Talk:Otto Wels

Old discussion
Is the "lives/freedom/honour" quote correct? It sounds more like something out of Braveheart, and only seems to appear here and on sites which are clearly copied from this page or the similar one on brainyencyclopedia.com. "The Coming of the Third Reich" has the following peroration, which is a lot more familiar: "In this historic hour, we German Social Democrats solemnly profess our allegiance to the basic principles of humanity and justice, freedom and socialism. No Enabling Law gives you the right to annihilate ideas that are eternal and indestructible. The Anti-Socialist Law did not annihilate the Social Democrats. Social Democracy can also draw new strength from fresh persecutions. We greet the persecuted and the hard-pressed. Their steadfastness and loyalty deserve admiration. The courage of their convictions, their unbroken confidence, vouch for a brighter future."139.149.1.203 09:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is true but the quote is correct, too.

The complete speech in German is here: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/wels/index.html

It says:

Freiheit und Leben kann man uns nehmen, die Ehre nicht. Freedom and life can be taken from us, not honor.

It's clear as daylight. Otto Wels was a brave heart and his courage is ever admirable.

The address to the persecuted that forms the end of the speech becomes even more impressive when you read the - let me say - "stage directions" from the protocol:

Wir grüßen die Verfolgten und Bedrängten. Wir grüßen unsere Freunde im Reich. Ihre Standhaftigkeit und Treue verdienen Bewunderung. Ihr Bekennermut ihre ungebrochene Zuversicht -

''We greet the persecuted and the hard-pressed. Their steadfastness and loyalty deserve admiration. The courage of their convictions, their unbroken confidence -''

(Lachen bei den Nationalsozialisten.) (Laughter by the National Socialists.)

(Bravo! Bei den Sozialdemokraten.) (Bravo! By the Social Democrats.)

- verbürgen eine hellere Zukunft." - vouch for a brighter future.

(Wiederholter Beifall bei den Sozialdemokraten.) (Repeated aplause by the Social Democrats.)

(Lachen bei den Nationalsozialisten.) (Laughter by the National Socialists.)

Erkabo 14:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"All 94 SPD members of parliament voted against the act". Is this correct? I knew that all the deputies who voted against the Act were SPD, but I wasn't clear whether all SPD deputies voted against it, or whether some abstained or voted in favour. In the article German Election, 1933 we see that there were 120 SPD deputies elected that year. So if the article is correct in claiming that the whole SPD voted against the Act, what happened to the other 26? -86.136.26.244 11:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The simple but sad answer can be found in the article "Ermächtigungsgesetz" of the de.wikipedia.

There it says: Nach der widerrechtlichen Ausschaltung der KPD stimmte allein die SPD (94 Stimmen) im Reichstag gegen das Gesetz. Otto Wels hielt dabei die bedeutende letzte freiheitliche Rede im Reichstag. 109 Abgeordnete verschiedener Fraktionen nahmen nicht an der Abstimmung teil: did not take part in the vote:

"26 Abgeordnete der SPD waren inhaftiert oder geflohen arrested/imprisioned or had taken flight 81 Abgeordnete der KPD (die gesamte Fraktion) wurden vor der Abstimmung widerrechtlich verhaftet oder ermordet  had been arrested or were assassinated 2 weitere Abgeordnete fehlten aus unbekannten Gründen  were absent for unknown reasons  Alle anderen Abgeordneten stimmten für das Gesetz. Entweder geschah dies aus Überzeugung oder aus Sorge für ihre persönliche Sicherheit und die Sicherheit ihrer Familien, aber auch weil sie sich dem Fraktionszwang ihrer Partei beugten. Prominentes Beispiel für die letzte Gruppe war der spätere Bundespräsident Theodor Heuss / Deutsche Staatspartei.  all others voted for it - including the later Bundespräsident

Erkabo 12:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC) (thanks to the author of the de.wikipedia article, which I highly recommend!)

Addendum: under http://mdz1.bib-bvb.de/cocoon/rtb2/Blatt_bsb00000141_00047.html you can see a list of Reichstag members (listed by parties) and their individual votes. 26 social democrat members were listed as "krank" (excused on grounds of ill health) or simply absent, those present unanimously voted "no". The KPD (Communist) members don't even appear in the list. 84.160.237.59 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Tone/Neutrality
This article reads in a biased and exaggerated journalistic style:

"Wels braved a gauntlet of jeering brownshirts and Nazi delegates as he mounted the podium to make his speech opposing the Enabling Act"

"Looking directly at Hitler, Wels proclaimed...."

etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.199.113.4 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue here. By removing such text a very important context is also removed and a clear understanding of the political climate cannot be had. A climate which has great historical importance. I'd encourage you to pick up a real encyclopedia and utilize its style of writing for references. You'll note the purpose of any encyclopedia is/should be to paint an accurate picture of events, issues, science, etc and their corresponding context to give the future reader a clear understanding of their history. I can only see much to lose by removing such text and absolutely nothing to gain. In fact, you yourself haven't even outlined any possible gain from removing it.Jgeddis (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a POV Tag because it is described that "he looked at Hitler"? Come on. This may be not very good style but its not worth a POV Tag. I changed the the other points, so i will remove the pov tag now. StoneProphet (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
I'm going to be editing this article due to the horrid amount of bias against Hitler regarding the Enabling act and so called persecution against the SPD. Here's an example: "Despite the incipient persecution of leftist and opposition politicians and the presence of the SA". The SPD had only just lost power a month before the Enabling act, they couldn't have been dealt that hard a blow. And even so, the SPD were persecuting the NSDAP during their 14 years of power, locking members in prison, banning newspapers and speeches etc. This sentence paints an entirely wrong message. "he made an outspoken speech opposing the Enabling Act". Here you're implying that his speech triumphed over Hitler's and basically took the room away, this is not true, in fact if you have read and watched the speeches from Hitler and Wels debate in the Reichstag you'd see this is simply not true. Albert Cole (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Alleged "Appeasement"
The April 28th, 2017 edit was made by me (I had forgotten to log in, hence the IP). The March 27th, 1933 St. Louis Gazette quoted does not say anything about the alleged SPD "appeasement" or Wels (or any SPD Reichstag members) endorsing Hitler's foreign policy. There was no such topic on the agenda during the March 23rd session (see: www.reichstagsprotokolle.de for sources) and during the last session of the 1933(I) election period on May 17th, which did see such a topic, there was no mention of any SPD speakers or indeed of any SPD members of the Reichstag being present. The day before, on May 16th, the SPD had indeed decided not to attend the May 17th session (http://pressechronik1933.dpmu.de/2013/05/16/pressechronik-16-5-1933/) so it seems highly unlikely Wels was even there. Wulfhelm (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Start assessment
This article only received its Start-class assessment on account of its size and supporting material. It requires more references and in-line citations to advance in assessment. – Vami _IV✠  06:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)