Talk:August Landmesser

It is Gustav Wegert
ofc it's important to tell stories between "mixed" couples in Germany since they happened. Alot ofc and why not...it's normal. Hitler or not. But the man on the picture is Gustav Wegert. 156.67.153.121 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Untitled
Feel free to expand. Rally4sanity (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Photo
Does anyone know if the famous photograph is in the public domain, and if so, what the canonical source might be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.167.70 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Under US law the photo would still be under copyright for the foreseeable future. Whether it is under copyright in the EU depends on whether the photographer has been dead for more than 75 years: possible but somewhat unlikely. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Too bad Wikipedia does not post the entire photo.Mikewest (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the photo without the circle imposed over it. -Atfyfe (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a version without the circle. http://wegert-familie.de/home/English.html TV4Fun (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've used that to create a version of the larger image with the circle "airbrushed" out: File:August-Landmesser-Almanya-1936-circle-removed.png -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"Nazi"
I object to listing and categorizing the subject of this article as a "Nazi". It flies in the face of common sense to classify an individual who was expelled from the party for defying its principles, and who went on to suffer hardship for his opposition to the party, as a member of it. It's thoroughly misleading, much like categorizing Ronald Reagan as a "Democrat", or me as a "Christian", based on a short-term affiliation that each denounced. Casting that wide a net for people to label this way threatens to dilute the category and list to meaningless. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It really does not matter that he was expelled from the party, he was at one point a member of the party. "Nazi" is defined as a member of the party.  Therefore, the category applies.Hoops gza (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, we have categories such as "Converts from Christianity to..." or "Former Christians".Hoops gza (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So you recognize that such people don't belong in the category "Christians", just like people who renounced the Nazi Party don't belong in the category "Nazis"? Now we're getting somewhere. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree with, it is highly inappropriate to categorise August Landmesser as a Nazi. The only question is to how properly to identify a relevant category--Resisters to the Nazi regime? Germans who renounced the Nazi Party, etc. that is both succinct in length and accurate in description but broad enough for a suitably large number of people and their actions to justify the category. Here we have someone (a) was briefly a member of the Nazi party (why? was he just following the herd for social reasons? survival? did he believe it? level of acceptance/practice of the ideology? etc.) (b) was expelled, (c) was persecuted, and (d) defied it--and we have to say that in a small number of words. The reason given is "hoping it would help him get a job" he joined...I know a hell of a lot of teachers in the northeastern US who join a teacher's union because they have to, despite not desiring to do so. But, to get a teaching job in this region, you have to join or you're unemployed. I'd wager that they probably would rather not be known as a union supporter if they had to be labelled and categorised. Comparatively, we don't label Benedict XVI as a Nazi (although some of the anti-religious Left would love to pillory him with the label), he is categorised as "German military personnel of World War II". It would be inappropriate to label Landmesser a Nazi without having more about why he joined and the nature of his participation, or an accurate way of saying he wasn't a true believer worth of being spoken of in the same breath as Eichmann. "Category:People who joined the Nazi party just because they had to" is a little wordy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The criteria for List of Nazis – a problematic article itself – stated (until deleted by ) that they had to be "active within the party and did something significant within it that is of historical note". There is no source suggesting that Landmesser qualifies on either point, and every fact we have suggests it would be astonishingly unlikely. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Former Nazi Party members" might work for the phrasing (there's a perpetually-half-baked "list of" article by that name). But I don't think such a category is really necessary. It's enough to simply refrain from putting him (and others like him) in an inappropriate category, one which tells us nothing meaningful about him, and misleads the casual reader. The purpose of categories is to identify "defining" characteristics about subjects. Even (for the sake of argument) if Landmesser were sympathetic to Nazism at one point, that would no more be a defining characteristic of him than my adolescent flirtation with Libertarianism is. Both are mere footnotes. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No, a member of the Nazi Party, regardless of what his or her stance was in 1945, is a Nazi. That should be self-evident. That is why Oskar Schindler is still a Nazi.

As to the list, once again, a random editor added that criteria. The only criteria that the list ever had was to be a member of the party at some point in time. User:Keresaspa is largely responsible for the creation of that group of articles, and he never set forth "being active within the party" as a criteria. How could that possibly be a criteria? It is not defining. Being a member of the party, on the other hand, is defining.Hoops gza (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd. He was not coerced into joining the Nazi Party. You act as though the entire nation of Germany was coerced into doing so. He chose to join.Hoops gza (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

During World War II, there were 70 million people in Germany. 8 million people joined the Nazi Party. Now, how was this man forced to join the party?Hoops gza (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No one said anything about "the entire nation of Germany" joining the NSDAP, and we're not discussing Schindler, whose involvement within the party satisfies the above criteria. We're talking about August Landmesser, and whether his passive party membership is a defining characteristic.
 * Also, Please stop claiming that the criteria in your list of Nazis was added by "a random editor"; it was was inserted in 2010 by the editor who created the article (as "A list of notable politicians of the defunct Nazi Party") [emphasis added] and one of its most prolific editors. He added it to the article to defend it from criticisms that the subject was too broad, during a discussion about whether Wikipedia should delete it. No one objected at the time, or since ... until I tried to hold you to it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that you are missing the point. Whether "the person's involvement within the party is a defining characteristic of the person" is not a defining criteria. Whether "the person was a member of the party" is a defining criteria.Hoops gza (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, but it does not have consensus. Discussion is required to establish the outcome, and until that is finalized, there is no reason for an editor to insist they are correct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I've gone ahead and restored the list criteria. I can't see any good reason to remove it and several to keep it. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree this article should not be included in Category:Nazi. He was expelled for cause and is known for resistance. As such, it is not a useful defining category. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy on the photo...
is most likely not him: http://wegert-familie.de/home/English.html --Rabenkind (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That link notes that the ship launches (depicted in the picture apparently) occurred on Sunday morning to avoid disrupting production. The link further notes that Wegert absented himself from these events as he felt it was more important to go to church, despite these events being mandatory.  Yes it's possible he made an exception on this occasion or that this ship launch was held on another day but it does tend to call in to question his being present for a launch. Robert Brockway (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You have to add the important detail about Gustav Wegert
according to the german wikipedia! There are several reasons to suppose that Landmesser isn't the person on the photo but Gustav Wegert. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.22.143.170 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wegert actually worked at B&V form 1934 to 45. See photos at http://wegert-familie.de/home/Deutsch.html --89.204.137.228 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, failing to point out that August Landmesser did not work in that factory at that time and the only reason anybody claimed he might of was because he was arrested in 1938 and may have been forced into work there, the problem with that thing is that the photo is taken in 1936. While originally the date for the photo was less exact, it's clear now that August wasn't arrested and forced to work in a factory at that time while Wegert absolutely was a factory worker during that time and would appear in the image. And he never saluted, for religious reasons, and there's only one person in that picture who never saluted and he looks exactly like Wegert, especially the face shape and hair part (Landmesser doesn't have a hair part extending across his entire head). Tat (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't state that Landmesser was forced to work there (only that he did), so I don't know what you're complaining about there. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is a shame that this picture has only recently become famous, and that now, the only possible form of identification is to compare photos and possible employment paperwork to backup time and place. The Wikipedia photo of August Landmesser is not at all convincing or the timing, whereas the photos and provenance of Gustav Wegert being the person seem far more convincing. I don't question the story or experience of August Landmesser, his wife and two very young children (who are unlikely to remember much of their father or mother) but so many stories of this kind seem to be adored by the media, moulded to the (horrific) treatment of Jews / The Holocaust with: "lest we forget". (at the risk of being labelled an anti-Semite). It would be good if a picture of Gustav Wegert be added, better still if Wolfgang Wegert could chip in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.253.222 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wording of first sentence
The wording of the first sentence seems to have gone awry. It's nearly impossible to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.131.65 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

August Landmesser likely didn't work there.
"August Landmesser ([ˈaʊ̯ɡʊst ˈlantˌmɛsɐ]; 24 May 1910 – 17 October 1944) was a worker at the Blohm+Voss shipyard in Hamburg, Germany." -- There is actually no evidence he ever worked there. The claim is that after his 1938 arrest he was forced to work there. However, the image was taken in 1936. The only reason anybody thinks he might have is to make this picture fit. Early on the picture was dated in 1939, when the Landmesser family came forward. Where force work might make sense. But, the actual date on the image is 1936. Which makes him not able to be in the image, and thus there is no evidence he was ever a worker there. Hence citation needed. Tat (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Historian Frank McDonough on Twitter:


 * »PHOTO OF THE DAY: A lone German shipyard worker in Hamburg (now thought to be Gustav Wegert), refusing to give the Nazi salute with his co-workers at the launch of a naval ship (1936). ... It definitely wasn’t him. He didn’t even work at the shipyard. ... No. That was a guy called August Landmesser who was originally thought to be in the photo but it turned out he wasn’t even working in the shipyard in 1936 and his family said it wasn’t him.« tickle me 18:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia white lie
http://wegert-familie.de/home/English.html 72.24.148.143 (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you looked at the rest of this page, you'd know that this has come up before. Wikipedia reports what reliable, independent sources have published. If there are more such sources about Herr Wegert (not just the family's web site) by all means point them out. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Another photo of August Landmesser
Predrag Brajovic has another photo supposedly of August Landmesser  Same chin, same cheekbones, tight-lipped, deep-set eyes, wiry hair, broad face. He also has a photo of Gustav Wegert 12 years later.

But look at the chin. The two eyes in a straight line (which Herr Wegert doesn't have) and the attitude: Gustav Wegert ramrod straight with high shoulders. There's something about August Landmesser that matches the contempt in the photograph. I think it's him. Kombo the mzungu (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There are others not saluting in the photograph
Look at the shoulders on the right side and there are possibly another four in photograph not saluting.

Particularly coming from the gap on the right at top, going right to left. There are four workers wearing caps(one with a pipe) in a line. Left of them is a blond man without a hat, his face hidden below his nose. His right arm goes straight down, and I can't see a hand coming up anywhere that matches his light-coloured clothing. I don't think he is saluting. Kombo the mzungu (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)