Talk:Heinrich Himmler/Archive 4

Allegation that Himmler was executed by British and did not commit suicide, April 2019
I edited the article and added info from a new source, a book by a reputable publisher, not the two online sources to which I'd cited but were criticized in the earlier reversions. I do not accept that just because an author of history is characterized as a "revisionist," that he or she might not have something interesting to offer. I mentioned all along that the allegations of a British execution of Himmler were unproven.

My proposed edit:

There have been recurring and unproven conspiracy theories that Himmler was murdered by the British to silence him as to his alleged secret wartime contacts with British leaders.

Thank you for your consideration.

Elendil's Heir


 * Here's an article in The Guardian that talks about how Allen faked sources: and one in War History Online:  or you could have a look at The Telegraph: . So you can see that Allen's work is a complete forgery. You state that it's a recurring theory, but cite only Allen, so no, this content should not be added. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Originally, added back on 14 March and then re-added on 11 April and cited to: Trueman, CN, "Death of Heinrich Himmler," History Learning Site & also Irving, David, "British secret service did murder SS chief Heinrich Himmler," The International Campaign for Real History at www.fpp.co.uk.
 * Besides the fact it is an "unproven" WP:Fringe theory, which should be enough for it not to be included; the first cite is a non-RS website, as editorial oversight not shown, nor was there RS citing from it to mainline RS history works and the second cite was from debunked Holocaust denier, David Irving.
 * Now, it was re-added and still is an "unproven" WP:Fringe theory, to say the least. This time cited to Martin Allen. Focusing on the cite, Dianna covers it well, why it is not to be considered RS. Therefore, it should not be included in this GA rated article based on the speculation and conjecture of the addition and the poor quality of cites offered. Kierzek (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Cadet Corps in Landshut ?
What should that be ? In Kingdom of Bavaria was only one Cadet Corps, the elite (noble) Bavarian Cadet Corps in Munich. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Longerich 2012 specifically says on page 23 that Himmler was in pre-military training with the Landshut Cadet Corps. His father tried to get him into officer training with the 1st or 2nd Bavarian regiments but failed, as the waiting lists were already too long, but he did get accepted with a different regiment in 1917. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Longerich says exactly in his book, but Cadet Corps is misleading. In fact Himmler was as schoolboy member of Landshut Wehrkraft-Verein, a (boy-scout like) pre-military training club, for weekends and other spare time. But that is not to confuse with a Cadet Corps. Himmler joined the military in January, 1918 (Fahnenjunker with First Replacement Battalion of Bavarian 11th Infantry Regiment at Regensburg). --129.187.244.19 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Longerich says: "From Easter to autumn 1915 he was a member of the Cadet Corps (Jugendwehr), where he and his classmates were given the preliminaries of military training." Longerich 2012, page 22. "Heinrich, who had been continuing his pre-military training since October 1915 in the Landshut Cadet Corps, wanted to take the same course." [i.e., officer training with the 16th Bavarian Infantry regiment in Passau.] "Himmler's father began to make extensive efforts to get him accepted as a candidate for officer training with one of the Bavarian regiments." Longerich 2012, page 23. According to de:Jugendwehr (Deutsches Kaiserreich) a Jugendwehr was an organization that provided pre-military education in the form of drills and other military exercises. Himmler is mentioned at the bottom of the German article, and Longerich page 28 of the German edition of the book is cited as a source. Himmler was 15 years old in 1915. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * if you refer to an english translation of Longerich's book, then it's the translators mistake, this uncorrect term Cadet Corps - because I think Longerich knows the difference between a Kadettenkorps and a half-official schoolboy training club like Wehrkraft-Verein. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We can't put in that it was a boy scout organization or "schoolboy training club" if that contradicts the cited source, which says on page 22 that it was a Jugendwehr, which Google translates as "Youth Guard" or "Youth Defense", not "Boy scouts" or "schoolboy club". If you have a source for your proposed change, please provide it. We can't make a change that contradicts the cited source unless you can source your proposed amendment. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have stated on others pages, 129.187.244.19, one needs to provide WP:RS cites for proposed changes. Otherwise, it is just opinion (WP:OR). Kierzek (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Who says that "Youth Guard" or "Youth Defense" is the equivalent of "Cadet Corps" ? Have you read what Cadet Corps means, since I had made my remark concerning doubt about H. Himmler ever been member of such an organization. Or have you any idea of germany military organization, in Kaiser Rule Times (1871-1918), before end of monarchy ? - (whit due respect, dear Diannaa ? - and Kierzek, too, who seems to be the same case of lacking information...) --188.174.59.206 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * see: Jugendwehr (Deutsches Kaiserreich) for correct statement of Longerich. --213.172.123.242 (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * see: Bayerisches Kadettenkorps - it was only one, in Munich, and Himmler had nothing to do with it. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

user:Newzild prefers to use "killed" istead of "murdered" in relation to the deaths of Holocaust victims
Please see the centralized discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020
Given the 75-year celebrations of Victory in Europe, I have been browsing some Wikipedia WW2 pages. This one on Himmler needs some fixes:

In the main text, please replace "devoted Catholic" with "devout Catholic".

In the lead, please replace "and, following Hitler's orders, set up and controlled the Nazi concentration camps." with "and set up and controlled the Nazi concentration camps."

In the lead, please replace "On Hitler's behalf, Himmler formed the Einsatzgruppen and built extermination camps." with "Himmler formed the Einsatzgruppen and built extermination camps."

These last three changes are non-trivial, so let me explain: the lead needs to summarise the main text, and in the main text there is no mention of Hitler issuing orders to Himmler to set up concentration camps etc. In fact the main text says the opposite: that Hitler "approved" of Himmler's plans and that Hitler "received reports" from his henchman, as if Hitler is a spectator and not the author of the mass murder. But even this spectator theory is not properly sourced, because the sole source mentioned in this context is this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20090709111759/http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/pl1/17. This source explains Hitler's hatred of Jews, as documented in diaries of Goebbels and Rosenberg, and it explains Hitler's general intention first to expel, then from early 1942 onwards, to "extirpate" Jews. In this source, there is no mention of any order to Himmler or anyone else to set up concentration camps.

So as an immediate fix, Hitler needs to be eliminated from the lead (put differently, the "leader" needs to be "extirpated", ahem) and perhaps even from the main text. And in the medium term, a devoted (not devout) Wikipedia editor needs to invest some time in the research of sources.

Let me finish with a guide to future Wikipedia research and editing efforts on this subject: My own understanding is that it is easy to demonstrate that Hitler knew of the mass murder happening from about 1941 onwards. I dimly remember a document came to light about 10-20 years ago from a top Nazi official in occupied France (Marseille?) reporting to Hitler (using a codename for Hitler) the deportation of French Jews. This was quite a spectacular find at the time, indirectly testifying that the Nazis tried their best to cover their tracks where the murder of civilians, whether mentally retarded or Jewish or politically dissident, was concerned. Later when the war was clearly being lost, the top Nazis increasingly shed these inhibitions, ending with Hitler boasting in his "last will" of the genocide. But all this is not directly connected with Hitler allegedly giving orders to Himmler to set up concentration camps. 86.161.81.21 (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * p.s. User:Diannaa, as the major contributor to this article, you may wish to check these changes. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. It's pretty obvious that Hitler would have ordered these things, but they kept nothing in writing that proves it, so the changes look good to me. — Diannaa (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Reasons for changes to lead
User:Beyond My Ken User:Nick-D I'm going to be blunt. I felt compelled to make revisions to the article's lead because the writing is sloppy. For starters, both the second and last paragraphs are just a random jumble of facts about Himmler with no clear underlying subject or idea tying them together. Constructing a paragraph's contents around one main idea and having it include at least one sentence to sum it up is just basic English composition. Moreover, the lead as a whole is littered with run-on sentences. What is with all these independent clauses tacked on at the ends of complete sentences using semicolons? If an independent clause can form a separate sentence, let it do so. While I have other issues with the way the lead is written, these are the two biggest problems I think need to be addressed. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC
 * I personally think that the lead reads quite well. There is room to improve it, but the structure and language are basically fine. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a GA rated article, it’s been well vetted. To be blunt, the writing is not “sloppy”. The lead reads quite well and except for minor tweaks that could be done, it does not need any serious changes. Frankly, the recent edits were not well conceived and removed information that should be in the lead. In addition, there was no consensus for such changes. Kierzek (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nick-D and Kierzek. Emiya1980's changes were not improvements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Kierzek Based on my recollection, my edits consisted of adding and rearranging sentences. How did it consist of removing information? If you're going to make that kind of charge, you need to provide specific examples to back it up. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing the text to claim that the SS was merely a bureaucracy was pretty odd. Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The SS did ultimately become a bureaucracy to the same extent that the KGB and the FBI could be characterized as such. The main article for "bureaucracy" defines the term as an "administrative system governing any large institution". As the SS expanded in size and power over the course of its existence, what was originally just a bodyguard unit for Hitler transformed into a vastly more complex organization that fulfilled a variety of functions in the Nazi state. Personally, I think saying that the SS merely grew into a much larger paramilitary force is an oversimplification. However, if this is a sticking point, I'm not going to belabor the issue. Any other examples? Emiya1980 (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Emiya1980, your own edit summaries at 23:14 hrs and 23:28 hrs speak for themselves and are the evidence of what I wrote, along with the reverted edits therein. Kierzek (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox picture
Rather than continue the edit war, could people please explain which version of the infobox picture they prefer, and why? Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is actually a discussion already started, along the same lines, on the talk page for Reinhard Heydrich. My reasoning there is the same as here, the photo with the best resolution should be used. Usually, that is the original photograph and not a “cropped” one. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical Changes to Himmler Lead
Would you mind elaborating as to why my recent changes are "not improvements"? If there is any prospect of reaching a middle ground through consensus, you have to give me a little more to go on. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your changes said the same thing in more words. Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And in more simplistic words. We are not Simple English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can understand the need for conciseness but "simplistic words"? Are you saying I should avoid using simple but otherwise grammatically correct language EVEN IF nothing is lost in terms of the information being conveyed? Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to make its content accessible to its viewers? Emiya1980(talk) 09:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am saying that if a passage makes sense, is well written and grammatically correct, changing it to use simpler words and to meet what I would characterize as a "high school" standard of writing does not improve Wikipedia, For those who cannot understand our level of presentation, Simple English Wikipedia exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, as someone who was an English major in college it was just not an improvement. Making something “accessible“ doesn’t mean it should not be well written. Especially, one that has been rated a GA article, as it is held to a higher standard. Kierzek (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding a word to even up the margins is a futile exercise. My monitor is ten inches wide (I am using a Chromebook). The desktop computers in my house have 21" wide monitors. Different monitors will display the prose differently. So it's a pointless edit. — Diannaa (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While I understand the reasoning given for reversing some of my edits (i.e.conciseness, futility of trying to even up margins), simply saying my grammar is poor without further explanation gives me very little frame of reference (See WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT). Previously, you said that you took issue with how my edits resulted in the removal of information from the lead but my latest edits have done nothing of the sort.
 * One of my recent edits consisted of solely adding the word "also" after "he" in the seventh sentence of the second paragraph so it would read as follows:
 * "He also controlled the Waffen-SS, the military branch of the SS."
 * Without my change or something similar, the sentence as it currently stands is a non sequitur. It has no connection with the preceding sentence nor does it contain an introductory phrase signifying a change of topic within the paragraph (as in the 4th, 6th, and 8th sentences). How exactly does my edit make it worse? Emiya1980 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Emiya1980, I suggest you read Pleonasm. Kierzek (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If conciseness is your chief concern, what's the problem with combining the seventh question with the second so it reads as follows?:


 * Over the next 16 years, he developed the SS from a mere 290-man battalion into a million-strong paramilitary group including a military branch (i.e.the Waffen-SS), and set up and controlled the Nazi concentration camps.


 * Granted that would result in a slightly longer sentence. However, isn't that better than shoe-horning in an extra sentence about the Waffen-SS near the paragraph's end that doesn't fit within the surrounding context? Emiya1980 (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2020


 * Assuming that my writing is not up to the job, can we at least agree that the current version of the text has a problem in need of correction? Emiya1980 (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree with that. I think you're finding a problem where there is none. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with BMK that it does not need tweaking. Kierzek (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Quote attribution
At the moment, this article has the following quote:

Himmler believed that a major task of the SS should be "acting as the vanguard in overcoming Christianity and restoring a 'Germanic' way of living" as part of preparations for the coming conflict between "humans and subhumans".

This is cited to Longerich 2012, p. 265. However, who is being quoted here? Longerich or Himmler? This needs to be made crystal clear to readers. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Himmler would never put scare quotes around "Germanic" so it must be Longerich. I'll make it explicit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking that. I wasn't sure if this was a translation issue or what (deutsch, germanisch, etc.). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The doctor that examined Himmler before he bit the suicide pill
The doctor who examined Himmler was Dr Wells, who was a GP from Kineton in Warwickshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.100.71.202 (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could be, but (1) A citation from a reliable source wou]d be needed to add that to the article, and (2) it's a pretty trivial bit of information, so shouldn't be added per WP:UNDUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021
Please remove main picture of Himmler in a glorified military uniform. He is a war criminal and should have a picture that represents this. Iamthehistory (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Himmler’s death
According to a documentary I watched on tv yesterday, Himmler did not commit suicide : he had that cyanide capsule in his mouth and when a doctor examining him asked him to open his mouth he refused ! He refused a few times and of course the doctors around knew then that he was hiding something. A short fight ensued and he accidentally broke the capsule swallowing the poison and died 15 minutes later ! But again, it is not my version ! 198.251.44.203 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What was the name of the documentary and who produced it? Many "documentaries" are complete drivel. Cullen328 (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We have to go by what is stated by the WP:RS historians, and frankly, most "documentaries" are make up of added drama, speculation and conjecture. Kierzek (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2023
In the biography, it says “committed suicide” where it should be “died by suicide.” 75.138.123.61 (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

About the Roma
Please change, in the third paragraph of the article, the use of plural s in "Romanis". This is gramatically incorrect. Use "Roma" or "Romani people" instead. Unge.Fellini (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thank you for the suggestion. — Diannaa (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

citation to Speer
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Speer is not a reliable source and not directly relevant". -- K.e.coffman (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

His daughter claimed he was Christian
http://www.mourningtheancient.com/gudrun.htm 2600:1015:B11F:BEE4:FCD2:EC0A:7574:91E (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That webpage does not look like a scholarly resource to me. Not a reliable source. — Diannaa (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://archive.org/details/gudrun-himmler-burwitz-1992-en/page/n1/mode/1up
 * Here is the same interview from internet archive. 2600:1015:B12F:C13A:CB5:35D7:1E47:29F0 (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023
Please include dates (WP:SDDATES) per short description:

49.150.4.134 (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The current short description is: "Fourth German Nazi leader of the SS". This seems an acceptable description to me, given the notability of this position. And per WP:SDDATES, any dates that would be added to this would be his years serving in the position. My opinion is that the short description remain with describing his position (possibly adding the dates of his time as the SS leader), rather than the more general one with his lifespan years, as proposed here. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Himmler's death
There's been some speculation around Himmler's exact cause of death. An earlier discussion noted that some people have speculated it was an accident, whereas Youtuber Mark Felton argues it was murder. Is this worth mentioning, even if only to contrast against the mainstream historical view? CoyotesKenning (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, speculation and conjecture and fringe theory, at best. Further, YouTube is not considered a reliable source. Kierzek (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * YouTube is not considered a reliable source? Dr Mark Felton PhD (History) is an acknowledged historical writer and university academic having multiple qualifications in history and teaching as well as membership of multiple recognised historical societies. Look at his YouTube page for further information (although, obviously, simply having a Wikipedia page, per se, does not validate his credentials as a reputable historian) He is as authenticated, recognised, accredited, whatever, as any other credible historian quoted in these Wikipedia pages.
 * Are we really saying that if Dr Felton chose to publish his investigations into the death of Himmler in a book, this would be a 'reliable source' - or that if his investigations were the subject of a BBC documentary, this would most likely be considered a reliable source - even though neither has had anything approaching formal 'peer review' - but that should Dr Felton (for obvious commercial reasons) choose to publish his work on YouTube, then this material becomes de facto, unreliable and can be dismissed? Is that an official, blanket Wikipedia policy? I doubt it.
 * For those wanting a very thorough analysis of the capture and death of Heinrich Himmler in British custody, his autopsy by a British pathologist and subsequent mysteries about the disposal of the body should view Mark Felton's approximately 90 minutes of content (in 6 episodes) on YouTube.
 * Felton's study categorically excludes the involvement of (or presence of) American soldiers, any other US military and/or OSS/CIA agents at any time after Himmler's capture, and during or after his death - contrary to some claims made in this Wikipedia talk page. There were simply no Americans. 2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:8052:4978:1068:9BEF (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any mentions of Americans. Where are you seeing that?
 * A problem with YouTube as a source is we have no way of checking what Felton used as his sources, the way we can (for example) in Longerich's book. Longerich had access to the files in the British War Office, as did Manvell and Fraenkel, the main two books used to source this article.
 * I don't think Felton's speculations should be included if all we have is his YouTube channel as a source.
 * — Diannaa (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've viewed the content in the "Theories" section of Episode 3, and all that's there is a mention of the existence of some alternate theories and conspiracy theories about Himmler's death. The mere existence of such theories, with no proof of credibility, does not belong in the article. — Diannaa (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Diannaa stated the reasons why, in general, Youtube is not a reliable source. And pursuant to her review, he is not stating anything as facts, just bringing up fringe theories and speculation. It should not be included in the article, I agree. Kierzek (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)