Talk:Paul von Hindenburg/Archive 1

2003-2006
Can someone reduce the size of that photo please. - PMelvilleAustin 06:59, 12 January 2003 (UTC)


 * This article needs a serious rewrite. There's hardly anything about Ludendorff or the operations on either front.  If no one objects, I'll try to put something together in a day or two. Mackensen 03:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Edited as per World Book Encyclopedia etc etc. PMA 11:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This article is very poorly written, choppy, lots of one-sentence paragraphs. Given the importance of Hindenburg in interbellum Germany, and as the person who made Hitler back down (temporarily), his historical role should be fleshed out better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.30.82 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It'd be helpful to explain what a junker is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjc (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A car costing less than $300? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sca (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lights
I think (and originally put it in) that the fact that the lights at the grave are switched off is an interesting information, as it puts Hindenburg into perspective, but I think that to add that this has been because of a lack of respect (whatever that means) is POV, superfluous, and also wrong (or at least, I would think so; I think it is mainly a PC issue). Clossius 08:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Concur. Mackensen (talk) 08:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify why it was done? ("PC issue" doesn't do that) PMA 16:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure I could, but I don't think that's germane to the issue here, which is why I put the remark in parentheses. The fact of switching the lights off is clear and verifiable; what the motives of the church chapter were, if any, would be an imputation unless they had written public records, which I doubt (or original research, which is un-wiki). What is clear is that switching off the lights wasn't for the lack of respect, because this would imply not caring, and to switch the lights off in this chapel (the only place in the entire church - and it also prevents you from seeing the coats of arms of the Grand Masters of the Teutonic Order) implies that there is a purpose here. Clossius 18:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Then at least include the fact that no one now knows what the motives were in the article. When I read this I imeadiadely started searching the talk section for more info. Bertus 10:36, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

Pozna&#324; is a Polish city
Let's me clarify things:
 * Pozna&#324; was called Pozna&#324; for the last 1000 years
 * Pozna&#324; was in Poland for the last 1000 years
 * There was not such thing as Posen for the last 1000 years
 * Posen was the name used by Prussians during their occupation of Poland
 * Posen was the name used by Nazis during their occupation of Poland
 * Posen was never used by Polish or English people, and should not be used in the English Wikipedia
 * I have nothing against the usage of Posen in the German Wikipedia, but the German editors/speakers should decide what name to use

Thank you for you attaention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.138.110 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 December 2004 (UTC)


 * Please stop arguing over stupid things. Many sites including Polish sources acknoledge the fact that Poznan was called Posen during Paul von Hidenburg's birth. --Masterhomer 08:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Encarta has "Hindenburg was born in Posen (now Pozna&#324;, Poland)" GeneralPatton 08:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It was called Posen then and should still be called Posen now, [personal attack deleted Kelly Martin 16:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.214.87 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 June 2005 (UTC)

Party membership
Does anyone know if Hindenburg was ever an actual member of a political party, or, in particular, if he was a member of a party at the times he stood for election in 1925 and 1932? I've been working on some other articles about Weimar politics and this information is a bit of a gap. Iota 22:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, he wasn't, he made a point of being "above" parties. This (basically anti-democratic) stance was part of the image and of his popularity as well. Of course, he was supported by a voting coaltion, the "Reichsblock", basically the right-wing and centrist parties (1925). The German Wiki article on the 1925 elections is quite good (but not the one on 1932). Clossius 16:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started articles on the two elections: German presidential election, 1925, and German presidential election, 1932, but they're based largely on what I could glean from the two German Wikipedia articles and from elsewhere on the 'pedia. So if you find yourself wandering in that direction it would be great if you could correct any obvious errors or omissions. Iota 17:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Some comments:
 * Though the idea of a president being "above parties" stems from a animosity against political i-parties and might become problematic, it's not necessarily anti-democratic. The Weimar Constitution certainly considered the President's role to be above party politics. Though Hindenburg's predecessor Ebert remained a member of the SPD, he did not act as a SPD-President and cooperated mainly with non-SPD governments.
 * Hindenburg was elected president in 1925 as the candidate of the parties right of the centre, that only put him up in the 2nd round of the ballot against Wilhelm Marx of the Centre Party (standing also for Social Democrats and Left-Liberals) and the Communist Ernst Thälmann.
 * In his 1932 re-election Hindenburg however was supported by the parties of the centre-left (Right- and Left-Liberals, Social Democrats, Centre Party) against Hitler and again Communist Thälmann.
 * Str1977 00:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Noble Title
Did he possess any title (such as Freiherr)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.96.77 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, his family didn't carry any additional titles. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I thank you, sir. Were any peerages specifically created for him by the Kaiser? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.216.92 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Revival of the Monarchy
Is he had decided to, could he have, as President of Germany, restored the Kaiser to the throne? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.255.136 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, unless he was willing to break his oath of office. Legally it would have been possible only by changing the constitution, requiring 2/3 of both the Reichstag and the Reichsrat.
 * Str1977 00:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your information, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.225.178 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. (Please sign your name with four tildes, next time.)
 * Str1977 23:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

point of view
I thought this was a great article. Concise, interesting and at just the right level of detail. However, I think there are a few things that ought to be phrased in an NPOV. I think the most glaring one is this:
 * Hindenburg was not a charismatic man, but he did possess a ablility to impress people. However, beneath the facade of strength and power that Hindenburg projected, was a well-meaning, but weak-willed and not particularly intelligent man who was highly dependent upon the advice on others to make decisions.

I don't know if this is the widely held opinion in Germany, or in historical circles today. I have a feeling that this is summarizing one of his biographers. A reference, such as "According to Smith," would be welcome, but I don't feel capable of making the changes myself. &mdash;Joke137 18:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Blackmail
I note there is nothing here about the suborning of Hindenburg through his son Oskar, over their taxation irregularities at  Neudeck  , nor the  gift of a further 5000 acres , parallel to the blackmail of 1933. Famekeeper 09:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Emperor?
Hindenburg, old and confused, thought he was meeting the emperor and called Hitler "Your Majesty".

Which emperor was this, in 1934? The article on German Empire says it ended in 1918. sjorford (?!) 11:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Which is why they mention that he was old and confused. Somewhat senile people may lose track of the day that they're in. He thought he was meeting Kaiser Wilhelm II. And, most likely, he thought it was still World War I or pre-War. Homagetocatalonia 11:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. it was just the phrase "the emperor" that threw me; perhaps this can be rephrased? sjorford (?!) 13:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hindenburg as hunter and His Coat of Arms
Does anybody know of Hindenburg as a hunter? His coat of arms is on a hunting dagger/hirschfanger. Can anybody explain what his coat of arms signifies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonydon (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Answer: part 1. I do not. part 2. Usually they signify nothing beyond the ego and fantasy of a family in bygone days. p.s. Hope you don't mind my rewriting your question (it was a little awkward). Dr. Dan 01:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgery of "Prophesy"
The purported letter of Ludendorff to Hindenburg regarding Hitler seemed so preposterous, that I wrote to Sir Ian Kershaw, questioning it. It actually seemed incongruous that such a letter would have escaped historians and the history of the period for so long. Sir Ian Kershaw admitted to me that it was a forgery, and he has eliminated it from his book Hitler Hubris 1889-1936. He also told me that he has had difficulty from removing it from the German translation. I deleted it from Wikipedia, since it's not only a major inaccuracy, but simply false.Dr. Dan 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I didn't realize that it was a forgery. Please note that mine putting in the quote was an good faith edit, I simply assumed that because it was in Ian Kershaw's book, it must have been legitimate. Thanks for correcting this matter.A.S. Brown 01:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. We all fall victim to these errors. Even famous historians need to be questioned and challenged from time to time. As I truly like Wikipedia, I want to keep it scholarly, accurate, and unbiased. Best wishes. Dr. Dan 02:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How did he come to print it in the first place? PMA 16:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Essay?
Is this an essay or an encyclopedia article about a person? The latter doesn't need a "Conclusion"--85.49.227.84 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity, birthplace, wife
"He was not charismatic, but he did possess an ability to impress people." -- This statement seems contradictory and lacks a clear meaning. Do we mean he was an imposing presence, but not a compelling speaker? Imposing but phlegmatic?

Regarding Posen/Poznan: The city was internationally recognized as part of Prussia and then Germany from the second partition of Poland in 1793 until the changes wrought by the Versailles Treaty in 1919; its reincorporation into Germany during the Nazi occupation was not internationally recognized. Therefore, I made it: "Hindenburg was born in Posen, Prussia (since 1919 Poznań, Poland)...."

I don't think the earlier history of Poznań is relevant to this article, and certainly the sort of nationalistic fumings from both sides seen above are irrelevant. Readers who wish to explore the ethnographic history of the area can consult the entry on Poznań.

Does anyone know anything about Hindenburg's wife? We say only that he was a "widower" and was buried with his wife at Tannenberg and again in Marburg.

Sca 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)