Talk:Hans Globke

Untitled
"His superior resigned..." -- name, source? maarten 14:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing
--Hnr 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Full name: Hans Josef Maria Globke
 * Member of Cartellverband der katholischen deutschen Studentenverbindungen
 * Hans Globke and Wilhelm Stuckart, Kommentar zur deutschen Rassengesetzgebung (Comment on the German race legislation), Munich, Germany, 1936
 * Hans Globke, Die Immunität der Mitglieder des Reichstages und der Landtage (The immunity of the members of the Reichstag and the federal state parliaments), Giessen, Germany 1922
 * 1925 Vice chief of the police Aachen
 * 1929 Prussian ministry of the Interior
 * 1932 - 1945 Ministry of the Interior (Reich)
 * 24. Oktober 1940 Request for membership in the NSDAP, rejected because of objection by Martin Bormann
 * Informat for the bishop of Berlin, Konrad Graf von Preysing
 * Peripherally involved in the failed coup d'état July 20 Plot, contact to Carl Friedrich Goerdeler and Ludwig Beck
 * October 1949 Ministerialdirigent
 * July 1950 he took over the head department for internal affairs as Ministerialdirektor
 * 1953 - 1963 Director of the Federal Chancellory (besides Heinrich Krone and Otto Lenz Globke was one of the closest aides to Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer)
 * Globke e.g. in east German newsreel "Der Augenzeuge": http://www.cine-holocaust.de/cgi-bin/gdq?efp00cbp102854.gd
 * Globke was sentenced in east Germany 23 july 1963 in absence (war crimes)
 * Gehlen-connection?
 * Involvement in Kohl finance scandal?
 * Globke was the architect behind the idea of giving the middle name "Israel" and "Sarah" to German jews trough the Nuremberg Laws (source: Hannah Arendt: Eichmann in Jerusalem p. 19) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.79.152 (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Allegations
''He was Director of the Federal Chancellory of West Germany between 1953 and 1963 and as such was one of the closest aides to Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.

Globke's key position as a national security advisor to Adenauer and his involvement in anticommunist activities in post-war West Germany made both the West German government and CIA officials wary of exposing his Nazi past, which is documented in Tetens 1961 (pp. 37-42), where Tetens writes "under Globke's direct authority is (as of 1961) the operation of a supersecret organization headed by Hitler's former spy chief, Lieutenant General Reinhard Gehlen, leader of the post-war ODESSA and Die Spinne covert political operations.''

Where does the last quote end? Where is evidence for Gehlen being the "leader of ODESSA"? If that were true, why isn't it even mentioned in the Gehlen article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevo2001 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is quite unsubstantiated. Also the term "covert political operations" implicitly alleges that these were actions by the German government, which seems rather doubtful in my opinion. Probably they were "just" actions condoned by elements of the government, especially the members of the security apparatus, a large part of which worked "similar jobs" in the Nazi regime. Suprahili (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"his involvement in anticommunist activities in post-war West Germany made both the West German government and CIA officials wary of exposing his Nazi past," Since when an anti-communist activity made the CIA weary of speaking of an ally, in the begiining Cold War? Logically, it was Globke who was not all interested in people delving into his past. Ft93110 (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Translate more terms into English, please
I'm moderately familiar with German history after 1918, but it would be a help to me and others whose German is limited or non-existent if more of the German terms were translated into English, and some of the German organizations' nominal roles (e.g., for those who haven't heard of it, the Zentrumspartei or Centre Party (Germany) explained. Experienced Wikipedia editors with WP:pop-ups can read the beginning of wikilinks by using a mouse, but we're a very tiny minority of Wikipedia readers in English. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wrong translation of Ministerialrat (Ministerial Counsillor) into the original German term and a British equivalent. In the German higher bureaucracy still today the rank of Ministerialrat is given to a career officer, and not to a counsillor to the Minister. Ft93110 (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

During the war : missing section !
Why is there a section for Globke`s "Pre WWII service and Nazi activity" and one for his "Post WWII service", but no section about what he actually did in the war, which, I suspect, is of most interest to most readers of this page !--JustinSmith (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Later Life
Would please be possible to know what happened to him eventually, as the story seemed to truncate?Olaotan1 (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation
the pronunciation contradicted itself, so I deleted it. restore if you know it. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hans Globke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121014142825/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_records_nazis to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_records_nazis

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hans Globke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120805134509/http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/betrayalp12.htm to http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/betrayalp12.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Length of the lead section
An editor who is apparently unfamiliar with WP:LEAD has inserted a "lead too long" tag here. It has been removed because it lacks any justification/rationale here on the talk page, and frankly because it's simply incorrect. According to WP:LEAD, "as a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs." The lead section of this article includes three carefully crafted paragraphs of reasonable length. Its length is entirely normal and reasonable for a high-profile politician (compare: Barack Obama), and we are definitely not going to remove two thirds of the lead section because that suggestion has no basis whatsoever in WP:LEAD. Globke was one of the most influential West German politicians in the 1950s and 1960s with such a wide area of responsibility that a very short lead section wouldn't adequately summarize his political legacy. --Tataral (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The lead is too long. It's also totally  unsourced as well as the next main section. Please read WP:LEAD again, and please see the equivalent German article at Hans_Globke as an example. If you  need any  assistance, don't hesitate  to  ask -  I'm a native German speaker. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the lead section is not too long here at the English Wikipedia, and no evidence or policy-based rationale has been offered by yourself or others for this claim; without any supporting evidence or rationale based on English Wikipedia policies such a claim has no weight here. A lead section comprising three paragraphs of reasonable length is entirely in accordance with the recommendations of WP:LEAD and entirely normal by English Wikipedia standards. This is not the German Wikipedia, a German Wikipedia article is not an acceptable source and the German lead section (which is badly written and too short by the standards of the English Wikipedia) is not an example for us; they do things very differently from us here at the English Wikipedia as far as lead sections are concerned (with their frequent one-sentence or two-sentence lead sections), and we have our own manual of style here and longer lead sections than them. I recommend that you familiarise yourself with the manual of style at the English Wikipedia, especially WP:LEAD. I on the other hand am very familiar with WP:LEAD. Also, lead sections do not as a rule here at the English Wikipedia include inline citations. --Tataral (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't know why you complain to me about the fact that the first section of the body of the article, which I haven't written and don't recall having edited at all, doesn't include inline citations, and in a discussion about a completely unrelated topic, namely what the appropriate length of the lead section is. If that is of concern to you no one has prevented you from addressing that problem. --Tataral (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * True, but you keep removing the tag which stops the tag being noticed by somebody else. I'll do the work to shorten it, and you can Tataral, can review it. I'll make a list here and you can have a look. scope_creep (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine. It's not like I insist that the lead section cannot be improved at all. --Tataral (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

IP POV edits
There are also problems with an IP editor who is inserting his personal opinions, such as "CIA and BnD have been actively trying to hide and white wash his past", into the article, and incorrectly and nonsensically labelling him as a "collaborationist" in the lead (Collaborationism = the cooperation with the enemy against one's country in wartime). The same editor is also involved in pushing similar Soviet bloc POV in other articles, e.g. with this "US is NOT a democracy" (in a WWII era context) edit --Tataral (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Shrinking of Lead
Hi Tataral. We need to shrink this.
 * 1) I will try and find references for the lede, maybe in Google Books.
 * 2) I think the second paragraph needs to go into the main body and woven in as per. Most of it can be woven in to early life and studies.
 * 3) And put this sentence:

As a powerful éminence grise of the West German government, he had a major role in shaping the course and structure of the state, in West Germany's alignment with the United States, its anti-communist policies at the domestic and international level and in the western intelligence community

in the lede, if a reference can be found for it. The denazification stuff from second para can go into the Nazi towards the end. Jewish property stuff from second para can go into Nazi section.

What do you think? scope_creep (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Tataral has chosen not to answer. As I stated above, the lede is far too long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Nazi Party membership application
The section "Measures to exclude and persecute Jews" contains the following sentence:

"He applied for membership of the Nazi Party for career reasons in 1940, but the application was rejected on 24 October 1940 by Martin Bormann, reportedly because of his former membership of the Centre Party, which represented Roman Catholic voters in Weimar Germany.

The section "During the war" contains the following sentence:

"Globke submitted an application for membership to the Nazi Party, but due to his former affiliation to the Centre Party, the application was finally rejected in 1943."

Those seem to be referencing the same event, but the information doesn't match up. Could anyone say which is correct? Jdcooper (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is two versions of the article. The first one when written when the lede was too long. The second by myself from the translations, when the original article was expanded, with loads of new content. I will check the ref. Well spotted. scope_creep (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Both are correct, and both the applications are well referenced. He made two applications, at different time. The second application as it was requirement. scope_creep (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Lede
Needs updated for better flow.  scope_creep Talk  11:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

revert of simple edit
I do not understand User:Scope creep s revert, nor the explanation "Doesn't add anything apart from section move." It wasnt even a section move.

I am rather specialized on bios and know what I am doing, if one checks my edit history.

I created a sorely missing section - personal life and death, which is often forgot.

I also added some clarity to the page by adding dates (the article is very mediocre, full of repetitions and poorly structured BTW)

Scope creep reverted both, then re-added the section under a non-customary heading per WP:BIO called "Retirement".

Why first revert my edit and then thank me ? -It´s a net loss to the article, lots of edits and electrons- they could have simply reverted themselves; looks like shot from the hip and after reviewing page statistics its clear to me: they are displaying WP:own of this page; thats how you drive editors away. Doesnt sound like a Mary Wollstonecraft Award winner to me. Wuerzele (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How goes it? I thanked you because you did good work in part, apart from the section names. Its not a shot from the hip. I'm not displaying WP:OWN either but I did write most of the article, over the last several years and is still under active development. Most of your updates were ok, but were little more than drive by edits. You changed the sections names when they didn't need it with discussion. None of the section names have dates.  You also added the section "Personal life and death". "Personal" is not needed, as the in-context is already in the article, its his life and it already has a life and education section. It doesn't need two lifes sections. Splitting off that section was decent work and I did keep it. It needed split. That is kind of work I like. You say it is mediocre, full of repetitions and poorly structured. What would you do to change it?    scope_creep Talk  10:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also if your putting a year in some sections, its usually a time period you put in, not a single year.   scope_creep Talk  10:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I'm with User:Scope creep here. Your edits, Wuerzele, while no doubt in good faith, did not make any of the information clearer. The "Personal life and death" section did not contain much about Globke's personal life, but more than just about his death: what could accurately be summarised as "Retirement". The dates in section headings also did not make the information clearer, and I've not seen this practice much around Wikipedia. As for WP:OWN, I think that is a stretch. Scope creep has indeed written most of the article, but I have been following and collaborating on this article for a while, and not only is Scope creep open to other editors' input and changes, but has indeed deliberately sought it out. Jdcooper (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jdcooper. You have been a real help, and fixed more problems than I can shake a stick at, truly. But I'm worried if there a problem with it, re:mediocre...   scope_creep Talk  23:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Block that seems out of place
The effects of the German-German system conflict on dealing with Nazi perpetrators under a pan-German perspective has only begun.

Various federal agencies have been investigated in relation to their Nazi past, with and without government support, including the Federal Foreign Office. A research deficit in the processing of NS continuity in the Federal Republic of Germany still exists in particular at the German Chancellery. A subsidy program worth a total of €4m was included in the 2017 federal budget, which is intended to process the Nazi past of central authorities, especially the federal ministries, across departments. The concrete conceptual and content-related design of the research program is currently being discussed by the Federal Commissioner for Culture and the Media, the Federal Archives and representatives of science for example a collective biography of all state secretaries, in which Globke would be "only one of many".

Characterization of trial's purpose
I went for a WP:BOLD edit to this (imo pretty obviously) unencyclopedic section:


 * In July 1963, the trial, a show trial was held in the Supreme Court of East Germany which was presided over by Heinrich Toeplitz [de]. The trial was not about establishing the truth, but about propagandistically reproaching the Federal Republic for its Nazi past and emphasising its own anti-fascist founding myth.

I feel like the same information could be conveyed without pushing the dismissive POV with something like


 * In July 1963, the trial, a show trial was held in the Supreme Court of East Germany which was presided over by Heinrich Toeplitz [de]. The trial was not held with the expectation of holding Globke accountable for his crimes, but rather to publicize his role in the Nazi era and to draw attention to the continuity between the two regimes.

But, @Scope creep took issue with this -- evidently because this isn't the precise wording in the source?

I'm not a wikipedia policy expert: is that really the standard? Do we need to reproduce the POV of the source being cited, or is it permissible to restate the same facts in a more neutral way?

It seems, to me, that the factual information is that

(a) the DDR had no reason to believe the trial would result in Globke facing justice, but including the inference that therefore "it wasn't about establishing the truth" just seems comically unencyclopedic, even if the source uses this language.

(b) it would nonetheless serve as a platform to publicize the shocking (in their view, at least) facts about a current BRD official. Of course that had propaganda value, both domestically and abroad; that's already implied in calling it a "show trial". Insisting on keeping a clunky phrase like "propagandistically reproaching the federal republic", and including armchair psychoanalysis like "emphasizing its own anti-fascist founding myth" just feels like rubbing the article's bias in the reader's face.

Maybe my edit was missing some nuance, but surely it's better than the status quo?

ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is pretty good analysis of the problem at hand, I think. I did check with several sources over a couple of hours very early this morning and they all seemed to come from the same direction. To move this forward, can you tell me exactly what is up with the source, which is accurate, or the fact you deem it to biased or the article to be biased. Globke seems to be seen in the same context many historians who look at that period and don't know of any kind of revisionist history or historians that place him in other context. Most of the sources describe the GDR trial as  a show trail and as something that was politically motivated, that pushes the party line, in a very young country. You will need to show a really set of source that describe accurately.    scope_creep Talk  15:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at this. It needed and needs an external review. I plan to write the trial article. It might reflect better if direct sources can be found on the trial itself.  scope_creep Talk  15:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Scope creep. I don't really take issue with characterizing it as a show trial, but rather with the further editorializing about what that means. I spent a little time with the linked sources, and the Foreign Broadcast Daily Report definitely included several summaries of Western news dispatches that could support the more dismissive tone of the current version (e.g. "everybody knows that this is nonsense") -- but I was also struck by their near-unanimity in following up with roughly "but he's still an embarrassment and Adenauer should cut him loose". That seems relevant insofar as (a) these sources attacked the motivation of the trial, not the veracity of its charges, and (b) these sources weren't even pretending to come from a disinterested POV.
 * For that reason I left the characterization of the trial as a "show trial", and would not dispute that it was politically motivated and pushed the party line -- but I don't think my edit obscures those facts.
 * What I tried to change -- and what seems less supported by the sources (though on a cursory skim / keyword search basis) -- was the idea that it was intentionally or recklessly deceptive, or that it was primarily about supporting a founding myth; the consensus in these sources seems more that it was an opportunistic jab at a rival, taking advantage of a convenient political blunder. I think that view is supported in the Reckonings source, where it says the "major focus of East German efforts was on highlighting the continuing preponderance of Nazis in high places..." -- emphasis added on highlighting, as opposed to e.g. fabricating or exaggerating. I think it's also supported by the contemporary news reports e.g. bemoaning Adenauer's "cling[ing] to a man like Globke", in that there is recognition of a real problem with Globke.
 * I'm just struggling to imagine what additional sourcing could refute assertions like "the trial was not about establishing the truth", especially when it seems like the article could convey the same information without repeating (or refuting) speculations about the government's motivations for the trial. ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do plan to expand the article, particularly around the trial. There is a whole load of new analysis been produced in the 20 years that is not in there. I will post up some references in the morning see what they say. I can't do it tonight.   scope_creep Talk  17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My intention here was definitely not to derail more substantive rework by experienced / knowledgable editors; I'd be selfishly interested in seeing how newer analyses could support the existing text, but you definitely shouldn't feel obligated to divert all attention there -- I was just struck by the idea that the edit was at all controversial.
 * I can see that reframing ~"not about establishing the truth" as ~"not about putting Globke behind bars" might be a substantive change -- do I just need to hunt down a source that synthesizes (a) in absentia trial + (b) no way he is getting extradited = (c) no illusions about the outcome of the trial? I was interpreting my version as a weaker version of the same claim (and so already supported by the existing sources) -- but I would be interested in seeing the Lexikon source, because the existing framing (a) + (b) = "the trial was uninterested in the truth" feels more like something out of those hostile news dispatches, rather than something from a paywalled academic article. ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading the German article for the trial, I think this is actually really close to what I was picturing: "Es wurde in Abwesenheit Globkes verhandelt. Eine Strafvollstreckung, zumal auf dem Gebiet der DDR, war von vornherein unrealistisch. Das Verfahren diente daher nicht der Rechtsfindung, sondern..."
 * It seems like "Rechtsfindung" may have been translated as "search for truth" in the English text, which IMO really skews the meaning, since in the context of the previous two sentences it's very clear that it's referring to the fact that a legal finding would be a dead letter.
 * The rest of the sentence characterizing its purpose "in erster Linie" as propaganda still seems rather unencyclopedic, but the additional context shows that this was merely a consequence of the fact that holding Globke personally accountable was unrealistic -- and not because they cynically did not care to do so, and/or had no interest in the truth.
 * So I'd propose this as a compromise:
 * Because an extradition of Globke to the East was unrealistic, the trial was not held with the expectation of holding Globke accountable for his crimes, but rather for its propaganda value in publicizing his role in the Nazi era, and to draw attention to the continuity between the two regimes.
 * Since the German article cites the same source as the English one, I assume this version is covered by the same.
 * What do you think? ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Lexicon reference is an academic source written by academics and is a good as a reference on as its possible to get on this context. I think your wording in slightly better but doesn't reflect the source accuaretly and it may be straying into WP:NPOV. This is a probably a more accurate wording as a summation :
 * Because an extradition of Globke to the East was unrealistic, the trial was not held with the expectation of holding Globke accountable for his crimes, but rather to use propaganda to accuse the Federal Republic of its Nazi past and emphasize its own anti-fascist founding myth.
 * This is slightly better per source. Is the specifically the "emphasize its own anti-fascist founding myth"? There is not really much difference in definition. It could potentially go in the trial article. I don't think the The "Es wurde" statement above provides a decdent summary of the trial. Lets talk about it. Its close I think. I could try and find more sources on the actual trial and see what they say specifically about it.   scope_creep Talk  07:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I have two issues there: (1) framing it as a reproach for the BRD's past as opposed to a reproach for their continuity with that past: Globke wasn't some private citizen or exile, he was a hand-picked sitting government official, and that was a crucial part of the propaganda effort. And (2) the IMO redundant / besides the point "founding myth" jab.
 * For (1), my proposed wording is already well-supported by the English-language sources; for instance, in the Reckonings source, the exact wording is "A major focus of East German efforts was on highlighting the continuing preponderance of Nazis in high places in West Germany", which is just a more direct way of saying "highlighting the continuity between the two regimes"; I just don't think the article needs to take a position on whether there really was a "preponderance of Nazis in high places".
 * For (2), maybe the real problem is that "myth" is pretty clearly meant to be pejorative in the English version, while "Mythos" might not be in German -- I'm not familiar enough with German to say, but even if it was meant pejoratively in the source, why carry along that irrelevant POV here? Is it really distorting the meaning if we phrased it less dismissively as e.g. "in contrast to its own self-styled antifascist image"? That sort of combines the "geschichtspolitische Funktionen" with the "antifaschistischen Gründungsmythos", without sliding in an irrelevant judgment on the veracity of that self-image.
 * So, if noting the connection to the Gründungsmythos is absolutely necessary, something like this would be acceptable:
 * Because an extradition of Globke to the East was unrealistic, the trial was not held with the expectation of holding Globke accountable for his crimes. It nonetheless still had propaganda value in publicizing his role in the Nazi era, drawing attention to the continuity between the Federal Republic and the Nazi regime, in contrast to the self-styled antifascist image of the Democratic Republic.
 * I think that hits all the same factual points, without introducing any new claims, and without wading into the controversy about how "antifascist" the DDR really was.
 * In a longer article on the trial, going into academic analyses of its higher-order function in the DDR's broader politics would definitely make sense -- but it feels pretty suspect to spend so much of the trial's tiny section in Globke's article attacking the trial and the DDR; maybe there's a place for it in the context of the rejection of its verdict in the West? ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)