?--RedMC 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid if you continue your disruptions, you will be reported for vandalism. As explained above, "kidnap" is a POV word while "capture" isn't and doens't imply one way or another. You have no facts except some agenda, kindly stop. Cheers. Amoruso 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid if you continue your disruptions, you will be reported for vandalism. "Kidnap" is the perfect word for the job. You have no facts except some agenda, kindly stop.--RedMC 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. Is there anything you guys don't find fight over? Wikipedia is not the UN. The world won't stop spinning on its axis, and no countries will be overrun if everyone takes a break for a day. Patstuarttalk 06:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are people who claim there was no Holocaust, and others (si parva licet componere cum magna) who think a country can go around the world to legally capture people who committed crimes when that country did not even exist. Proclaiming the truth is the only way to have people think.--RedMC 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So if it did exist it would be legal now ? Because if that's what bothers you, it existing or not at the time is irrelevant in international law since the crime Eichmann was guilty of was a jus cogens customary law. The article is widely referenced and well written now, it should stay like that. Regardless though, if Argentina decided it was ok in the end (which it did), it means it's not a kidnap even if it initally was (which it wasn't). Cheers. Amoruso 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it would not be. But this has nothing to do with the fact that there was no right to capture him.--RedMC 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has everything to do with it. Cheers. Amoruso 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Caputred" is more neutral than "kidnap." I think the fact whether it was right to kidnap him is entirely irrelevant. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Should Eichmann's capture be considered a kidnapping?

Yes

 * 1) As per nomination.--RedMC 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Obviously. --Sugaar 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure. Kidnapping is a criminal action. Regardlessly of that whom they are kidnapped, Mossad agents abducted Eichmann are still criminals and Argentina have right to try and execute them. Criminal actions are rather rule then exception for Mossad style of work.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 20:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) The guy was a Nazi war criminal. Kidnapping was the right thing to do. I don't see how this makes Israel look any worse; it's also true (when the CIA took people out of Europe, it was called kidnapping, and I agree, even though I heartily agree with the action). -Patstuarttalk 03:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you should rely on CIA to make this argument - because that article does not, in fact, call those acts "kidnapping", but rather "taking" or "removing". Isarig 04:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the word usage in the mainstream press: . Patstuarttalk 04:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs saying that WP has a different policy regarding NPOV than the mainstream media, and the WP article you linked to proves it. Isarig 04:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No

 * 1) No. article can't be more accurate than now on the subject. Amoruso 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) No. This is POV language. "Capture" is just as accurate, without POV-pushing. Isarig 00:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) No. "Capture" is the more neutral word. Freshacconci 04:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) No. "Kidnap" implies definate legal status. He was a fugitive from justice, so his status wouldn't be certain. Capture is definately the right word in this case. Cantankrus 04:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, as per Cantankrus. Capture is definitely correct usage, not sure about kidnap. Tintin (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No. As explained in the section above. captured is neutral. arrested and kidnapped are POV. Note that "truth" doesn't exist. They are only truths ie, points of view. NPoV means wikipedia doesn't push forward one POV or the other among relevant ones. Alithien 10:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine, but whose opinion is it that the abduction was legal? Opinions of wikipedians (even mine ;-) don't count.  Which competent authorities, noted lawyers, governments, or international organizations say that the abduction was legal?  Maybe I missed it, but I think none at all have been cited so far. --Zerotalk 14:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Although I agree that the actions of the captors was entirely illegal, labeling the incident as a kidnapping would be just as POV as calling it arrest. The details of the event are described in detail later, so there is no use in using such charged language. Let the facts speak for themselves. TSO1D 18:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) No - the word capture is a neutral description of events that requires no interpretation. Kidnap requires a long and difficult legal interpretation of how various laws of uncertainly apply to uncertain events, that all original research anyhow.  It may in fact be the case (and I believe it is) that this isn't an issue of legality, but English usage.  Dubious legality, dubious interpretation, dubious events, dubious linguistics.   Better to stick with captured which we all agree to be true (since it doesn't comment on legality).  Kidnapped is no more appropriate than Arrested in this context. WilyD 17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) No''', "kidnap", like "murdered" or "massacred", should always err on the side of caution, and be considered to be replaced with "captured" if it was not a purely domestic kidnapping.  (Taking the rich heiress, demanding $100,000 for her return can almost certainly be called kidnapping...taking Amerindian children from their tribes and putting them in the Canadian residential school system is debateable...same issue here) - so I strongly support keeping "captured". Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (Here from the RfC)
 * 4) No. Capture is the perfect word; as Cantankurus said, he was a fugitive from justice. If bounty hunters don't kidnap, then neither did Mossad.FlaviaR 04:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * Even if we struggle to stay neutral, we should achieve truth. According to me, the "capture" of a man in a foreign land is to be considered "kidnapping".--RedMC 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Capture" is the neutral word to use in the Section title, i think, especially since legal issues involved is discussed in detail in the section. i wld suggest that the paragraph beginning "Eichmann was captured by a team of Mossad agents..." mention that the capture constituted a kidnap or violated Argentinian law/sovereignty, or that Argentina initially considered the act to be <...> (depending on what can be reliably sourced). the best i cld do is "Eichmann was abducted from Argentina to Israel [...] the kidnap obviously violated Argentinian sovereignty" (Geoff Gilbert, Transnational Fugitive Offenders in International Law: Extradition and Other Mechanisms, page 400, 1998, ISBN 9041110402.)(on Google book search). Doldrums 06:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. There are references talking about an arrest, about a capture and about a kidnap . Alithien 11:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is an adequate mention of what the legal opinion is, I don't care so much about which word is used. As far as the facts are concerned, the legal opinion on this seems to be pretty much unanimous, and agrees with the example Doldrums found. The most common word used to describe it in the legal journals is "abduction".  I spent a couple of hours scanning through the journals of international law and found about 15 or so references.  Every single one considered it completely obvious that the abduction violated international law.  No contrary opinion was even cited as existing. I can't prove that no such contrary legal opinion exists (lawyers can make a case for just about anything) but it sure is hard to find. Here I am talking about opinions by experts in international law, not by random commentators or historians.  It is also obvious that Israel held the same opinion, which is why the only defence that Israel could offer in front of the Security Council was to lie about who the abductors were.  It is also why they did not attempt to argue before the Israeli courts that the abduction was legal. I wonder if there was ever an official statement of the Israeli government that both admitted the genuine circumstances of the abduction and claimed that it was not a violation of Argentinian sovereignty under international law. --Zerotalk 11:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As the article currently says, when Argentina condoned the action from its part then any international law violation was remedied. It is retrospective and therefore legal. It's just like when two countries have a dispute over a territory - if one agrees to drop its claims - then it's no longer disputed and there's no possilbe violation of international law, it's retrospective. Regardless, obviously there was a violation of Argetina's sovereignty back then (which was later remedied) but it's also of no real consequence - it's not what's interesting or important in the article. The importance of capturing Eichmann and executing him is much higher and critical and the international law legality of the capture shouldn't have interested Israel in the first place as it had its moral right to its 6 millions own kind who were murdered by this man. Amoruso 11:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Argentina did not ever condone the action. They agreed to accept Israel's apology and to restore diplomatic relations with Israel, which had been disrupted.  If I beat you up and you later agree to accept my apology and stop legal action against me, it doesn't retrospectively make my action legal. --Zerotalk 14:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It condoned it, it's what the Israeli court said in this word. And no, you're confusing criminal law with international law (in your case, even if you agreed to be beaten up it would still be a criminal offense - your agreement would be irrelvant). International Law except for crimes of jus cogens is not about legal or illegal. It's about courtesy and conventions and mutual agreement. Argentina realised that harbouring war criminals is a worse international law offense and let it go. Amoruso 14:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right that the (translation of what the) Israeli court said uses the word "condoned" but everything else you say is wrong. The joint statement issued by Israel and Argentina read as follows:  ""the Governments of Israel and the Republic of the Argentine, imbued with the wish to give effect to the resolution of the Security Council of June 23, 1960, in which the hope was expressed that the traditionally friendly relations between the two countries will be advanced, have decided to regard as closed the incident that arose out of the action taken by Israel nationals which infringed fundamental rights of the State of Argentina"".  They agreed to regard it as closed, not to regard it as having been legal.  Actually they agreed that it was not legal, as the last part of the startement states clearly. --Zerotalk 14:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The expressions used in the statement are irrelevant. This is a basics of international law - if one side drops a claim then it's over. Like I said, it has nothing to with "legal" or not. It has to do with international conventions and demands/claims concerning it. When one side sees the matter as closed there is no longer any issue of international law "legality". Amoruso 14:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that argument cannot possibly be valid. The text itself, signed by both sides states: "Israeli nationals which infringed fundamental rights of the State of Argentina." Both sides, like the U.N. Security Council agreed that the capture was illegal, but they were willing to normalize relations. To illustrate, if someone commits a crime but makes a deal with the prosecutor to avoid serving time, that does not mean that his action can now be viewed as legal because there are no outstanding charges. TSO1D 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, you're brininging an example of Criminal Law and that is a differnet sphere. In international Law what I said was accurate, it's one of the pillars of international law. What you're citing proves why there's no issue of legality anyway - it's illegal per Aregentinian Law obviously, there was never any question about it. It's not illegal in international law, but it did "infringed on their rights as a sovereign state" - now the question is (1) who cares? (2) in international law if they let this claim drop then there's no longer any relevance to it. This usually happens when there's a dispute, one side goes to the ICJ or some other tribunal and both sides have to agree to mediate on the issue. Here Argentina accepted not to pursue this and therefore by international law it was perfectly "internationally ok" by then. Amoruso 18:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But Argentina had already won its case when the Security Council declared the capture to have been illegal. Thus there would have been no need to go to any further tribunals. Argentina did not give any sort of an "international ok", rather the joint statement demonstrated that the capture was illegal, but that Argentina was willing to put this infringement of its sovereignty behind and move on. Nevertheless, with the exception of the Israeli prosecution during the trial, you will virtually find no expert on this issue agreeing that the action was legal. I really don't see how international legality has to be linked to an outstanding claim. I mean are Hitler's actions now legal from an international viewpoint because Germany has normalized relations with all foreign states? TSO1D 18:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Security council is NOT a judiciary or a legal tribunal. It can take actions that are similar to judicial if it acts under Chapter 7 which it didn't in this case. As for Hitler, this is exactly the jus cogens I mentioned above, international law offenses that Eichmann was guilty for - it includes Piracy, Genocide and Crimes against Humanity. It doesn't include infringement of one's borders to arrest an individual, let alone a war criminal. So legality is not the issue. Amoruso 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt that we will be able to change each other's minds in this case, and my lack of expertise in this topic does not permit me to continue anyway. However, I believe that it might be best not to dwell on the minute legal details of the case, but rather on how to improve the article. Having taken another look at the text, I believe that the matter has already been adequately addressed as the initial protest of Argentina is listed as is the SC decision condemning Israel's actions. TSO1D 19:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion is indeed a waste of time, because Amoruso's claim to know something about international law is only a bluff. As I mentioned above, I surveyed the publications of the legal experts on this subject and found them essentially unanimous.  That is the end of the discussion unless someone finds an alternative expert or experts who argue differently. --Zerotalk 04:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not a waste of time but your personal attack above is. Refrain from spreading nonsense on discussion pages please. Amoruso 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If Hezbollah or Palestinians capture Israeli soldiers, it is a "kidnap" (see 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict). If Israelis capture a person abroad without a permit from that country, it is a "capture" (this article). If Israel captures Palestinians, it is an "arrest" (see for example Abdel Aziz Duwaik). I am sorry to say that way too many articles fail NPOV miserably. Remember that any moral issues should not affect wording.--JyriL talk 14:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with the articles you are using as examples, but I have some general knowlege that might help draw a distinction. When Hezbollah or Hamas factions captured Israeli soldiers, they did it with the apparent intention of using those captured as leverage of some sort. This leverage can be considered "ransom", so it may be appropriate to call this a kidnapping. Bounty and fugitive hunting is in a legal grey area, but it's clear that Eichmann's capture was not about leverage or ransom, but about bringing a fugitive to justice. Arrested usually refers to people detained by the state government within it's borders.
 * I'm not arguing that the treatment of captures is NPOV in other articles, please note -- I'm trying to paint out differences with Eichmann's capture. I do believe capture is more NPOV in this case, and we've got consensus on that here. For other articles it might be different. Cantankrus 15:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being unclear, I meant all these articles should only use the term "capture", and even in the case of "obvious wrongs" a neutral term must be used. What comes to kidnapping/arresting in Israel/Palestine region, one could well argue the reason why Israel conducts arrests is not much different from Hamas or Hizbollah (prisoner exchange). Besides, Gaza is not located within Israel. One can get very different picture of events just changing these words. That is why we should use neutral words whenever possible, and POV words such as kidnapping and arresting should be avoided (criminals kidnap, police arrests).--JyriL talk 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Without bluffing that I am well versed in law, International or otherwise, I have to express my opinion that the word "capture" is POV and that the word "abducted" is better suited. The word "abducted" is already being used within this section. Eichmann may have been captured as enemy, but Klement was definitely abducted as an Argentine resident. Moreover, If Eichmann was captured, then why a trial instead of a tribunal? The only way that I can agree with capturing Eichmann, is if he was abducted by Israelis in order to capture an enemy. --Rkm3612 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * International Law happens to be one of my area of expertise actually, but it's irrelevant here, I think capture is NPOV, it's a matter of NPOV terminology and it's open to anyone's opinion or knowledge of the intricacies of the english language actually. I think capture is more NPOV than abducted which is better used in articles about extra-terrestrial activities ? :) Amoruso 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Has anyone considered the word 'seized'? This verb simply mean to "take by force".  Capture has the connotation of "capturing an animal" or "capturing a fugitive".  Now, I don't know anything about internat'l law, but while Eichmann was certainly a war criminal, the fact that 1.) the person seized was actually Adolf Eichmann and 2.) that he had committed those crimes were not established as fact UNTIL the trial--wouldn't this make null and void the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?  I think "seized" is the most neutral. MiguelJoseErnst 2 February, 2007.

I did a quick survey of a large database of law journals (HeinOnLine), searching for articles with phrases like "capture of Eichmann" and "capture of Adolf Eichmann". Here are the results (counts of articles): abduction 56, kidnapping 31, capture 17, seizure 9, arrest 2. There is a clear preference for "abduction". Note that "capture" refers to grabbing hold of someone, but "abduction" in addition refers to carrying him away to another place. That makes "abduction" more accurate. I propose we use it. --Zerotalk 09:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

MiguelJoseErnst, From the article: "At the end of World War II, Eichmann was captured by the US Army, who did not know that this man who presented himself as "Otto Eckmann" was in fact a much bigger catch. Early in 1946, he escaped from US custody and hid in various parts of Germany for a few years. In 1948 he obtained a landing permit for Argentina, but did not use it immediately." There was never any doubt that Eichmann is guilty in the sense that he was a high ranked leading Nazi, the question is guilty of what exactly and what punishment he deserves. Since it already says U.S captured him, this word is fitting and accurate no doubt. The alleged search above by Zero0000 is not known at all for accuracy and is not relevant nor is it convincing (17-56 big deal), it's not a legal issue at all it's the most fitting word in english, and I think everyone has his opinions. This is the word neutral media uses a lot  it's the word used in most books  and even films  and it's already a word used widely in other wiki articles for eichmann. Since capture applies to rules of wikipedia for naming conventions then there's no reason to change it other than pov pushing which I hope nobody is engaging at. Pretty clear it should stay captured IMO. Abduct is clearly pov pushing even if non intentional as its definition is "To seize and detain (a person) unlawfully" it's basically another word for "kidnap" and should not be considered. I don't have any problem with 'Seize' but I don't see what purpose that change will serve. Cheers, Amoruso 00:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have time to log in properly as to the Wiki's protocols but I'll even leave my full name because I have no problem going on record. To be quite honest, I actually don't have a problem with the kidnapping/capture/etc, illegal or otherwise of Eichmann or any of the other other Nazis hiding out in cozy little South American cities in picturesque South American countries as if they were on vacation. I may not agree with everything Israel does as policy is concerned but I also refuse to attempt to use some kind of intellectual prowess to serve as apologists for the likes of Eichmann and others of that ilk. So if it was an illegal kidnapping by legal definition so what? It was also illegal to seize Jewish property but technicalities and policies and measures were put in place by the Nazis to do so anyway. There is a thing as "jailhouse justice" and no amount of semantics or "legalese" can change the history of crimes that were committed and whether you argue the use or mis-use of the term "Nazi" as I've read in some threads or whether or not certain officers were anti-semitic and to what degrees, I laugh out loud about the sheer audacity of those who equivocate to try to find some kind of so-called non-POV middle ground as if they were debating for a high school tournament. I mean there are threads where people are asking others to show proof of whether certain war criminals were anti-semitic!!! Again, LOL because does it really matter whether or not you go on record and say "I hate Jews" if you are actually demonstrating compliance with the Final Solution efforts???!!! That's like a Nazi officer saying, my best friend is a Jew!!! Yes, some of them did have Jewish friends but when Hitler and the regime began to enforce the racial purity policies the course was set no matter what. So it becomes a moot point whether some Nazi kinda liked or didn't mind Jewish people too much. It's a battle of semantics. If the program is put in place, as the Final Solution (forgot the German name for it. I suppose there will be Wiki members trying to deny it as well, or demanding a source!) was to systematically wipe out or destroy a race or ethnic group            or just plain folks they were pissed off with, the fact remains that these policies existed and people suffered because of them. So in conclusion, I reiterate, who cares if Eichmann's capture was technically or officially incorrect or can be debated until the cows come home? Let us not forget that Nazi war chests helped to fill the coffers of whatever country they were hiding out in so I'd spend less time worrying about the legality of trespass issues in regard to Nazis being caught. 71.217.22.202 05:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)La-Tonia Denise Willis PS. (This is my first Wiki post and I'll try to force myself to learn all the textbook rules but it's like those software EULA's that you skip by and install the software already!!!) Thanks for listening.

Desk murder
Does anyone know the german phrase which means "desk-murder" in English? It's used to describe people who did a "sign on the dotted line" thing that caused a murder. Mike.lifeguard 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I ask because Adolf Eichmann was the name attached to that term when I heard it, and it doesn't appear in the article, nor does it have its own article. Mike.lifeguard 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This would most likely appear to be a reference to the word Schreibtischtäter, from Schreibtisch = "desk" and Täter = "offender," "perpetrator," or "delinquent." --SKopp 13:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat. Although we don't tend to add killer to the end. Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Leon Uris' novel Exodus
I just started reading Leon Uris' famous historical novel Exodus and just came across this quote on p. 79, "The name of the great killer of them all came up over and over again: Eichmann, the German Palestinian who spoke fluent Hebrew and was the master of genocide."

Does anyone know where he got this from? All sources on Eichmann that I've seen indicate that he was born and raised in Germany. I know the term Palestinian sometimes refers (historically) to the Jews; was Eichmann part Jewish? It just seems odd that Uris would have gotten this wrong.

MiguelJoseErnst 2 February, 2007

A very similar account of Eichmann’s origins can be found in Frischauer's work Himmler (see Frischauer, W, Himmler, Odhams Press, London, 1953) and is based on the testimony of Dieter Wisliceny, one of Eichmann’s IV-B-4 representatives. Citing Wisliceny, Frischauer refers to Eichmann as a Palestine-born scholar of Jewish history - fluent in Hebrew - and claims that Eichmann made such an impression on Himmler that the latter personally appointed Eichmann to his position in the Gestapo. If we assume that Wisliceny’s testimony can be taken at face value, this would suggest that Eichmann was prone to exaggerating his own status in order to impress his subordinates. Of course, given that what we knew about Eichmann prior to his capture came from sources such as Wisliceny it is not too surprising that authors writing prior to 1960 based their accounts on rumour and hyperbole.

Jstonehouse 10:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's something that had been bugging me since I came across it in the novel. Many thanks for the explanation.

MiguelJoseErnst 16 February 2007


 * This is a good illustration of why novels can't be accepted as sources. The most dangerous genre is the "historical novel" like Exodus, which mixes fact and fantasy in a manner that cannot be disentangled.  Btw, Eichmann was not fluent in Hebrew either.  He did spend some time studying Judaism and probably picked up a few words of Hebrew along the way, but fluent he wasn't.  --Zerotalk 08:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A historian of my acquaintance says that Eichmann took lessons in Hebrew. "Fluent" would be too strong though.  This needs sources before going into the article, of course. --Zerotalk 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Eichmann - Promotion to full Colonel
The main article closes with the following:

"A footnote to Eichmann's SS career focuses on the point as to why he was never promoted to the rank of full SS-Colonel, known as Standartenführer. With Eichmann's record and responsibilities, he would have been a prime candidate for advancement, yet after 1941, his SS record contains no evidence that he was ever even recommended for another promotion. Many have speculated that Ernst Kaltenbrunner may have seen Eichmann as a dangerous man, rising through the SS ranks, and had curbed his SS career to prevent Eichmann from becoming too powerful."

This rather conspiratorial ending ignores the point that, as an enlisted man, Eichmann could never have risen higher than Lt Colonel. Also, the reference to Kaltenbrunner regarding Eichmann as a 'dangerous man' is pure speculation, and not one of the 'many' who allegedly support this view is cited in support of this allegation. The subtext of this ending suggests that Eichmann was an intimidating figure of major importance and reinforces his almost mythological status. Unfortunately, the mythology is not supported by the evidence, which tells us that Eichmann was a rather weak-willed academic failure who would have lived out his life as a salesman were it not for the emergence of a crackpot organisation such as the SS.

Jstonehouse 11:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VERY controversial... a reason I think has not been mentioned yet
While I am a firm believer of punishing people who are "found guilty beyond any questionable reason" to the fullest extent of the law, and while I think Eichmann got what he deserved in the end (MY SUBJECTIVE opinion), something about this has made me wonder, though: Eichmann's defence of saying he just followed orders. Let's take me as the defendant. Let's further assume I am in the US Military. And, finally (this may be critical, but I don't know) let's assume that we are in a state of war. If a senior officer tells me to kill someone, what am I supposed to do? Disobeying will certainly get me court-marshalled and maybe even executed quickly, especially in the context of war. But if I obeyed the order, if I "just followed orders", would the US "protect" me afterwards? I think they would. If I were a US soldier, I probably would come out of this a hero... . Food for thought.


 * Would the US military be ordering you to kill civilians in cold blood? If you are ordered to fight the enemy in battle, you are not a war criminal. If you are ordered to kill civilians, I don't believe you can use the "just following orders" defense. And someone who has worked on engineering the deaths of thousands and millions of people as Eichmann did, whether or not you followed orders is beside the point. (I realize pilots dropping bombs on civilian populations complicates things here, and I honestly don't have an answer for that). I think in times of war things happen, and atrocities take place, where soldiers are ordered to do dispicable things. However, in the case of the Nazis or other genocidal regimes, following orders should not offer an excuse. Yes, a German disobeying orders would face worse than a court-marshall, and never having been in the situation I will never know how I would act or what I would do. But there need to be limits on what we accept. I guess I'm saying you're hypothetical situation would not happen. The US military would not systematically murder millions of people. It may happen in smaller-scaled situations which would need to be dealt with, but it hasn't happened on the scale that it did in Nazi Germany. Freshacconci 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The situation you're describing is largely negated by the UCMJ in regards to following orders and court martial. US soldiers aren't held responsible to the international court of law, BUT they are held in strict accordance to the UCMJ. A soldier disobeying an order to kill civilians is actually expected. Now, have US soldiers murdered civilians on deployments and committed crimes? Of course, but the US has arguably the best track record of any country in prosecuting its own soldiers for criminal offenses (another reason why the military court system is separate from the civilian system). As far as US soldiers being executed for disobeying orders, that hasn't happened since WW2, and that instance was more in establishing an example than justice. Shadowrun 21:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is up the individual soldier to determine if the orders given to him are "lawful orders" - if they are lawful orders it is the soldier's duty to carry them out; if they are "unlawful orders" it is the soldier's duty to refuse to carry them out. This is a very tricky subject, especially as combat is fast, dirty, cloudy, and altogether uncertain. Either way, the subject's actions WILL be reviewed by the media, an investigation, and/or a court martial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.133.181.156 (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Otto or Karl / Karl Adolf or Adolf Karl
Can someone please make the names consistent of both Eichmann and his father? Eichmann himself is named Otto Adolf in the article, but Karl Adolf in the picture. His father's name has been changed from Adolf Karl to Karl Adolf, and I don't know right from wrong anymore. Er rab ee 15:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * His name was Otto Adolf Eichmann. There is almost unanimous agreement between good sources on that.  As to his father's name, both "Adolf Karl" and "Karl Adolf" can be found in good sources.  For example his trial report says "Adolf Karl" (see also the Israeli indictment and many other documents from the trial), but Hannah Arendt's book says "Karl Adolf".  I'm inclined to go with the trial report until a really good source (direct discussion on this point by a historian or clinching primary document) says it is wrong.  Personally I think that "Karl Adolf" is wrong but widespread because many people copied it from Arendt. --Zerotalk 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm changing his father's name to Adolf Karl Eichmann and providing a very good source. From Eichmann's police interrogation in Israel:  Interrogator: "Vielleicht gehen wir jetzt einen Moment zurueck, wie ist der Name Ihres Vaters?" Eichmann: "Mein Vater hiesst Adolf Karl Eichmann, meine Mutter: Maria Eichmann, geb. Schefferling." --Zerotalk 03:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But if his youngest brother was Otto? Could it be possible in Germany to have two children with same name in a family? --Ekeb 09:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

His placement in the organizational chart of the RSHA was so far down the chain of command, how is he consideredto have had any real weight. Several people higher up in the chart were never bothered - some were later in German government positions after the war. Other than a couple of not too reliable witnesses is there any reason to reach down into a organizational chart an pick this guy - a mid-level flnky at most.159.105.80.141 15:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are you even talking about? Shadowrun 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

prominent Nazis?!
In the paragraph "Capture", the word prominent in "dedicated themselves to finding Eichmann and other prominent Nazis" seems of complimentary sense, so changed to "notorious". ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子^.^tell me... 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

high-ranking?
In the first paragraph, the word high-ranking in "a high-ranking Nazi and SS Obersturmbannführer (equivalent to Lieutenant Colonel)" is not very exact, because SS Obersturmbannführer (equivalent to Lieutenant Colonel) isn't a high rank, however the position, Eichmann occupied, is the one of huge executive power. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子^.^tell me... 23:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Diplomatic issue
''For some time the Israeli government denied involvement in Eichmann's capture, claiming that he had been taken by Jewish volunteers who eagerly turned him over to government authorities. This claim was made due to the influence of anti-Semitic sectors in the Argentinian government and military.''

This sentence is quite preposterous. Anti-semitic government or not, if there was any reason for Israel to withhold its involvement in Eichmman's capture, it was the way in which the operation gave away with every international law possible. Even if Eichmann himself was the president of Argentina, his removal required a minimum of diplomatic work which was obviously ignored. By accepting that they had entered Argentinian territory with the intention of breaking the law, however favor they were doing to humanity, would have caused an international impasse that happened anyway, because nobody believed the volunteers story at the time.

The way the story is written, justify any future actions, by any country, to enter illegally into another to exercise justice without asking local authorities first. Imagine this, Spain sending agents to the US to kidnap Henry Kissinger for his involvement in Plan Condor. Not quite same case, but justified according to the views expressed in this article.

Gmlegal

=Capture= The 4th paragraph of chapter seems to be untrue: it doesn't fit in with the rest of the section and has what i believe to be inconsistencies within itself. Also it has no citations which may be further indication that it is untrue.

The capture section does have inconsistencies. Please refrence where Eichmann was supposedly asked for a cigarettes. I remember Maljin said "un moment senior" before he wrestled him in to the car (note Eichmann was not knocked out as mentioned in the article). This according Harel, I: "The House on Garibaldi Street", Viking Press, 1975

I think someone should change the article and incorporate the above facts. aliasfoxtrot 24:57, 23 November 2007

place of birth
I just want to say that Eichman was not born in Germany becouse sach a state didn't existe in 1906. I've changed the flag icon and the name of the place of birth to Prussia but someone didn't like it and changed it. I protest against writing such a rubbish. Someone uncompetent did it, i think.
 * Germany was unified in 1871. Freshacconci 19:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rudolph
in "Eichmann analysis" section it says his son Rudolph condemned his fathers actions. but in his children section there is no Rudolph. (00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

=CIA Inaction=

I am not sure this paragraph belongs to the article. I am not sure why a particular country is singled out for not having NAZI hunting policy at that time. Why is not this paragraph titled BND inaction, for example? I chose not to delete it myself, because A) I am anonymous, B) It is not inaccurate. I just think it is not right to single out just one particular country for not trying to capture him. Especially, I am not sure, whether US law could claim a jurisdiction over him. This paragraph sounds to me like an antiamericanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.184.9 (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

kidnapping, crimes and trials
eichmann was kidnapped and the act was condemed. the crimes, even if true, were not crimes under the german government. the trial of eichmann was not a trial at all. how could a man accused of such a thing get a fair trial in a place like israel? this whole thing just proves that the zionists (and i am not indicting the entire jewish world population) can do whatever they want with impunity. and they can do what they want because if you critisize them for it you are called a nazi. i saw a documentary on eichmann the other night and nowhere did they show photos or film footage of the gas chambers in action. no photos of otherwise healthy bodies. nothing but photos of the poor souls who died from the typhus epedemic that nobody can dispute occurred. but this man was hanged with no physical evidence of him ever murdering anyone. i hope the zionists sleep well at night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.61.254 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo
Which photo is better for the lead: Which photo is better for the lead: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Eichmann 001.jpg
 * Image:Eichmann.jpg
 * The freely licenced one. Wily D 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A photo from a website, that says it got it from a government website does not mean it is free from copyright encumbrances. For the photo to be public domain, it would have to be TAKEN by a US government employee, not just appear on a government website. The photo was taken in Germany in 1933 and those photos are still copyrighted under the Berne Convention in Germany and in the USA, where Wikipedia is hosted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible it's not PD - but in many cases where the American Government receives ownership of the copyright, they PD the materials, it's not unusual - or various other circumstances. If the image currently believed to PD is not, we should switch to this image, which seems to be.  Wily D  17:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your engaging in original research in rationalizing the photo's status. While the trial photo may be PD, it depends if a newsreel company took it, or is a US government camera took it. Either way, fair use images are fine, one is not a substitute for the others, all are from different times, and there is no rule allowing only one image per article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Transparently I've not engaged in any original research - if you believe the photo tagging of the image from the American National Archives is an error, I'll happily delete the photo as a copyvio myself. If you're unfamiliar with our rules on nonfree content, see WP:NFC.  One million free images are acceptable in an article (apart from size restrictions), but we cannot use unfree images when we have access to free images that serve the same purpose.   Wily D  18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically, if the photo was taken by a German military photographer, and seized by the American Government after the war, it may have been excluded from copyright restoration pursuant to the Uraguary talkes, per http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000104---A000-.html#a_2 - I'm not sure if anyone around here knows much, but I'll post the American National Archives photo to a review place or another/ Wily D 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you are imaginatively creating a provenance for the photo. Either way, having one image does not negate the use of the other, they are not equivalent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In this context, it does. See our policy on unfree media. Wily D  19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)"
 * Please stop pointing me to web pages, it serves no purpose. Its like telling me "Its in the bible, go read the bible". If you have a specific quote from the rulebook type it here. My best guess is the you think the two images are equivalent under the "No free equivalent." rule. I argue that they are not, they are from different times and represent different aspects of their careers, at different times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

- criterion #1 for acceptable use of unfree media, WP:NFC . Wily D
 * Exactly my point! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That argument has been made and rejected more times than I could count. We could run it through an IfD if you like, but I'm not sure there's much point in applying a club to a horse's skeleton. Wily D  20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The casual picture has a rationale that does not state the purpose of the image. If it is merely to identify the subject, then the free image already does that. If it exists for some other purpose, we would need to show how the non-free photo does this where the free photo does not. As the subject is already identified by a free image, the non-free image would have to serve some additional purpose, which is not currently specified. As a result, I don't believe the non-free image can remain, and have to agree in full with WilyD. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What free image are you talking about? There is no free image displayed that is equivalent to either of the two fair use images. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You do a good job in rationalizing your behavior, but no one else has made the case here, and here is all that matters. No other case can determine if these two images are equivalent. So, I haven't a clue what you are referring to. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the Library of Congress have a PD photo of Eichmann? If not, it seems to me that neither of the other images is free and that the casual picture is of higher quality. I am not sure which you would prefer to use, but either can be claimed as fair use for a dead person. What specific issue are you debating? Are you trying to use both photos? Trying to justify Fair use of either? I am a bit lost in the debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I had both photos displayed, but the one I added keeps getting deleted. Both are fair use, and I removed both from display until this is settled here. One is from 1933 and one is from 1941 to 1944 where he is dressed as a physician. I don't see why both can't be here, since they are not "equivalent", and each represents different times and places. The only possibly public domain comes from a newsreel. However, the article on Einstein has 6 images of him. I know of no rule that says only one image per article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Eichmann.jpg is, by all appearances, a public domain image of the subject, while Image:Eichmann 001.jpg is a fair use image, for which the rationale does not specify this article or the image's purpose in this article. Previously, an image was used in the infobox to identify the subject. The argument here is which image should be used for that purpose, and I have seen nothing that would show that the non-free image serves a purpose that the free image does not, which means that we have to use the free image. The same goes for using both; if the non-free image just identifies the subject, then we can't use it under fair use because that purpose is already served by an existing free image (replaceability). The quality does not enter into the equation. Whatever the concerns about using the non-free image, there is no argument or evidence to indicate that we cannot use the free image. As a result, I'm re-adding that image to the article, since there needs to be something there. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that Image:Eichmann.jpg is public domain. What evidence do you have? Taking an image with a drop shadow from a website that says it took it from a government website does not give it PD status. To be PD it would have to be published prior to 1923, or be taken by a US government employee on official duty. I dont think we were in Germany in 1933 taking ID photos of Nazis. Do you think it was taken by a US diplomat in Berlin? Its all speculation and invented provenance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many more ways for photos to enter the public domain - in 1933, Photos became public domain 10 years after publication in Germany - the U.S. seized a lot of these after the war, and in the Uraguay agreements, didn't restore copyrights that went to governments, for instance. If it was an official military photograph taken in Germany for the German government (for instance) it'd be PD-US (though not in Germany, unless the photographer kicked it some fast after the shot).  Wily D  21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to come in on this issue. Ok, I did some searching and I do not know how NARA was able to give that digital photograph. I could not find much about Eichmann online from government sources, except for his trial in Israel. However, NARA documents are public domain by virtue of this note. If the photo was copyrighted, they would have made a note of it or not. However, I do not know if they conveyed this to the university or not, or the university is evoking fair use. However, according to PD, we cannot tag either image as public domain, so we have to fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you are relying on an invented provenance to prove your claim. But, I will add back the second image, since your argument then covers my image also. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a public domain one in the article on de.wiki, from his trial, which comes from the newsreel from the US government, it seems. So we can snag that one if we don't believe the other is actually PD. Wily D  00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This photo and this photo is also public domain. While not the best, I will still look. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems we have some viable PD images and I am not convinced anyone has exhausted the Library of Congress option, which I think would likely have a PD image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But if it is from WW2, we cannot use it under public domain, according to the links I gave. I am sure the LoC and NARA has photos, probably just not online or we are not looking in the first place. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a decent photo from the library of Congress. Grandia01 has claimed the one currently displayed is public domain, though his talkpage is littered with deleted image tags, so I'm not sure how much I trust that. His image is preferable, but we need to be certain it's usable. AniMate 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The link is dead. The main question is the following: is the photo taken during the War by the German Government? If so, we cannot use it under a public domain claim. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Stupid link. The link is a picture of Eichmann at trial in Israel. If you search for at the LOC you'll find a picture entitled "Adolf Eichmann, half-length portrait, seated, facing front, on trial in courtroom, Jerusalem." So, no, it's not a picture fro the German government. The only restriction the LOC has placed on it is this: "Restricted: Publication restricted until Dec. 1995."  AniMate  12:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The permanent URL is at . I suggest looking at this page and see what that restriction is. Due to the date of creation, we have to assume copyright until we find different. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing quote that the trial was illegal
There is an obvious missing paragraph stating that the trial was illegal and that the Israelians that judged him and killed him went impune for their crimes. Please, we know that he was a monster, but it is a fact that the trial was illegal, and there is nothing wrong with saying the truth. See Bush, he's still alive :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.5.94 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Surveilling"
In the section on Eichmann's capture, I've changed "After surveilling Eichmann for an extensive period of time" to "After observing Eichmann for an extensive period of time"; the Online Etymology Dictionary describes this usage as "a hideous back-formation [...] coined in 1960 in US government jargon" and adds an exhortation to "Pray that it dies". Opera hat (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Correspondence the Blind man Lothar Hermann  S W Multimedia Learning Center

Special Collection 8 Die Ergreifung Eichmanns  Doc.32-33 Lothar Hermann attacks Israel Letter dat.2.6.1971

Gurion Mossad attacks  Tuviah Friedman ( Wikipedia )

Isser Harel attacks Tuviah Friedman by DREW PEARSON 1961 Juni Washington

Mossad work BND - CIA 1955

Artur Asher Ben Natan ( Israel ) help -- Nazi Killer SS Walter Rauff

David Ben Gurion - Kollaborateur Nazi

Story Tuviah Friedman absolutely correct

Germany Fritz Bauer 24.12.1959  said Eichmann  KUWAIT   Pressarchiv

__-- The Blind Man Lothar Hermann geb.11.11.1901 report 1957 Eichmann alias Francisco Schmidt

Wiesenthal - Mafia Organisation Gangster ( Bruno Kreisky Gentleman ) H.Sch... Germany

"When Eichmann reached in his pocket he was set upon by the two by the car." I had to read this 3 times to figure out what it meant. 66.234.43.147 (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian baroness?
As silly as this might sound, I've just watched the movie Eichmann and in it he had an affair with a Hungarian baroness who was portrayed as a blood-thirsty psychopath who encouraged him to kill more people. Did this person exist in real life? I cannot see any mention of her in this article.Captain Fearnought (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen that movie too. I know of no such person in Eichmann's life, but I am far from an expert on his life.  I will look it up.  If the film-makers invented her, it was shockingly irresponsible of them to do so.  Given the generally reasonable level of veracity of the rest of the movie, I would be surprised to learn that she was entirely invented, but on the other hand I imagine that if she had a real-life model, the reality was less sensational.  Lexo (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Woudnt kidnapped be a better word than captured? Captured implies that it was a legal act.

doris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr doris (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem that way to me. Under what legal authority did Israel kidnap/capture him and try him in Israel?  He committed no crimes in Israel, which didn't even exist when he was murdering people.  Note that I am not arguing he was not a murderer and should not have been executed -- I just wonder what authority Israel had for doing so.  It seems they have used the old power of "might makes right" in this case. CsikosLo (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that kidnapping (that one person takes and carries another away; by force or fraud; without the consent of the person taken; and without lawful excuse) would apply here. I recently tried to change this word but was reverted under the reason (This has been discussed; apprehend is the neutral term). 1- The only 'discussion' that I see here is the previous statement and I don't see any argument explaining why 'apprehended' would be representative here. Futhermore, all examples of apprehension/arrest in both Wikipedia itself and any dictionary that I could put my hand on imply quite clearly that an 'apprehension/arrest' is done under legal authority. Even a 'wrong' apprehension is called 'unlawful arrest' because it was done by peoples who legally represented the law, even if the event itself was done in violation is other rules/laws. Therefore I will make the change from 'apprehended' to 'kidnapped'. Please do not revert it back without explaining why. If worst come to worst we could instead switch it to 'captured' like how this even is described in the 'Mossad' article but it would need instead to be 'illegaly captured'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.158.243 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion is here in the archive. The consensus was for "capture" not kidnapped (nor "apprehend", my mistake).  freshacconci  talk talk  19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)