Talk:Friedrich Ebert

Untitled
I think there's a mistake. Fifth paragraph: I think he said "If the Kaiser DOESN'T abdicate ...revolution will be inevitable". He wanted the abdication! (At least that's what the german article - quite plausibly - says...) Ch.Zalka 85.2.218.57 22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow...we really need to revamp this page. I'll contribute what I know. Peaceman 01:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added what I know. Someone please come and make this article better. Peaceman 01:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Friedrick Ebert Stiftung (Foundation)
I came here searching for information on the "Frederick Ebert Stiftung" or more properly, "Friedrich Ebert Stiftung" organization or foundation ("Stiftung"). There is no wikipedia article, although a Google search shows the organization exists and records some of its activities (I found many entries on a misspelling "Stifung"). There is even a website (http://www.fes.de/). I have encountered an allegation that it is "CIA backed & funded", although I believe this false. I desire more information on this organization. WikiSceptic 14:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ebert was one of the most powerful and influential social democratic politicians of the 20th century. His values and views encapsulated all that was vital to the restoration of Germany's wealth and power. 14th January 1974! my name is and i live in teddington!i go to

Legacy
I'll try to re-write it if possible, but I don't think the "Legacy" section in this article is balanced enough. It sounds vaugely condemning, and I say this as someone who dislikes Ebert greatly.--Agent of the Reds 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

weasel weasel
the controversy part is full of weasel words and needs to be improved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.223.22 (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Student of Rosa Luxemburg?
In the wikipedia entry for Rosa Luxemburg, it offhandedly mentions that Ebert studied with her at SPD's Berlin training center. Is this verified by some source? If so, it should certainly be mentioned here in the article about Ebert! (How ironic, that he would later essential order her death!) Jrgsf 18:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC) jrgsf

Dubious Sources
I deleted an external link and put a better source request behind one ref...both are self-published sources (websites) as per WP:SPS. Drow69 (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Declaration of the Republic
I am not sure the reference to Liebknecht is necessary here, since this page is about Ebert. Given that Liebknecht' s speech was two hours later, I doubt that Scheidemann at that point already had a clear idea about what was going to happen. In any case there should be a citation to a reference that says that this was a cause of Scheidemann's actions. From what I've read, it was more or less spontaneous, he just got caught up in the moment... Drow69 (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ebert falsely represented as being Jewish
As far as all sources and records indicate Freidrich Ebert was not at all of jewish, but of roman catholic faith, as is rather bluntly indicated by a quite large crucifix on his grave in Heidelberg. I was looking for any sources and records regarding his family ancestors being of jewish faith and later on converted to christianity, but could not find any, instead it seems his family and ancestors were all of roman catholic faith. The same goes for the family of his wife Louise Rump of protestant faith.

I believe it is most important to not declare a man a Jew when he is not, and i have a very strange feeling regarding Friedrich Ebert being made into a Jew here in this article, as in the time of his presidency he was, for political reasons, accused quite very negatively to be a Jew, alternatively a "henchman of jewish interests to destroy Germany" by extremist anti-semitic circles in Germany due to his role in the abolishment of the Monarchy in Germany and the treaty of Versailles and the declaration of the Republic in Germany.

I would like to urge a immediate change here very strongly, as him being "accused" to be a Jew was, as stated above, an antisemitic political campaign in his lifetime, which should under no circumstances be repeated here, in regards to his memory and in respect to the jewish faith and people.


 * Ebert was not a jew. I reverted this false claim. --Prüm (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Prüm, Thank you for looking into the matter i stated above and the change you made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.134.49 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Another attempt was made to introduce this erroneous info into the lead on 11 December...took me until 13 December to notice and delete it.Drow69 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Social reforms
This info is mostly already included in the article on the Council of the People's Deputies. Does it really make sense to repeat it on Ebert's page in such detail? My suggestion would be to just have a summary here and to drop some of the less important decrees.Drow69 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There is now repetitive information in this section (both the abolishment of the Gesindeordnung and the extension of the right of free assembly to civil servants are mentioned in two consecutive paragraphs). Moreover, since some of the new material is quoted from a text by Arthur Rosenberg, it should be identified as such in the ref. As far as I can tell, Marxists.org is a WP:SPS and should thus not be considered a RS.Drow69 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there was no reaction to the above, I edited the section, bringing it into a roughly chronological form to fit with the rest of the article. I also deleted the repetitive content. Someone else can worry about the dubious source and the poor reference format.Drow69 (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph, collaboration with the Freikorps
In comparison with the German article, I'm afraid this article seems to delve a bit too much in historiography with regards to collaboration with the Freikorps. Take the following sentence:

"With their help, Ebert's government crushed a number of leftist uprisings that were pursuing goals that were also nominally those of the SPD. This has made him a controversial historical figure."

Er, this is simplifying things somewhat to put it mildly, particularly during the insanity of the German Novemberrevolution of 1918-19, which was taking place with (1) the right-wing backlash against losing the war (or in their mythology, being backstabbed when they were just about to win---see die Dolchstosslegende) and (2) the Bolshevik Revolution.

For an English-speaking audience, it seems strange that the SPD leaders would just kill leftists who supported goals "nominally those of the SPD".

(1) Provide a citation for the controversy claim. (2) Rewrite/remove this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.91.136 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that was my attempt to summarize the (admittedly poorly sourced) section on the Freikorps cooperation at the end of the article. I'll check if I can find a reference on this...there probably is one in the Haffner book (he is quite critical of Ebert). In addition, one could rephrase it in the sense that those on the left pursued "some goals" that were also nominally those of the SPD (as expressed in the then-current party program) as there were obviously differences in opinion on a number of issues.Drow69 (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Understood. I think to have a proper understanding of Ebert and how he's viewed/debated by historians today, one would need to refer to someone specializing on the Weimar Republic. Mary Fulbrook comes to mind, but I don't think she ever really concentrated on that much on Leibknecht and Luxemburg. Have you tried Fritz Stern? I'll think about some other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.193.23 (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure there actually is a consensus view, even after all this time. Some historians are arguing that Ebert and the other MSPD leaders were too timid, that a more revolutionary approach, a more drastic break with the past would have been possible. Others think that circumstances did in fact impose severe limits on the new government's scope for action. See e.g. this summary of 2011 (p.15).


 * There also remains the question of how Ebert was viewed at the time by those on the left. Although the MSPD paid lip-service to socialisation of industry, they (quite correctly) decided that feeding the population and keeping the economy running were more pressing concerns at that point. Nevertheless, Ebert, Noske and Co. were seen as traitors by many on the left.


 * Since I did not write the relevant section in the article, I do not know where exactly these infos/views came from.Drow69 (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still struck by the phrase "nominally the same as the SPD". I think the introductory paragraph would make more sense for an Anglophone audience if this phrase were to be removed, because their goals were distinctly *not* the same as the SPD. I mean, why else would these groups break away from the USPD to form the KPD? Being interested in left-wing politics, some of their goals were the same, yes, but many were not. Liebknecht in particular was pushing for, well, bolshevism. (Unfortunately, the .pdf from the bpb p.14-15 doesn't make this completely clear: Luxemburg and Liebknecht viewed Lenin quite differently, which explains Luxemburg's more respected status among those sympathetic with the social democrats/left today.) I agree, this is very tricky....hmmm....How about this: we can simply rewrite the sentence as "With their help, Ebert's social democratic government crushed a number of leftist uprisings, which has made him a controversial historical figure even today." or something like that---"nominally the same" airbrushes over the substantial differences between the SPD and the KPD. Everyone agree?


 * Works for me. When I think about it, the current wording actually only makes sense if one were to assume that most readers are aware of the contents of the "Erfurter Programm". Since this is quite unlikely, I agree that it would be better to drop that part. If a reader is interested in the political differences between MSPD, USPD, Spartacists and KPD he/she can hopefully find that info in the relevant articles.Drow69 (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Very good. This strikes me as very intelligent (and I didn't notice the Eichhorn absence in the Spartakusaufstand article...strange, the English wiki page for his biography is pretty reasonable and lays out the firing episode/slander in Vorwaerts, etc.) Ok, as I don't want to be accused of vandalism (I know, I know...register), would you mind doing the honors of changing things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.91.136 (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems this is now done. I was travelling for three weeks and very busy since my return. Since the reasons for the change were discussed here, I don't think anyone reasonable would view this as vandalism, IP editor or not.Drow69 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Friedrich Ebert. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/biografien/EbertFriedrich/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)