Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 3

Infobox image size
I believe that the aspect ratio of the infobox image in this article is such that presented at the infobox's default value it is too large, the visual equivalent of SHOUTING. I suggest that the current size is more appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this the argument that pictures of Nazis should be shrunk?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what it says, that if a size parameter is not provided, the infobox image at the default size is the visual equivalent of SHOUTING; it overwhelms the page, therefore a size parameter is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear that you answered my question.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see by the discussion here that this is so. There is further discussion at AN/I, / I could see your point were Speer in uniform in a posed shot, bursting out of the frame with swastikas and iron crosses rampant. But the infobox image is just a young man in a suit. I do not see that it glorifies Naziism to go with the standard image formatting. So as a general rule, we should not be doing this, and there is nothing in the specific picture of Speer that would cause us to shrink it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I find 's comment, here, to be very apt, "The logical extension of what you are suggesting is that we should have a really small thumbnail of Adolf Hitler in his article, but a really big photo of Nelson Mandela in his."--Wehwalt (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How this image size glorifies Nazism is beyond me. He isn't even wearing a uniform or any Nazi symbols. It is just a guy in a suit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nazism is not simply and not only uniforms and symbols. Besides, in the case of Speer just a guy in a suit very nicely expresses how Speer liked to see himself and reinforces his strategy of downplaying his own role.--Assayer (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not mentioned "glorifying Nazis" in this discussion. I have simply said that the image is too large for the page, and is the visual equivalent of SHOUTING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User preferences are sufficient to control image size. You did start identical discussions on 24 or so pages on the Nazi topic, some within seconds of another, so possibly actions speak louder than words.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of xourse, I did, how is that relevant? I started discussions on article talk pages about an issue specific to that article. There's no policy that says the solution to a problem must be one size fits all -- there may be a different consensus for each article/.  BTW, the general rule of the is that the artilc eremains in the status quo ante;; while discussion is going on, and the status quo ante'' had the image sized, not at the default. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've addressed that above. Please stop edit warring across various articles to get your way.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the difference is pretty minimal. Sorry, BMK, but I don't see much shouting in this one. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Have you looked at others? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I find that hard to say. I just looked at Georg Strasser. I don't see a big difference there either (I'm now looking at my laptop, not my desktop like earlier today). I like your version and the sizing fine, and I don't quite understand this rationale: user preferences don't change picture size relative to text size, do they? And Wehwalt, the two are three I looked at don't show "real" edit warring yet--I see BMK reverting, but what applies to the one applies to the other as well, at least for now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This particular issue hasn't arisen before to my knowledge, and it seems a little odd to me. I think this has the potential to become disruptive if it is going on with dozens of articles, as Wehwalt has noted. I think the suggestion of some centralised discussion about it is a good one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Armaments miracle
There is a dispute over the third paragraph of the lead, so I have removed it. It is unacceptable to proclaim this miracle in Wikipedia's voice if RS state it is a myth (this is the lead section of a Featured Article). It is equally unacceptable not to debunk the myth, if RS have done so.

Miracle:"In February 1942, Hitler appointed Speer Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production. He was fêted at the time, and long afterwards, for performing an "armaments miracle" in which German war production dramatically increased; this "miracle" contunued until late 1944, with production consistently increasing every year until that time. This despite sustained Allied bombing"

No miracle:"In February 1942, Hitler appointed Speer Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production. He was fêted at the time, and long afterwards, for performing an "armaments miracle" in which German war production dramatically increased; this "miracle", however, was brought to a halt by the summer of 1943 by, among other factors, the first sustained Allied bombing of 1943."


 * zzz (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest trying to lay out the dispute for the reader and let them decide for themselves, with a mention of same in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The history of German economics during WW II is a complicated and debated issue. Many accounts rely upon de:Rolf Wagenführ's figures of industrial production and mobilization. Wagenführ was Albert Speer's chief statistician and published Die deutsche Industrie im Kriege 1939-1945 (written in early 1945, published 1954; 2nd ed., 1963). Adam Tooze has reexamined the data and Wagenführ's figures in particular (No Room for Miracles. German Industrial Output in World War II Reassessed. In: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 31, (2005), Nr. 3, pp. 439-464. ISSN 0340-613X) The abstract of that article is easily accessible, so I do not need to go into details here. His argument, that Allied bombings had an impact on German economy and armaments production as early as 1943 is, to my knowledge, supported by other researchers. Jonas Scherner, for example, underlined Tooze's findings, when he edited the „Bericht zur deutschen Wirtschaftslage 1943/44“ for the German Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 55 (2007), pp. 499-546, here p. 507. This report was part of the evidence of the Nuremburg trial, but since then four alternate versions have been found in the archives. Thus the version Scherner edited provided new information. Overy's book on the German war economy  was published in 1994 and reprinted in 2002. His work is therefore somewhat dated and has been explicitly criticized by Tooze. It might be feasible to outline the discussion in the article, but the results of the more recent research are not to be removed altogether.--Assayer (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC) P.S. I might add that this edit is not supported by the source given. On p. 343 Overy (2002 repr. ed.) talks about rational production in Britain and the US. --Assayer (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks for explaining, Assayer. I would be in favour of restoring your version, assuming no one is aware of a source disputing Tooze's findings. zzz (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The history of German economics during WW II is a complicated and debated issue. Many accounts rely upon de:Rolf Wagenführ's figures of industrial production and mobilization. Wagenführ was Albert Speer's chief statistician and published Die deutsche Industrie im Kriege 1939-1945 (written in early 1945, published 1954; 2nd ed., 1963). Adam Tooze has reexamined the data and Wagenführ's figures in particular (No Room for Miracles. German Industrial Output in World War II Reassessed. In: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 31, (2005), Nr. 3, pp. 439-464. ISSN 0340-613X) The abstract of that article is easily accessible, so I do not need to go into details here. His argument, that Allied bombings had an impact on German economy and armaments production as early as 1943 is, to my knowledge, supported by other researchers. Jonas Scherner, for example, underlined Tooze's findings, when he edited the „Bericht zur deutschen Wirtschaftslage 1943/44“ for the German Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 55 (2007), pp. 499-546, here p. 507. This report was part of the evidence of the Nuremburg trial, but since then four alternate versions have been found in the archives. Thus the version Scherner edited provided new information. Overy's book on the German war economy  was published in 1994 and reprinted in 2002. His work is therefore somewhat dated and has been explicitly criticized by Tooze. It might be feasible to outline the discussion in the article, but the results of the more recent research are not to be removed altogether.--Assayer (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC) P.S. I might add that this edit is not supported by the source given. On p. 343 Overy (2002 repr. ed.) talks about rational production in Britain and the US. --Assayer (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks for explaining, Assayer. I would be in favour of restoring your version, assuming no one is aware of a source disputing Tooze's findings. zzz (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A quick review of any wartime production statistics shows that production in 1944 was significantly higher than 1943, which contradicts the claim that strategic bombing reduced German industry from 1943 onward. The wikipedia article on German production cites several reliable references to back this up.

In addition, US forces stopped daylight bombing raids from October 1943 until February 1944 because losses were so high. They then turned to bombing oil production with P-51 escorted raids, which was wildly successful.

And most importantly, General Doolittle, the head of the 8th Airforce admitted that production continued to surge, and that strategic bombing continued as a way to draw German aircraft into the air and destroy them in a battle of attrition. He also stated that thanks to cracking the Enigma, they discovered that the Germans were vulnerable to oil deprivation, which became the most important target after they discovered that attacking industry was essentially completely ineffective.

There is no evidence to support the claims that strategic bombing was anything but a failure until 1944, with the arrival of the Mustang, and the crippling of German oil supplies.

DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems fairly straightforward: research shows that the miracle is a myth, and this should be clearly stated. If there is no reliable source disputing the findings, in the 10+ years since publication, then I don't know what else there is to discuss. I suppose someone could start an RFC if necessary. zzz (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As I JUST SAID, both statistics AND Allied Commanders both agreed that German production SOARED despite strategic bombing. You didnt even read what I just said.


 * If you cant put the effort in to even read what I wrote, you are in no position to be judging what is proven or not. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Both official wartime production statistics and General Doolittle are primary sources and thus prima facie unreliable sources. I have referred to the report „Bericht zur deutschen Wirtschaftslage 1943/44“ by Speer's ministry and its various versions dating from February to July 1944. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey used the first version, Wagenführ the last one. Burton H. Klein from the USSBS used both versions. Jonas Scherner edited another draft version which, according to him, presented facts hitherto unknown. He explicitly notes that the official version of the report glossed over the effects of the Allied bombing raids, most likely not to demoralize the prospective readers. (p. 504) Wikipedia relies on third party sources, i.e. historians like Scherner, to deal with primary sources. --Assayer (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Nobody is "glossing over" the effects of bombing raids and pretending production continued when it did not. They numbers are official numbers that were produced DESPITE being bombed.


 * Not only that, your claim that the other articles are not properly sourced is blatantly dishonest. They do not use primary sources at all, and are all properly referenced. One single source does not override dozens of others that use official numbers.


 * You also do not get to pick and choose which official numbers are acceptable or not. Your opinion on the matter does not override references simply because you feel like it.


 * Refrain from making any further changes or else you will be reported DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, I consider your remarks, particularly your first and your last sentence, to be uncivil and strongly suggest that you remove them. Secondly, I do not think that you competely understood my argument. I did not comment on other Wikipedia articles, but on the United States Strategic Bombing Survey,The Effects of Strategic Bombing on the German War Economy, Overall Economic Effects Division, October 31, 1945, vol 1, New York 1976, Rolf Wagenführ's Die deutsche Industrie im Kriege 1939–1945, Berlin 1954, and Burton H. Klein's Germany’s Economic Preparations for War, Cambridge/M. 1959. All these publications are based upon primary sources. Official wartime production statistics are primary sources. As I said, Jonas Scherner edited a major primary source, a draft version of  Bericht zur deutschen Wirtschaftslage 1943/44 himself and commented on it. His work is accessible online, so anyone interested may have a look.(PDF)--Assayer (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I removed personal attacks above. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * For the third time, you are completely ignoring everything I am saying and responding to an argument nobody has even made.


 * I am not quoting primary sources BUT THE ARTICLES ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS WHICH PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SOURCES. Your entire argument relies on ignoring dozens of Wikipedia pages with hundreds of sources.


 * Your single source that disagrees with almost every other source on the subject is not sufficient to disprove countless sources on numerous pages on the subject of war production. Your source makes claims which none of the data supports, and provides no data to back up its claims. It lacks any actual production numbers or reliable sources to back up its claims about production. I cannot find a single source on production numbers which shows a reduction of production during the timeframe your source claims production fell.


 * We cannot ignore pages apon pages of sources because you have one source that does not have any sort of reliable information to back it up.


 * Lastly, if you do not wish for others to discuss your behavior, please avoid behaving in such a way. Misquoting and misrepresenting members or references is against Wikipedia guidelines.DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I made the argument, referring to Adam Tooze in particular, that Allied bombings had an impact on German economy and armaments production as early as 1943. By that I countered claims that Speer performed an "armaments miracle" until late 1944 and that There is no evidence to support the claims that strategic bombing was anything but a failure until 1944.
 * But since you do not believe me, let's hear Phillips Payson O'Brien doing a review of the literature: Only a few surveys tend to say anything positive about strategic bombing in 1943; these include Weinberg, and Murray and Millett. There is one book that takes a different line from almost any other, and that is Adam Tooze's "The Wages of Destruction". In this book Tooze argues that the British area bombing of Germany in 1943, which is almost always seen as failure by those with a detailed knowledge of the air war, did real damage to German production. (How the War was Won, Cambridge UP 2015, p. 9)
 * What is Tooze's line of argument? Let's hear it from Keith Hartley: The strategic bombing of Germany in the Second World War. An economic perspective. In: Derek L. Braddon & Keith Hartley (ed.): Handbook on the Economics of Conflict. (Cheltenham, 2011):
 * However, the US Strategic Bombing Survey had its limitations: it failed to consider the counterfactual and it failed to allow for 'other influences' in increasing arms production. These 'other influences' included increasing German mobilization reflecting the need for greater arms production, especially following defeats of the German Army (Moscow, North Africa, Stalingrad); and the increased hours worked by the German labour force and the use of additional labour from the Occupied Territories and prisoners of war (under harsh regimes to maintain productivity). Assessments of the economic effects of strategic bombing cannot ignore the counterfactual: what would have happened to German output and its military forces without such bombing? (p. 468)
 * Tooze himself wrote: Reading contemporary sources, there can be no doubt that the battle of the Ruhr marked a turning point in the history of the German war economy, which has been grossly underestimated by post-war accounts. [...] In the Summer of 1943, the disruption in the Ruhr manifested itself across the German economy in a so-called 'Zulieferungskrise' (sub-components crisis). All manner of parts, castings and forging were suddenly in short supply. And this affected not only heavy industry directly, but the entire armaments complex. Most significantly, shortage of key components brought the rapid increase in Luftwaffe production to an abrupt halt. Between July 1943 and March 1944 there was no further increase in the monthly output of aircraft. For the armaments effort as a whole, the period of stagnation lasted throughout the second half of 1943. As Speer himself acknowledged, Allied bombing had negated all plans for a further increase in production. Bomber Command had stopped Speer's armaments miracle in its tracks. (The Wages of Destruction, 2006, p. 598)
 * Williamson Murray says of the Battle of the Ruhr: These attacks came perilously close to breaking the Reichs's war economy, particularly by damaging the German ability to transport coal to the rest of the economy. He then proceeds: As the foremost economic historian of the Reich, Adam Tooze has noted and so forth. (A Whale Against an Elephant, In: James Lacey (ed), Great Strategic Rivalries, Oxford UP 2016, p. 411f.)
 * G.C. Peden, Arms, Economics and British Strategy (Cambridge UP 2007) puts it: The fact that German production of strategic goods such as steel, petroleum and synthetic rubber, and also aircraft, rose in 1943 might suggest that Germany was not much weakened by the strategic air war offensive in that year, but increased output was possible because the German economy had had spare capacity earlier and production would have been even greater in the absence of bombing. (p. 221)
 * That's only a selection of what has been written in English.--Assayer (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That is an Opinion. A quick look at the production numbers of ANY source shows that production SOARED until 1945 and that bombing did not have any effect. As I have repeatedly stated. Do you or do you not have numbers that disagree with EVERY SOURCE AVAILABLE? Show at least one source of production numbers where they did not increase. You cant. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of Nazi Germany's war production took place in the Occupied Countries, which the Allies (or the RAF at least) did not bomb for fear of hitting friendly civilians. In addition, the Germans had reserve stocks of materiel which served to 'tide them over' while supplies were disrupted.


 * BTW, in 1940-41 the British had undergone what was at the time the heaviest bombing offensive in history, and they thereafter knew damn-well what disrupted industrial production, and what didn't. Presumably after 1942 the Germans knew too, as they started to build underground production complexes such as Mittelwerk.


 * Perhaps the USSBS should have asked themselves why the Nazis went to such considerable time and trouble to construct such places if the bombing was having such little effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Other surviving works?
The architectural legacy section lists only a few remaining works survive. However, there could be others not mentioned.

The 'Trafostation' or 'Transformatorenstation' on Regensburger Straße, Nuremberg may have been built by Speer. This site claims it was based on his plans, but the source may not count as a 'reliable source' so I have not added it. It was built to power the rally grounds but it exists today as restaurant. Is there a more reliable source that states this?

Also, I read from another site of a building designed by him that still exists. But again, the source may not be reliable:

"A model community called Mascherode for 6000 workers of the Deutsche Arbeits Front (DAF) was built in the southern part of Braunschweig from 1936-39. The complex included housing units, shops, medical offices, schools, sport fields, and a huge community center building designed by architect Albert Speer, all arranged around a central square named for Dr. Robert Ley. Most of the buildings retain their period exterior appearance today."

Zayer265 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Additions to lede
Regarding this content, these do not accurately state what Speer said. There is no consensus to add them and that or similar content has been reverted multiple times for good reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is my error. My intent was to restore the status quo version of the lede, and I didn't notice the additional edit between Diannaa's restoration and your revert.  I've fixed that now, and I understand now why you called that version the consensus version, as indeed it is.  I offer my apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is about time, however, to incorporate the findings of more recent scholarship into the lede/article. A sentence like: Following his release in 1966, Speer published two bestselling autobiographical works, Inside the Third Reich and Spandau: The Secret Diaries, detailing his close personal relationship with Hitler, and providing readers and historians with a unique perspective on the workings of the Nazi regime. is outright distorting, because the "unique perspective" is actually a highly unreliable one. I may quote from Paul Jaskot's review of the recent Speer-biography by Martin Kitchen: Speer never did come to terms with his own criminal activity, either as an architect or a minister, and this heavily marked his writings after he was released from prison. In these works, he played the role of the “good Nazi,” particularly appealing to certain conservative segments of the Federal Republic in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, as Kitchen emphasizes, “throughout his life, Speer was a consummate role player” (p. 287). Recent German scholarship, notably Magnus Brechtken's biography of 912 pages, strongly reinforces that critical approach. This article is a FA since 2008, but at some point it should rely on more recent scholarship, if it is supposed to still meet the criteria.--Assayer (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. He literally admitted to full responsibility and indirect responsibility for the actions of others while he was on the stand in Nuremberg. It seems like many of the sources being quoted in this talk section are based on fantasy and completely ignore even the most easily verifiable facts. There are transcripts that state he took full responsibility while on the stand. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite correct. His testimony was very nuanced.  He admitted to moral responsibility in connection with his position in the regime, without taking actual personal responsibility for any specific acts.  Although he qualified this somewhat after getting pout of jail, he never did publicly admit to his own actual responsibility, and the evidence that he was culpable didn't become public knowledge until after his death. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Another recent book on Speer, based on a Ph.D. thesis, is Albert Speer. Aufstieg und Fall eines Mythos by Wolfgang Schroeter (2019) (link to publisher) It deals explictly with the Speer-myth that Speer created by himself with his autobiographical works.--Assayer (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead and provide this evidence. You keep quoting this and showing absolutely none of the proof. The production numbers agree with his claims that production soared. They absolutely do not agree with any of the claims being made here. You need to provide sources THAT DO NOT RELY ON OPINIONS. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph
Should this stay in the first paragraph?

"As "the Nazi who said sorry", he accepted moral responsibility at the Nuremberg trials and in his memoirs for complicity in crimes of the Nazi regime, while insisting he had been ignorant of the Holocaust."

Can the discussion of Nuremberg all be in one paragraph (whether the first or the third)? I found it confusing that the first paragraph discusses his apology but his conviction is discussed in a separate (third) paragraph.Zaki Naggar (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If you found it confusing its because certain members are convinced of a conspiracy and keep modifying information to push that idea. They need to source this information. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 edit
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "rewriting with third-party sources". --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I see that, could you not have found sources, say contemporary newspapers, that keep the level of detail? The reader now has less information at his disposal. There is no reason to doubt that Speer accurately put the date the he and the others were transferred.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The date is important in this case because the reader may want to know if he actually spent 20 years at Spandau He didn't. It was a bit over 19, with the remainder of his sentence spent at Nuremberg. Your edit fudges that point.--09:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I addressed the concern about the date of transfer by citing van der Vat:
 * On October 1, 1946, Speer was given a sentence of twenty years in prison, and on July 18, 1947, was transferred to Spandau Prison in Berlin to serve it.


 * I made further rewrites with third-party sources. Here's the diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * More edits which I'm preserving by providing this link; my rationale was: "c/e section name -- not part of legacy, nor controversy; undue commentary by Speer and / or OR". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC) I further streamlined one of the sub-sections, as the punchline ("In 2007, The Guardian reported...") was being lost in extraneous detail: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts
I'm not sure I agree with this edit summary: "Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed". Not really, no. WP:RS says sources should be reliable, independent and secondary. Speer's own writings are not independent, not secondary, and in several important respects not reliable. It's a matter of Wikipedia practice that disputed content should be supported by independent sources, or that self-serving content is excluded altogether. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY provides a more nuanced and less absolute position than you are advocating.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me be more direct then. Speer's writings are a WP:FRINGE source and are not suitable for a substantial portion of content in an FA article. Further, there's no current controversy about Speer's role in the Holocaust. The controversy perhaps existed while Speer was still alive, but not at this time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:FRINGE can be read to say that in a biographical article, the subject's views about himself, clearly labeled as such, should be excluded.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Fest & more
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "reducing Speer's POV, and also Fest; c/e section names; intricate detail, ext links & non-RS". --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Further edits; pls see diff. I reduced Fest some more, including the anecdotes that Kitchen treats with scepticism or debunks, such as the circumstances of the final visit to Hitler, Speer's countermanding of the Nero Decree, and submarine production being "reduced from one year to two months". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop misquoting sources
Certain members have been quoting the book "Speer: Hitler's Architect By Martin Kitchen" as proof of some conspiracy, but not listed pages or proof from the book. After reading the book I have found that it says almost none of the things being claimed in this article. In fact, it portrays Speer as someone who routinely fought with other leaders in order to protect slaves and to avoid killings.

Unless someone can provide actual sources I will remove these claims. Provide actual page numbers and details. Just naming the book is not acceptable.

DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Kitchen uses the exact words "By the time that Sereny and Fest had published their biographies of Speer, in 1995 and 1999 respectively, historians had provided ample evidence that Speer had lied through his teeth". It is on p.361. Maybe it would be better to attribute that statement to him rather than deleting it altogether as you have done.
 * Kitchen uses the words "It was not until the journalist Heinrich Breloer presented his biographical film on TV in 2004 that the process of public demystification began." I don't really understand why you've added the "examples" tag because the reference uses the word "demystification" and discusses the topic.


 * You added a "who" inline tag after the statement the myth has been discussed at length by historians. The section uses Kitchen, Schmidt and Tooze so that can be attributed to them too.


 * You added an "example needed" tag after the statement Speer lied to Fest. It needs a reference to Kitchen for page 360. He uses these exact words "Fest failed to mention Schmidt’s startling revelations in his biography of Speer published in 1999, in his notebook he wrote that while Schmidt’s book was ‘prejudiced,’ the evidence he produced was ‘considerable’. It showed that Speer had kept secrets from him and Siedler."


 * As the content I added was a first "draft" I really have no problem with additions, deletions or changes. However I'm not convinced your tags and deletions are improving matters. Szzuk (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have copied this discussion to the Featured article review. I will reply there. Szzuk (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Quoting sources that novelize history or CLAIM THEY CAN MIND READ are not acceptable. Please refrain from repeatedly quoting them. These are not reliable historic sources.

The book about Speer by Kitchen repeatedly claims to be able to disprove facts by claiming to be able to read speers mind, or makes other nonsensical accusations without any hard evidence.

This is not a reliable source and does not meet wikipedia standards. This has been stated repeatedly and yet members continue to try and force this information into the article.

This is unprofessional behavior and needs to stop. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Picture in denial section
An IP editor has added a picture of the yard at Mauthausen with lots of soon to be killed people. I'm undecided about whether to keep it or replace it with the older picture, which was an empty gas chamber at Mauhausen. I'll leave the added picture in lieu of being undecided. I also referenced the photo of him taken while he was there. Szzuk (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Nazi Party appointments
Because Speer got away with it, it might be worth having a section about his NSDAP ranks and when he got them. For example there is no mention he was a Befehlsleiter and a Reichsleiter (according to this CIA document. 81.141.32.6 (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

On Speer progagandizing an armament miracle
The section on Speer creating an illusion of successful arament by the use of propaganda seems a bit implausible and tendentious. It seems to be supported by a single writer - Tooze - which is likely not representative of consensus. It is likely a legitimate view to put forward, but should perhaps not be presented as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.152.193 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This page needs a major reworking
As the above comments point out, this page is placing undue weight on the idea of the "Speer Myth". Certainly it is worth discussing, but this page is presenting a lot of speculation about Speer's motives and private opinions as fact, such as the claim that he wanted to take over the entire army (a dubious assertion) or that he lied about plotting an assassination attempt against Hitler near the end of the war (only Speer himself would know if this was true or not, so to claim matter of factly that he lied about it is disingenuous). The page gives too much emphasis on Kitchen and Tooze, who - as the person above noted - do not represent the concensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:5D81:E200:8967:7B9B:D10B:BA95 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Conjecture in the "Release and Later Life"
The sentence "Importantly, he provided an alibi to older Germans who had been Nazis. If Speer, who had been so close to Hitler, had not known the full extent of the crimes of the Nazi regime and had just been "following orders", then they could tell themselves and others they too had done the same" seems very much like conjecture to me. While I'm sure he's had influence, it seems unfair to lay the weight of the "alibi" entirely on him, which it seems very much like it does. I'm sure this so called alibi was very much used before Speer left prison and published his books. In my opinion, it makes this section come off more as an opinion piece than a factual account of his release and later life, which is what it should be.

That being said, I'm unsure of whether or not this should be deleted. I feel as is the weight of this decision shouldn't rest entirely on me, as I'm a user with relatively few edits, and this seems like a fairly heavy edit for me.

Bearz42 (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I just checked the source given here, and the text accurately reflects what the source states so it's not conjecture. Nick-D (talk)

My issue isn't that the source is inaccurate, but rather that what the source states is certainly conjecture and also doesn't do much but add the source's own opinion to a section that I feel should be a little more objective.

Stating that Speer is mostly responsible for the adoption of the alibi that most Germans didn't know what was going on seems very far fetched. As I previously stated, this "alibi" (if we can really call it that) was most certainly in use and popular well before Speer published his book. Even though the source is, well, correctly sourced, it doesn't take away from the fact that it's very much an opinion. To say that Speer's diary gave weight to this alibi would even be a better phrase. The section seems almost delegitimized because it's so heavily weighted on an opinion of the source. In my opinion, it should be a clear cut, objective account on his life after his release, not the impression that his diary may have had on the elderly German public. Bearz42 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Given that this is the view of an academic expert and is sourced to a well reviewed book published by a leading university press, I'm not seeing a reason to remove it because you don't agree with it. Do other sources say different things? If so, that should be covered. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not even that I don't agree with it, it's that it's an add on opinion that doesn't truly relate to his release and later life. I'm not saying that this is some good guy or that he shouldn't have this type of credit associated with him, I'm saying that it seems fairly opinionated and that it doesn't seem to belong in a section that's supposed to be an objective account of his later life. It's like you've ignored everything that I've been saying.

I propose an "Effects of Albert Speer on the German public" type of section that could further delve into this subject, instead of some add on crediting him with providing an alibi to the German people. Again, it's like my points have seemed to be ignored for some reason. To say this type of statement isn't just an opinion is ridiculous. There are plenty of sources that could show that the German people used the alibi of ignorance since the beginning of these camps, not just when Speer released his edited diary. American soldiers walked German people through the camps after the war, forcing them to see the atrocities of the Holocaust. There were plenty then that argued that they had no idea what was going on. This is documented in "World at War" at the very least. My intention isn't to dissolve Speer's influence on this denial, rather just to point out that it seems inappropriate to include that opinion in that specific section. Again, I think a separate section detailing his influence would be more appropriate. Some add on sentence or two at the end of his section on his later life doesn't seem to be the appropriate place for such an opinion, regardless of whether that opinion is factual. Also, as clearly noted in this page itself, some others seem to think that this page on Speer weighs too much on the opinions of Kitchen and Tooze. A section on Kitchen's source is the one that I'm referring to originally. It isn't just weighted too much on them though, which is something I don't necessarily care about. It's just that the opinions seem very misplaced which is my issue with all this. I don't see the source of contention here. I'm not even proposing to delete the opinions, rather just move them to a more appropriate section. Given my lack of edits, I reached out here to look for guidance on what would be appropriate, as I didn't want to seem like I was taking things too far with my limited amount of experience on this site. Still, I hold fast in my belief that this is not an appropriate section to have this type of opinion. Bearz42 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Error in bibliographic reference
This reference:

Taylor, Blaine (2010), Hitler's Engineers: Fritz Todt and Albert Speer – Master Builders of the Third Reich, Translated by Richard and Clara Winston, Havertown, PA and Newbury, England: Casemate Publishers, ISBN 978-1-932033-68-7

was not translated by the Winstons (who died in 1979 and 1983). The book was written and published in English.

Mark Dershwitz (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Mark Dershwitz

"a faked plan to assassinate Hitler with poisonous gas"?
In the "The Speer myth" section, "The good Nazi" subsection, it states "a faked plan to assassinate Hitler with poisonous gas". However in the Book "THE LAST DAYS OF HITLER", Fifth edition, by H.R. Trevor Roper, in the pages 89 to 90, the book describes a plan by Speer to kill Hitler with the use of poisonous gas: "...if poison gas were introduced into the funnel at the time of one of Hitler's conferences, it would be very quickley distributed throughout the Bunker; and thus, in a few minutes, the whole disastrous coterie would be destroyed."--User71131159 (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem, and I think generally there's a lack of depth in the section devoted to criticism of the man. For example, it states "another myth is that arms production increased under Speer's administration" (or words to that effect), without explaining why this is a myth and citing a single (very anti-Speer) source. I am prepared to believe that Speer's oversight of arms production wasn't as successful as he claimed, but this simply isn't adequate for an encyclopedia article - an objective argument has to be provided explaining why this is the case, citing the work of more than a single historian. At the very least, historians with dissenting opinions should be mentioned also. 185.69.144.149 (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Sirin

armaments did somewhat increase under Speer, it could be argued that it was only natural that armaments to increase as the years passed by. But even under intensive bombing armaments still increased so perhaps indeed the man should be given some credit no matter how much he is loathed. 129.205.113.201 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Speer and murder camps
In fact we know that Speer was the head of Todt Organization and KDF. This organizations participate in enlargenent of Aushwitz and other murder camps. Speer’s ministry n fact give out construction materials for turning into work camps in mass murder camps. Speer is the one of significant person that made mass murders possible. Dmitriy Tehlin (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article covers much or all of that in considerable detail, certainly?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Speer’s tride book Albert Speer. Der Sklavenstaat. Meine Auseinandersetzungen mit der SS. — Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1981
Is this original book from Speer? A was real print in amazon. It did sell in january 1981 before AS death.

Can someone profe it and made some light to this material? Dmitriy Tehlin (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Krier
Léon Krier has a good opinion on Speer as an architect https://elpais.com/icon-design/arte/2021-06-22/breve-historia-de-atlantis-la-ciudad-utopica-que-nunca-se-llego-a-construir-en-tenerife.html. I was going to add it but I don't find this article has a place for assessments of his architectural work. --Error (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Questionable comment -'overweight Nazis'?
I question the allegation, in subsection 'Nazi architect', cited to more recent writer Gitta Sereny, that Speer 'insisted' on the Nuremberg parades taking place at night to inter alia 'hide the overweight Nazis', a phrase which does not read like a direct quote from Speer. While many like Goering and Rohm were on the stouter side, surely a broad proportion of the Nazis were fit and leaner people. Such a suggestion from one of his inner Nazi circle might surely have come across as disrespectful to Hitler unless the latter was in agreement with the comment. I do not have sight of the Sereny book but it would be wise to check how Speer phrased his reasons and if he indicated the context in which he addressed it to Hitler (granted, it could have been a private joke added in when Hitler and Speer were one to one out of earshot of others), as it may be simply be a case of bad summing up what was said.Cloptonson (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You're wrong. Speer says: "Bei den Reichsparteitagen marschierten auch die sogenannten NS-Amtswalter auf. Das taten sie in den ersten Jahren immer am Tage - ein grausamer Anblick, diese Leute mit ihren Bäuchen. Ich machte daher den Vorschlag, die Sache in die späten Abendstunden zu verlegen, in die Dunkelheit." From Der Spiegel interview in issue 46/1966.2A02:AA1:160F:3D98:B5E3:55C9:12F5:4D36 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Another source to possibly use
Kim Christian Priemel extensively covers Speer in the fourth chapter of The Betrayal: The Nuremberg Trials and German Divergence (especially the section: "In the Mirror: Albert Speer", pp. 137–141). The book is in Oxford Scholarship Online and can be accessed with WP:TWL. (t · c)  buidhe  01:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "What is strange is that this widely shared impression [that Speer apologized in his final statement, which Priemel describes as a masterpiece] is not borne out by the transcript. Speer hardly apologized, and admitted individual guilt only indirectly, if at all. Neither forced labour nor the Holocaust figured in his short speech and the only victims he named were the German people." (141) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Atlantic Wall
Seems to me that the Atlantic Wall was a project of such scope and scale that it ought to be mentioned in this article Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)