[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

German - Polish name

[edit]

There is no significant evidence to show that this fellow and his family were anything other than wholly Germanised citizens of Prussia and that they spelt their names accordingly. The blatant Polish spellings in this article should all be changed to the correct ones. Also, someone who was, according to this article, so positively evil and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and yet never charged for any of them seems too good to be true. I shall investigate some of the Western histories on this. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Slavic origin' part of the article is based mostly on the Polish wiki art, which, in turn, was based on works of Von dem Bach's biographer - Marek Dzięcielski. He uses "Żelewski" were his sources (mostly Church documents) are using that form. And the name of von dem Bach's father - Otton Jan von Żelewski is spelled with a "Ż". It is highly probable that Erich von dem Bach knew both Polish and Kashubian, as he attended schools in Wejherowo, Chojnice and Brodnica and to most of his school mates Polish and Kashubian were their mother tongues. 87.206.96.114 (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to log myself in ;-) Barry Kent (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Don´t get me wrong, but I don´t think that in an official Prussian registers around 1890 anybody would write a name like “Elżbieta Ewelina Szymańska”, as the letters “ż” or “ ń” are unknown in German and these registers are written in German. As well the name “Szymanska” is the Polish female version of Szymanski, while in German names aren´t declined. Most probably his mothers name in the official records is “Elisabeth Eveline Schimansky” or something like that. I´d really like to see the original register. And that´s just the same with “Otton” , isn´t it rather “Otto” (Ludwik / Ludwig)? This section seems to be a translation of Polish WP, declining the original names ( as usual in Polish ) as a proof that these people were Kashubians, but this “evidence” is just a soap bubble.

Don´t get me wrong, there were several noble families with kashubian or slavic ancestors in that region, but most of them wouldn´t define themselves as Kashubians as they where assimilated to German / Prussian culture long before, so the whole section gives a wrong impression.(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As I have written earlier - most of the sources were CHURCH documents, written probably in Polish or Latin. Barry Kent (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church documents in Prussia were´nt written in Polish or Latin.(HerkusMonte (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
And you know that from...? They were written in Latin FOR SURE. Plus: Most catholic priests in Prussia were Polish, so it is highly probable that they used their native tongue at least from time to time. Barry Kent (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His mother (“Elżbieta Ewelina Szymańska”) was Lutheran, not catholic, and Lutheran church records were neither written in Latin nor in Polish.(HerkusMonte (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

An interesting article from 2006 on his biography in Polish by Tomasz Żuroch von Piechowski is available here. --Lysytalk 23:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please help me out? It says in this article "In July 1943, he became commander of the so-called "Bandenkampfverbande" ("Band-fighting Units"), responsible for the mass murder of 35,000 civilians in Riga...." But the Riga Ghetto page states "An account from the year 1943 lists 13.200 Jews in the ghetto" Xiare (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change of name to "von dem Bach"

[edit]

The article is not consistent with the timing of the addition of "von dem Bach" to his full name. First, it states the change was done in the late 30's then, later on, it says the change was made in 1925. Someone should determine which was correct and update the page accordingly.

AJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.64.199 (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Pole

[edit]

The article should say it explicitly, he was pro-German, but an ethnic Pole. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and i've read he saved chopin's heart from destruction. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is not at all obvious, because his mother was Jewish. Bociek O-le (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This fact has been added to the article now. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polish "history"

[edit]

Polish "history" is fanatically biased and on a page such as this is just out of order. English-language Wikipedia should have readily available English-language references. The minute you permit those with an axe to grind onto pages like this you are in trouble. Lastly, Kashubians are NOT Polish. this is very important. Also were the villages his father owned in Pomerellan or Pomerania. A serious distinction should be made. Did they have German names at the time and if so that is what should be cited, not names which no-one recognises except raving Polish nationalists. 86.165.190.197 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wehrmachtbericht reference for Bach-Zelewski

[edit]

Bach-Zelewski is listed as having been mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht (Wehrmacht's daily propaganda report):

Military personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht

I'd be curious to see what it say. Does anyone have access to this reference? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wehrmachtbericht report

[edit]

I removed the reinsertion of the report. It was originally removed with this edit on Jan 19, a day after it was added: diff and no one objected, thus representing a consensus as I understand it. New consensus need to be achieved to have this reinstated.

The section itself is citing from the OKW propaganda report, the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. In either case, the section is citing verbatim (including in German) a piece of Nazi propaganda that has no informative value; all such reports were approved by the Reich Propaganda Ministry and were meant solely to instill optimism in the German population.

The exact wording removed was:

  • During the suppression of the uprising in Warsaw, fighting forces of the Army, the Waffen-SS and the Luftwaffe under the command of SS-Obergruppenführer and General of the Police von Bach under the leadership of Major General Rohr have particularly distinguished themselves by showing toughness and audacious recklessness.

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this, K.e.coffman. Indeed, one brief propaganda mention on the Nazi radio during murderous suppression of the Warsaw Uprising under his command has no place in Wikipedia. Brief mentions of this sort are as far as can be from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Poeticbent talk 16:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the Wehrmachtbericht being included in the article of a military soldier or as to a military action when relevant. As for inclusion here, I can see your point. I did not add it so I leave it to that editor to comment. Kierzek (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Showing toughness" may have been a euphemism for murdering innocent civilians during the Warsaw Uprising. I think it should come out. It's propaganda put out by the OKW. — Diannaa (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think it should stay in, as should all Wehrmachtbericht references, but with the addition of a full explanation of what the Wehrmachtbericht was (it wasn't just propaganda, just like the BBC World Service wasn't just propaganda, despite it being censored by the British Government). In addition to its role as propaganda, is was also a source of actual armed forces news for the civilian populace, and after 1940 the mention of a named person was the nearest thing the Wehrmacht (and Waffen-SS) had to the London Gazette mentioning a serviceman in dispatches. Kallis' 2005 book on Nazi propaganda tempers the idea that it was mere propaganda and also points out that Nazi propaganda wasn't as all-pervasive as some think. While a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht did not itself result in the award of a worn device like the oakleaves of a mention in dispatches, it was noted in the person's records and had a similar function in drawing the attention of the German public to the actions of an individual. The nature of the Wehrmachtbericht itself actually changed progressively during the course of the war, and had a different spin. In this case it may have included euphemisms for criminal actions, but it may equally have been referring to bravery in combat against armed fighters of the Home Army. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: please also see discussion at NPOV noticeboard on the topic. According to feedback there these quotations fail WP:UNDUE. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reconsidered my position on this, I believe the quotation is undue, but the article should state how many times the person was mentioned and what action they were mentioned for (in plain terms), just as we would for a mentioned in dispatches. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The articles currently include phrasing such as "Mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht radio report on 1 October 1944" or "Eight mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht: 11, 12 and 31 October 1941; 19 and 20 May 1942; 2 July 1942; 20 March 1943; 4 August 1943" (n the awards sections).
This was arrived at by consensus at Talk:Manstein#Wehrmachtbericht and Talk:Rommel#Wehrmachtbericht, as well as at this Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

Regarding this revert / addition, Wikipedia's policy WP:BURDEN applies as the material was uncited. Additionally, it represents intricate detail unrelated to subject's notability. I plan to restore the edit unless citations can be provided and the encyclopedic relevance of this material can be demonstrated. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1962

[edit]

According to references Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski was re-arrested in 1962, tried again, and received a sentence of life in prison. His wartime activities were once again not disclosed. Is there a reason this is omitted from the "Trials and convictions" section? Otr500 (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

[edit]

The Polish Communists fabricated countless post-war stories with fantastic number counts, none of which can be or ever have been verified. Just because Norman Davies (who is fanatically pro-Polish and has a Polish wife) repeats these atrocity stories does not make it true. During the Warsaw Uprising it is a recorded fact that the German military authorities had innumerable cease-fires for hours at a time encouraging civilians to leave the city. If Bach-Zelewski had committed all the crimes on this page whether he gave evidence against others or not would not have saved him, only reduced a sentence. The very fact that he was never ever arraigned speaks volumes. Pages like this on Wikipedia discredit it. 86.165.190.96 (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

good try, denier. 137.188.108.203 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 86.165.190.96

[edit]

Von dem Bach died in prison, which may also speak volumes. He was a defense witness at Nuremburg and plea-bargained his way out of prosecution for his own acts, which while despicable, was a common-enough outcome for people of his type. Please read up on the composition of the Adenauer government: many Nazis remained in power within German society into the 1950's, with both the complicity of the West German government and the encouragement of the western powers who wished to see a strengthened Germany to be used as a bulwark against the Soviet block. This is all very clearly in the public record, and is a powerful explanation for the abysmal prosecution record of major Nazi war criminals in West Germany.

What are the numbers that you refuse to accept? List them, and we can debate whether they're valid or not. What has Norman Davies' wife got to do with anything?

Do you see that encouraging people to leave Warsaw might have made suppressing the uprising a little easier? Once they were out of their entrenched positions in the city, they were easy prey for Reinefarth's units (which included Oskar Dirlewanger's brigade), RONA, and various army units. This is the same thing as happened with the ISIS fighters who were allowed to leave Raqaa last month. It's basic military tactics, not humanitarianism. (As an example of the point made earlier, Heinz Reinefarth went on to be a town mayor and then a member of the Schleswig-Holstein regional government. All Polish requests for his extradition were refused.)

Von dem Bach did not commit only the crimes listed on this page. His list of atrocities far outstrips what is documented here. FiftusTheSixth (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. I am the eldest child of his eldest son, Heinrich. My family does not speak of these things; however, as a student of history, it is very interesting to me.
Ruthann von dem Bach, USA. 97.90.228.168 (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The notion that Von Dem Bach “made a plea bargain” because he was a witness in the Nuremberg process, is of course categorically wrong and only exists in Mr. Fiftus imagination. While plea bargaining is a common feature in the US justice system, it is virtually non existent in European justice systems, and was not on the table in Nuremberg.

192.38.136.42 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"bandit fighting" not against ideological enemies

[edit]

Bandit fighting was not attacks on "those designated by the regime as ideological enemies and any other persons deemed to present danger to the Nazi rule". It was attacks on those who were actively fighting against the German occupation, along with the supporting population. There is a big difference between fighting enemy combatants engaged in open warfare, and rounding up political opponents.203.80.61.102 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange interpretation

[edit]

Dear 203.80.61.102. Please explain the basis of your claim that what Von dem Bach's units did was fundamentally fighting enemy combatants. It's clear that German security operations sometimes targeted Soviet, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Jewish, etc partisan units, but the documentary record shows that the majority of victims were just people, and not armed, trained or supported combatants of any kind. The body counts versus weapons captured were orders of magnitude different. I can't deny that sometimes the targeted populations fought back. Wouldn't you? Read up on the training that the Bandenkampfverbanden officers received - let loose on Jews who were corralled into killing sites. I also don't fully understand your distinction between "political opponents" and people "actively fighting against the German occupation", given that the Germans had no right to be there in the first place, unless you accept the loathsome Nazi view of the world under which many of them operated. It's almost too easy to remind you that Von dem Bach's anti-partisan resources included Oskar Dirlewanger's unit. FiftusTheSixth (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion of EGB for EGA

[edit]

The article refers to the massacres at Riga having been under the jurisdiction of Einsatzgruppe B. This is incorrect. They were conducted by sub-units of Einsatzgruppe A. The HSSPF in charge was either Hans-Adolf Prutzmann or Friedrich Jeckeln, depending on the date of the action. Von dem Bach, despite his massive count of crimes against humanity, cannot be held accountable for the exterminations at Riga. FiftusTheSixth (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi awards

[edit]

@Troy von Tempest: I'm curious as to why you've added back the Nazi awards sections that were removed by myself and K.e.coffman. Most of these awards are relatively insignificant and only known to a very specialized audience. Also, the Nazi party number and SS number are unlikely to mean anything to the average person, and a recent discussion on Reinhard Heydrich's page concluded that they didn't belong. Catrìona (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Catrìona: and thanks for your message. First up, I wasn't aware that there was a previous section dealing with his military and Party awards. As for your claim that the majority of the ones I've listed are insignificant, I would have to disagree. I have only added ones that have their own stand-alone Wiki article, so if they are, as you say, insignificant, it beggars the question as to why they all have their own Wiki article? What function do those stand-alone Wiki articles serve, if they are never to be linked to in another article? Why not just delete every Wiki article that you consider dealing with insignificant pieces of history? The Iron Cross is certainly not insignificant, the Honour Cross of WWI is not significant (read the article, I wrote most of it). It was the very first medal created by the Nazi's and the only official medal for WWI veterans and their next of kin. The chevron and dagger were quite rare, the Golden Party Badge was not insignificant by any means. I'm not trying to get into an argument with you at all over this, I hope you appreciate that. I'm just adding links to other Wiki articles. As a military man, his awards and decorations are surely part of his history? This is an encyclopaedia after all :) As for his Party and SS number, I accept what you said and will be happy to delete that. As for the claim that they are of interest to only a very specialised audience, have you read the Wiki article on Muon-catalyzed fusion? Now THAT'S only known to a very specialised audience! As an owner of many hard copy encyclopaedias, I value that not everything in them is for a mass audience, and was under the impression that Wiki was an encyclopaedia that dealt in history and facts that may not be of interest to a mass audience. I have a vast collection of reference material which I am slowly working my way through in view of adding to Wiki. At the moment I'm going through the Awards and Decorations reference books, and only, and I must stress this again, adding links to stand-alone Wiki articles. I am in no way trying to glorify the Nazi's, just adding factual content that is relevant to them, either in a military way or the Party way. I have works on Erich von dem Bach which I will use to add to his bio when I get time. I also had a quick look at some of your other work and it's very good, I hope to contribute when time permits!

Thanks again! Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section; preserving here by providing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erich_von_dem_Bach-Zelewski&type=revision&diff=853354220&oldid=853206634 this link[. My rationale was: "Excessive intricate detail; important awards are already cited in the body of the article". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying stand alone Wiki articles are not permitted to be linked in another article? Is this official Wiki policy?Troy von Tempest (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm following; the notability of the award (i.e. having an article on it) is not really material as to whether the mention of said award is included in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really material to who? Again, what, if any, Wiki guideline or regulation was I in breach of by having an awards section for a military man? Or did you delete it because you personally don't agree with it? What's the guideline on "excessive intricate detail" on Wiki? I further ask, again, why it's not permitted, at least on this page, to link to another article? What is the issue you have here? I'm trying to understand why this is so upsetting for you? Is this an encyclopaedia or not? Are you now going to go and find every military serviceman or woman, Third Reich or not, who has a Wiki article and delete any awards and decorations section? Or is it just on a whim for this article? Furthermore, if it's not allowed on this article, why is it allowed on other articles? I don't understand your insistence on deletion because you are of the opinion it's unnecessary or "excessive"?. If this is your view, why don't you then go and edit all articles with an awards section in the name of consistency? Why is not permitted for anyone who just may find his military awards, major or "insignificant" if interest to read them, and furthermore, why shouldn't anyone then be able to use the link and see the stand-alone Wiki article on that award or decoration? Am I to run any other edits on other articles past you so as to make sure you find them allowable? I don't understand why this has become an issue for you unless you have an agenda that I'm unaware of?Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concern is that the awards are not really meaningful or relevant to the reason that he is notable, and therefore don't help the reader gain a greater understanding of the subject. Zelewski's highest award was already in the article. Listing all the awards raises a concern with undue weight since scholarly sources don't discuss his awards at all and focus on his genocidal actions. Catrìona (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Heydrich's "NSDAP number, SS number" were not removed; what happened was there was some added explanation inserted. As for "Nazi awards", Troy, this should not be a surprise as we went through all this on the Ernst Röhm talk page - see here [1]. Kierzek (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erich_von_dem_Bach-Zelewski&oldid=1195020037"