Talk:Beer Hall Putsch/Archive 1

Timeline Error
the page says that General Ludendorff arrived around 2240, but then later says that he released Von Kahr et. al. around 2230. This should be corrected with either proper times or relative timings.

Hitler died in the Putsch?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what is meant by the section of people who died in the putsch, but why is Hitler mentioned in it? Is it a mistake, or due to something written in Mein Kampf? Either way something should be done about it. I'm going to delete Hitler, but if anyone wants to revert it, please explain why in the notes following it.

Request for a clean-up +expansion
I believe that this needs a clean up.The author is too cynical about it.Also an expansion of the article would be ideal too.More information for the speeches could shed some light.

Lock this article
Hitler and the Nazis are bunch of savages, but vandalising this article is unacceptable.


 * they were not a bunch of savages as you can see, they did what every revolutionary group wants to, try to take control using force, and failed. so Hitler decided NOT to be a savage and finally got what he wanted...and failed. He was like Che Guevara but more pacient and smarter. Anyway iI agree it should be locked 'cause you see it's done, so there is nothing missing and any change will just screw it up. check first, twice, and lock it.

Quote Correct?
The last line of this quote within the article seems to have been tampered with, as it doesn't appear to fit the context. Could we get a citation on this to confirm or deny?

'Hitler started quietly reminding the audience that his move was not directed against von Kahr and launched into his speech ending with:

"Outside are Kahr, Lossow and Seisser. They are struggling hard to reach a decision. May I go fuck my mom?" '

Hitler started quietly reminding the audience that his move was not directed against von Kahr and launched into his speech ending with:

"Outside are Kahr, Lossow and Seisser. They are struggling hard to reach a decision. May I go fuck my mother?"

The audience roared its approval. He finished triumphantly:

"You can see that what motivates us is neither self-conceit or self-interest, but only a burning desire to jack off in a vargina of my own blood!"

This is why wikipedia is a joke.


 * Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. I reverted the quotes by looking at the history page.

Photo
Is there any photo that could illustrate this event? Maybe from Hitler's speech in the Beer Hall, or from the street fights? Something like. -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t al k  05:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How about a photo of the yearly reenanctment of the march of the Putschists done once Hitler was in power? Like on the cover of Ian Kershaw's "The Fuhrer Myth: Image and Reality in the 3rd Reich".

Picture of the Four Bavarian Police who died
I was recently in Munich 5 days ago. I took a picture of the plaque that is dedicated to the four Bavarian Police who were killed during this event. Is there any way I can upload the picture to aid the article in any way? JValenc1 21:00, 02 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict Between Standard Histories and Röhm's Contemporaneous Account
Ernst Röhm wrote an autobiographical account of his life up to 1925. In Germany at that time there was a law - Republiksschutzgesetz, the Law for the Protection of the Republic - which required all material relating to current and past political events in the Weimar Republic to be reported honestly. For this reason, as a translator of the entire work, I have no doubt that Röhm was always conscientious of this law, and he said as much frequently, and only put into his narrative those facts of which he was certain, and knew he could support with evidence.

The section of his book relating to the so-called Beer Hall Putsch flagrantly contradicts the version of the event provided by modern academics. We are not dealing here simply with the rectification of errors of time, location and who said what: it goes to the heart of the matter as regards what the coup d'état was intended to be and who was running it.

History based on court transcripts after the judges and governors had all got their heads together to cobble together the facts into some kind of logical order is not history.

Because of the enormous conflict betwen Röhm's contemporaneous account and what has been passed down to us for our edification as history, in making changes I would propose to leave the standing text unaltered, but to interpolate Eric Röhm's account after each section of standing text in order to provide the reader with the opportunity to compare the two versions and judge which he/she finds the more likely of the two. Geoffreybrooks **23 November 2102

The date of November 9 is given in Hitlerputsch. Did this occur at night? -- User:Scott Sanchez 00:28, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It happened on the 8th  November and carried through to the 9th november. Ludendorf was there in twenty minutes after hitler stopped the speech. As soon as i finish reading the book and find out what happened next, I will be correcting the article.WHEELER 19:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Need to come back later and do the 'who' resisted.WHEELER 16:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am now satisfied with the thoroughness and information of the event.WHEELER 18:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to Henry Ashby Turner in his book Stresseman and the Politics of the Weimar Republic, the state of emergency in Bavaria was declared because of the declaration of an end to passive resistance in the Ruhr(p118). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.208.182 (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's Bogus Claim Cited as Fact
The second paragraph in the section "Putsch" says: "...600 stormtroopers surrounded the beer hall..."

The late 2008 video documentary "Hitler's Bodyguard" by Nugus/Martin Productions says during the beginning of the putsch Hitler claimed the beer hall was surrounded by 600 stormtroopers, but actually there were only 60. Badlermd (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ♠ Uhhh...OK .... so how do you know there were 60? No reference is cited for that number and I surely cannot find any.


 * Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 68) states that after announcing the start of the revolution etc., Hitler shouted "This building is occupied by six hundred armed men." Kershaw concurs in this chain of events (Hitler, 1889-1936)


 * Toland (Adolf Hitler) makes no reference to a specific number and does not quote Hitler as stating a number. Neither does Evans (The Coming of the Third Reich, 2004). Neither does Large (Where Ghosts Walked).


 * As to the actual number:


 * Toland states (p.154-5) that "One of the key units, the Fuhrer's special hundred-man bodygard, gathered at the Torbrau...It was their task [the unit's leader told them] to bear the brunt of whatever happened that night at the Burgerbraukeller."(emphasis added)


 * Toland then recounts that after Hitler, Hanfstagengl et al. entered the beer hall and were drinking beers (at a billion marks each), they "waited impatiently for the special Brownshirt bodyguard unit." That was 100 armed men. Their arrival would signal Hitler's time to approach the speaker's platform and start the putsch. Toland again: "Trucks filled with other stormtroopers were already outside but they stayed in place until a few minutes after 8.30 PM when his helmeted bodyguard finally arrived....The trucks emptied and the armed Nazis surrounded the building." p. 155-6 (emphasis added).


 * So it appears that the number of surrounding Nazis was at least a couple of hundred (100 in the special Hitler bodyguard unit plus at least another 100 in the other trucks, maybe more).


 * The march on Friday the 9th to rescue Rohm was about 2000 men (Toland, p. 168), so having 500 or so armed thugs show up the previous evening doesn't seem so preposterous. But 60 seems clearly wrong, and 600 doesn't have any support other than Hitler's (alleged) statement to that effect. SixBlueFish (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ♠

Badlermd, you are correct for the most part. But 60 was NOT the exact number. However there were approximately 60 (give or take). Certainly not 600, which was a bluff. But don't expect any changes to be made to the article. Practically all of the WWII articles here are outdated, using ancient information. You find a lot of junk straight out of 1960-70s textbooks, due to Wikipedia's rules. If one of Hitler's best friends or a family member came here to help change an article to be more accurate, people will call it "original research" or "non-verifiable". Instant shoot-down of all new information. Last time I checked, the "Battle of Britain" article claims that the air-war was a resounding British victory that forever changed the course of the war! Haha! But the British/American victory in North Africa article is very modest and more realistic (and IT was actually a turning point). It shows you that personal opinions and bias still get into these articles, but only from a "select group". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.36 (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of SA troops surrounding the Beer Hall
In the beer hall, Hitler had called that there was 600 SA troops surrounding the beer hall. In reality, there was only 60. Source: Hitler's Bodyguard(tv series) Episode: Early Assassination Attempts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.122.69 (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Collective Action?
This article states: "pushed their way laboriously through the crowd, fired a shot into the ceiling and jumped on a chair yelling" How did they collectively fire a shot? How big was the chair that they jumped on? As Daffy Duck would say, "Hah! That’s it! Hold it right there! Pronoun trouble!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So instead of changing it you took the time to write a new section on the talk page? Oh well, thanks for bringing it up. --Half Price (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag in Infobox??
In 1923 the Flag of Germany was the Flag of the German Empire (black-white-red), not that of current Germany (black-red-yellow). CUSH 14:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That statement is wrong, the colors were black-red-yellow, as stated in the constitution of 1919. Somebody should correct the article. --84.44.143.84 (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote Mix-up?
The following section seems to be a mix-up of two quotes:

'In a description of Ludendorff's funeral at the Feldherrenhalle in 1937, which Hitler attended, but without speaking, William L. Shirer wrote: "The World War [One] hero [Ludendorff] had refused to have anything to do with him [Hitler] ever since he had fled from in front of the Feldherrnhalle after the volley of bullets during the Beer Hall Putsch. It should be noted however that when a consignment of papers relating to Landsberg prison, including the visitor book, were later sold at auction it was noted that Ludendorff had visited Hitler a number of times. The case of the resurfacing papers was reported in Der Speigel on 23rd June 2006 and somewhat contradicts Shirer'[4]s rather sweeping statement. "[5]'

Could you please sort this out if you know about who said what? -- 77.7.142.4 (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fuhrer title
Fuhrer was the title given to Hitler when he established himself outright leader of Germany in 1933, but was that the name used for him as the "fuhrer" of the NSDAP?

Yes, he became Fuhrer (leader) of the NSDAP about a year before the Putsch by the vote of 554-1. He had dictatorial control over the party.

Führer actually means nothing more than "leader", which many English speakers don't realize. It wasn't originally an official "title" like "Secretary of State" or "Prime Minister". The word is often avoided in German now, because of the stigma attached to it. But you still commonly see it in compound words like "Reiseführer" (Tour/Travel Guide). So calling him "Führer of NSADP" is nothing more than calling him "Leader of NSADP". Technically, there would be nothing wrong with saying "Ich bin der Führer von diese Gruppe." (I am the leader of this group); but you might get some strange looks from Germans. ;) Also, I think many communist countries did/still do refer to their dictators as "Great Leader" (would be "Großer Führer" in German). It may be North Korea I'm thinking of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.36 (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there is one thing technically wrong with "ich bin der Führer von diese Gruppe" and that is the dative case, it runs "dieser" Gruppe and it'd be better to leave the whole "von" out, as genitive case (which is "dieser" as well)... -:) --91.34.240.235 (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the IP is correct. — Half  Price  18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Führer" is generally a common expression for "Leader" in germany. In fact at the time of the "Hitler-Röhm Putsch"(as called in germany) Hitler wasnt called "Führer" at the time of 1922. At this time he was just "one" of the leading members of the NSDAP in an early period of the party. Maybe one of the most electrifying for the people who were faced and wanted to listen to the ideology. So the expression "Führer" in this article in this timeline is just not corrct. Its just like the user sayd: stigmatic for Hitler. For example: the drivers License in germany is still called "Kraftfahrzeug Führerschein", or "Kraftfahrzeugführer" for Car Driver. Also the expression "Beer House Putsch" which means in german "Bierhaus Putsch" is not correct in my eyes. The initiators were Hitler and Röhm for which they were later been arrested: so correct is: "Hitler Röhm Putsch".

"Socialist-nationalist-monarchist"
"Nazis, with other leaders in the Kampfbund, searched out the survivors and the leaders of the Socialist-nationalist-monarchist groups to convince them to march upon Berlin and seize power."

I'm pretty sure this should be "conservative-nationalist-monarchist." Comments? - AlanUS (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Trial Transcript
I'd like to read the trial transcript from when Hitler was put on trial for high treason after the failed Putsch. Can someone please add a link that would direct me to the correct spot? Hitler must have said something amazing to be only sentenced to 5 years, even if the judge was an admirer. Jimindc (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Staunch Aristocrat"?
Jakob Ritter von Danner, the Munich garrison commander, is described in the article as a staunch aristocrat, [who] "loathed the 'little corporal' and those 'freikorps bands of rowdies.'" I have no idea who the source of the quoted statements or background information is, but this strikes me as a little odd. Danner was not an aristocrat - he was a commoner given a patent of nobility for bravery in battle during World War I. He was born Jakob Danner. I suppose he may have loathed that particular "little corporal" and his rowdies, but the implication that his loathing was class-based, as opposed to that of a professional soldier for rebels, doesn't seem supported. Airbornelawyer 06:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the leftist attempt at character assassination. By it's own "little corporal" is a slur, but in context of aristocratic contempt it then has historical veracity.72.201.19.165 (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of silly move
From Google:
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 13,700 for "Beer Hall Putsch".

vs.
 * Results 11 - 20 of about 7,330 for "Hitler Putsch".

Anyhow, Shirer uses the former, and he quite a bit to do with the popularization of the event. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:35, 19 January 2005 (UTC)

Nazi Casualties
According to the info box at the top of the page, 19 Nazis died, however in the Nazis Who Died section, 17 died. And according to external sources such as BBC History and many others, 16 Nazis died in the Putsch. Can someone please confirm this. --Drumncars1996 (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to 16 and cited the text. Kierzek (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)