Talk:Hermann Rauschning

Edit 15th June, Removal of Rauschning Quote

Deletion of quote: "If the Jews had not existed, we would have had to invent them." (Coltz 1983).

I have removed this quote as it is not by Rauschning but rather him reporting an alleged conversation with Hitler:

"The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans and Jews. All else is facade and illusion. Behind England stands Israel, and behind France, and behind the United States. Even when we have driven the Jew out of Germany, he remains our world enemy."

I (Rauschning) asked whether that amounted to saying that the Jew must be destroyed.

"No," he (Hitler) replied. "We should have then to invent him. It is essential to have a tangible enemy, not merely an abstract one."

Extract from: Hermann Rauschning. The Voice of Destruction G P Putnam’s Sons New York 1940 p.237

Davidbeare (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit 14 June 2009

Like Tymek, I too was unhappy about the un-cited statements in this section, which is why I added the general call for citations to it. I suspect that the original contributor was quoting from the publication mentioned in which case all that is needed is a citation rather than a deletion. Un-referenced information is ok to criticise and ultimately if no citation can be provided should be deleted; that it may or may not be controversial is not. I would prefer to see more effort on the part of those who would delete to make sure a citation is not easily obtainable. I will look into this specific subject further to see if the statements should stand or not.

Hopefully as a compromise I have maintained the original general call for citations to the section and also called for individual citations (as I have already done in other sections of this article) at specific points which could be controversial if they are not quotes from the subject of the article’s book.

Finally, the statements in the edit as of 00:14, 3 June 2009: “which had come under Polish control”, seems more accurate than that of 05:00, 14 June 2009: “which returned to Poland”, because before the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, Poland had not existed since the ‘three partition’s - the latest in 1795 - other than briefly as a duchy between 1807-1815. I have therefore restored the original statement.

Davidbeare (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your point in a civil way. Tymek (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, some time has passed and still no reliable sources. Given the highly POV nature of the text, I've removed it. I've also removed stuff that was cited to Rauschning himself as he can be hardly considered a neutral or a reliable source.radek (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

It is interesting to note that here is a man, an Nazi, who resigned after he saw it in power before Crystallnacht and WWII. The man wrote four books on his views and outlook on the Nazi's and who they are. Yet noone but Fr. Seraphim Rose, O'Sullivan, and Von Kuehelt Leddihn quote from him more that once or not at all. How strange is this?

Menace of the Herd, Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn                  1x
Liberty or Equality, """,                                 3x
Leftism Revisted, """",                                   7x
Nihilism, Fr. Seraphim Rose,                              3x
Fascism, O'Sullivan,                                      3x
Liberalism and the Challenge to Liberty, Prof Schapiro,   0x
Fascism, A Readers Guide, Walter Laqueur,                 0x
Reappraisals of Fascism, Turner,                          1x (just name)
The Making of Adolf Hitler, Eugene Davidson               0x
Voices from the Third Reich, Steinhof, Pechel,            0x
The rise of the Nazis, Conan Fischer,                     0x
Why Hitler?Genesis of the Nazi Reich, Mitcham             1x(mention of being discredited)
Fascism In Europe, S. J. Woolf                            1x
Fascist Italy & Nazi Germany, Bessel,                     0x
Nazism and the Third Reich, Turner                        1x
Coming of the Third Reich, Evans (This being touted as supreme book.)1x

WHEELER 16:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Obviously I am replying to a comment made 17 years ago, but considering Rauschning denounced Hitler as, in effect, insufficiently reactionary, it isn't surprising that a figure like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (who viewed Nazism as a leftist movement and was a monarchist like Rauschning) would be fond of Rauschning's books. Seraphim Rose and Noël O'Sullivan similarly wrote from conservative viewpoints seeking to demonstrate that Nazism was basically on the left. What's significant is that none of these three authors is regarded as an authority on Hitler or fascism unlike Evans, Laqueur, etc., and historians seem to generally treat Rauschning with skepticism as a source on Hitler's views. --Ismail (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

RE: Rauschning's Phony 'Conversations With Hitler': An Update

This entire paragraph is very bad, quotes are not entirely marked as quotes, no sensible line breaks exist and the citation of sources is not up to the standards of an encylopaedic entry. Someone should rewrite it completely. 84.137.15.134 08:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this section, which was copy-pasted from a pro-Nazi website. --212.235.16.212 19:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I would think a discussion based on arguments for or against the Weber article on the merits of its content rather than allegations regarding its source would be more helpful. User:pmoseley@actcom.net 00:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

---

What the hell is going on at Wikipedia

This article is in Violation of GFDL license

I Have found out that the page history of Kalos Kagathos was tampered with. This is in violation of the GFDL license. Now, I research this site and the page history was also tampered with.

Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles[31] without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.[32][33]

This section was in the article at some point at Wikipedia and it was deleted from the page History:
==Miscellania==

• Hermann Rauschning was known to be an accurate predictor of Nazi proclivities. In his book, Revolution of Nihilism, he uses the word "Holocaust" (in 1939) to describe what may be the result of the Third Reich.
  • "...�what is this Third Reich in reality, a new order in the making or a holocaust, a national re-birth through the historic energies of the nation or a progressive, permanent revolution of sheer destruction,..." pg xi.

From the history page of Wikinfo artilce: 17:54, 14 March 2005 WHEELER (Talk | contribs | block) (via wikipedia transferring over)

Now where is this anywhere in the history of this page? Nowhere. The page history of this article has been tampered with!!!! This article is in violation of the GFDL license. So I would like the history page of this article restored.WHEELER 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The page history has been restored. Thanks.WHEELER 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Source of a saying.

An IP has added this saying : "If the Jews had not existed, we would have had to invent them". (Coltz 1983)

Does anybody know the precise source ? In fact, this sentence is sometimes assigned to Hitler.

Marvoir 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of description of a book

This was removed by Radeksz :

== "Die Entdeutschung Westpreußens und Posens". ==

In January 1919 Rauschning began to collect reports and newspaper-articles about the atrocities committed by the polish government an the so called "Westmarken-Verein" (association for the western territories) in the districts of Thorn (Torun and Posen Poznan, which had become under Polish control as a consequence of the treaty of Versailles.

Before world war I in these districts lived about 1.200.000 germans in 1929 only 350.000 were left. More than 800.000 had been expelled from their homes. The expuslsion was performed by exercising of psychologigical and economic pressure and also by internment of thousands of people. In the city of Sxczypiorno e.g. existed an internment camp where 8000 people - among them 7 years old childs, 70 years old men and 24 lutheran parsons (among them Generalsuperintendent Blau) were kept as prisoners for months under worst conditions and without medical care.

(End of quotation.)

It would be normal to say a word about this book of Rauschning. I suggest this :

== "Die Entdeutschung Westpreußens und Posens". ==

In January 1919 Rauschning began to collect reports and newspaper-articles about the treatment of Germans by the Polish government and the "Westmarken-Verein" (Association for the western territories) in the districts of Thorn (Torun and Posen Poznan, which had become under Polish control as a consequence of the treaty of Versailles.

According to Rauschning, more than 800.000 Germans on about 1.200.000 had been expelled from these districts between 1919 and 1929 and the expulsion was performed by exercising of psychologigical and economic pressure and also by internment of thousands of people under bad conditions.

(Sorry for my bad English.)

Now, I must say that I didn't read this book of Rauschning.
Marvoir (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I assume that there are no objections.

Marvoir (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz has again removed the description of Rauschning's book on the degermanization of West-Prussia. I don't understand why it is forbidden to describe a book of a person in the article about this person.

Marvoir (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page of the world war II article many reliable sources have been presented which confirm what Rauschning has said in "Die Entdeutschung" ("Poland wants war..."). And I must say it again: there are several "white books" of the democratic german govenment of that time, which confirm this also. In the geman Bundesarchiv there exist masses of depositions of victims and eye- witnesses of the atrocities which were reported by Rauschning. Moreover: I have directed a request to the WP:RSN whether this book can be used as a source on wikpedia (see wwII talk "again Hermann Rauschning". The conclusion can only be that the description of this book in this article has to be restored! user:Jäger 01:20, 29 October 2009 (CET)

On the talk page of the world war II article many reliable sources have been presented which confirm what Rauschning has said in "Die Entdeutschung" - no there haven't. You are adding UNRELIABLE, PRIMARY SOURCES and using them to push a fringe POV, associated with Nazis like Rauschning. This kind of material does not belong in an encyclopedia. Describing the book is one thing - presenting it as anything but propaganda is another.radek (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For an example of how something like this should be handled see the article on Mein Kampf - do you see the article pretending that what's in that book is true? Do you actually see it repeating the claims made in that book? No. Same thing here.radek (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It have found out that Rauschning did not join the Nazi party before 1932 (see my recent revision!). This means that Your only argument against "Die entdeutschung" is totally refuted! If You assume that what he has said there is propaganda, You have to prove it! The statement given in this article saying that he began to support the Nazis in the twenties is completely unsourced and has to be removed. user:Jäger 23:40, 29 Ocober 2009 (CET)

Uh, well, that doesn't really change anything. So ok, he wrote the book first, THEN joined the Nazis. What is that supposed to prove or in what way does that make him reliable? I don't have to prove that the book is propaganda. In fact I don't have to prove that it is an unreliable source since that's blindingly obvious, even if in, normal circumstances, the burden of proof wasn't on you, per Wiki policy. Also per Wiki policy [1], the only thing that the Rauschning source could possibly be used for is for information on the guy himself and that's it.

Second, in re your edit summary - this actually isn't the *only* argument against using the book in the article, it's just the most obvious one. Additionally, the fact that this is a primary source and the fact that Rauschning is also known for publishing a book in which he made up and falsified conversations which he supposedly had with Hitler also make him untrustworthy - hence unreliable.radek (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this (secondary, reliable) source says he joined the Nazis in 1931 [2]. I can't check the source you provided but I'll trust you on the 1932 bit. Also want to point out however that one doesn't have to be an official member of a party in order to support it.radek (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, there isn't nor there has ever been a place called Sxczypiorno. At least not in Poland. You're probably thinking of Szczypiorno.radek (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And as it turns out, Szczypiorno camp was actually an internment camp for Polish legionnaires who refused to swear the oath of loyalty to Germany and/or Austria [3].radek (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You very much for this highly interesting remark! This is not the only example of a concentration camp which was reactivated by the other side because the infra-structure was still existing. Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen were also used by the nazis AND by the soviets! user:Jäger 00:35, 30 October 2009 (CET)

Well, you're welcome. BTW, in checking up on it I did come across a source (can't find it now though) which said that this was a "internment camp" which briefly held about the number of Germans you mention, but it didn't say anything about the supposed "under worst conditions and without medical care", rather it said that this was a very short lived arrangement having to do with the Greater Poland Uprising. I looked for sources but all I could find are about the Austrian POW camp for Polish legionnaires.radek (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jager

Seriously, if you don't stop pushing this non-RS POV pushing with HR's propaganda book then I will have to report you for it. I really don't want to because you appear to be new and I hate to report people just because they don't orient themselves well in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But you're being so persistent that I'll have no choice. So once again - HR's book is 1) a primary source, 2) non reliable for the purposes of the things it talks about, 3) the author himself is non reliable for general purposes of Wikipedia, given his Nazi party affiliation and his propensity to just make stuff up (like the Hitler conversations). You cannot include stuff from the book in the article. You can include the fact that he wrote the book but you have to phrase this very carefully in order to ensure NPOV.radek (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the following section:

"In 1961 the Lithuanian Stephan M. Horak agreed with Rauschnings conclusions in his book Poland and her national minorities 1919-39 a case study. In a review of this book Stanley W. Page writes: " ... the polish government persecuted the 30 per-cent non-polish population, ... Germans, Jews, Belo Russians, Lithuanians and others ... a new "jailhouse of nations " was brought into existence."."

As none of the quotes contain any mention of Rauschning it is violation of WP:SYNTH to use them in this way. That they may conclude persecution has taken place does not mean that they "back up" or "agrees" with Rauschning. I have also reworded the preceding section about Rauschnings book, so as to make it clearer that it is Rauschnings claims, not actual factual reporting. Rauschnings work is a primary source as established on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 49#Hermann Rauschning, and as such it can only be used as a source to show what Rauschning claimed had happened. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Undue weight to "Revisionist" historians?

Should Wikipedia really spend 13 paragraphs on the findings of revisionist WWII historians? I'm referring to the section about "authenticity". WWII revisionism is about as fringe as it gets. I propose we delete that section completely if all the sources are revisionist historians and revisionist websites? Hardly reliable sources...

RandySpears (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section as there was no objections to your proposal. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The "revisionist" Hänel was followed by non-revisionist historians. Most historians quoted in the deleted section are non-revisionist. Thus I restored the section, but without reference to the International Historic Review. Marvoir (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me this sets an absolutely awful precedent. I think that no one here will disagree that following the chaos of WWII, there was an incredibly strong need at a humanistic level for closure. Hence the rushed nature of the Nuremburg trials and the atrocious proceedings at Dachau, etc, etc (I say this as a native Pole, so please take the pressure cooker off the big burner now, thanks). From this follows first a huge desire to demonize the enemy, followed some arbitrary time later, a quiet shuffling-of-the-feet and hey-isn't-that-a-bird-up-there? -type of reversal of some of the more outrageous claims, followed by enormous shame and desire to just make it all go away. For many, that's the end of the road and it becomes a psychological bogeyman for the rest of their lives, wherein they will avoid the conversation or blow their top, etc, etc. But perhaps the healthiest thing to do would be to tighten one's belt, take a deep breath, and be brave enough to objectively assess just what happened in the war, and be ready to find things you don't want to see. (Whew, sorry! There is a point, I promise!) And sooooo => I think the overall structure of denouncing all of Rauschning's writings, simply because it is sickening to read the polemics against a nation that was soon to suffer just a tad from her neighbor... is shameful and wrong. And that is precisely what has been done here. The baby (and the tub, and the bassinet, and the shower curtain) has been thrown out with the bathwater. Yes, much of what he wrote is inarguably crap. Indeed, let me add yet another element of strong doubt that no one here has yet named: he quit in Nov'34... ring a bell? Let me help: it's just months after the Blood Purge, and he's scared shitless. (I hope I've won a modicum of trust with that whopper.) But none of that, absolutely none of it means a damn thing about the veracity of his statements about Hitler, the entire refutation thereof rests upon one thing (other that the ad hominem stuff I just mentioned): a revisionist's re-assessment! Given what is said about our pal Wolfie, is it any wonder someone might attack it? Now please, I do not by any means intend to imply here that what he wrote -is- true, or to what degree... but I'm just saying that all this deleting, all this fidgeting and all this quite obvious desire to just sweep the guy under a rug is dishonorable. If he is full of crap, then let us prove that properly. Pimpoosh (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mmmh, because it was only Revisionist historians that bothered with the authenticity of sources in that case? 197.228.10.230 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is still undue weight given to revisionist historians, who are quoted at length while the more mainstream ones get briefer play. The section is too long and there is a long quotation that is repeated verbatim. Can someone please take a look at this? Spelare108 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, any historiography has to be revisionist to some extent, so I don't get what the problem is here. Undesired findings perhaps? 105.8.4.90 (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Veracity

There should be some comment on the alleged unreliability of some of R's books, notably his "Conversations". Drutt (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Paul Siebert has found reviews of Rauschnings books that do not question the validity of the facts and opinions presented by him (see: discussion on his talk-page No. 66 (Hermann Rauschning):

1, HFP PercivalSource: J. of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Vol. 9 No. 4 (July 1930) p.556. Published by: Blackwell Publishing on Behalf of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

2, Charles E. MerriamSource: The American Political Science Review. Vol. 41, No. 6 (Dec. 1947), pp 1207 -1208.

3, M. MasseySource: International Affairs Review Supplement Vol. 19, No. 6/7 (Dec. 1941 - Mar. 1942) pp 413-414.

Rauschnings "Conversations .." are looked at as a reliable source in: Milan Hauner: "Did Hitler want a World Dominion?" in: J. of Contemporary History, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan. 1978) pp 15 - 32.Jäger (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Note all of these are way way way outdated. No modern scholar believes Rauschning to be reliable. Furthermore we really shouldn't use Nazis as sources for facts, even if they gave up their Nazi-ness at some point. No go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Outdated? The closer a source is to the events in question the better! If you stigmatize Rauschning because he sympathized for a couple of months with Hitler in the early thirties, then you should do this with everyone who did the same: eg Pilsudski concluded an alliance with Hitler which he kept until his death. Chrchill wrote in an article in 1935 that he would be glad, if Britain had lost a war, if she could get a leader like Hitler. Lloyd George said after a visit to the Obersalzberg in 1936: "Yes I say Heil Hitler! He is really a great man!" (Paul Schmidt: Statist auf diplomatischer Bühne). Your judgement is unacceptable! No go!!Jäger (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Outdated? The closer a source is to the events in question the better! - no that's not necessarily true. And your red herrings about Pilsudski, Churchill and Lloyd George fail, among other reasons, due to the fact that no one here is trying to use those guys as sources for factual information (and yes, LG in particular was pretty wacked).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And at least on its merits your Pilsudski example is way off. He signed a "non-aggression pact" with Germany in January 1934, not an "alliance" - without secret protocols or the like (unlike the Soviet-Nazi pact), way before Munich, or Kristalnacht and AFTER Pilsudski tried to sound out France on the possibility of jointly invading Germany to depose Hitler in 1933. He "kept this" agreement for about a year and a few months, until 1935 when he... died.

Seriously, why this insistence to use a Nazi author as a source for factual information? Why these strange comparisons?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Rauschning a Nazi-author? In fact he was an anti nazi-author!! He never wrote a single book in favor of Hitler but several books against him!! He was a member of the nazi party for perhaps less than 24 months and has left her long before Churchill and Lloyd George expressed their respect for Hitler. The polish-german non agression-pact was the basis for a cooperation of both powers against the soviet union. How close the relaitionship had become turned out as Hermann Göring went in the first line behind Pilsudski`s coffin at his burial.Jäger (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have found a highly interesting sequence in Joachim Fest´s Hitler-biography about the mental attitude of Pilsudski against Hitler: "Ebenso entschlossen zeigte sich auf der Gegenseite Marschall Pilsudski, der angesichts der halbherzigen und nervösen Politik Frankreichs das gesamte Bündniskonzept Polens umwarf und bezeichnenderweise nicht zuletzt seine Hoffnung darauf richtete, daß Hitler als Süddeutscher, Katholik und "Habsburger" weit außerhalb jener politischen Traditionen stand, die Polen fürchtete". (Joachim Fest: "Hitler", pp. 606-607, Frankfurt 1973.Jäger (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Up until this point, I've given Jäger the (oh-so-strained) benefit of the doubt, but it is here where I am now finally completely at a loss as to what on earth he is on about. Dude, context! Please! Pimpoosh (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Again Volunteer Marek has deleted the section abut "Die Entdeutschung ...". In his edit summary he wrote: " ... discussed extensively on talk - HR is not a source for factual info." Indeed, this was discussed intensively in this section: but with the opposite result! VM´s only argument, that HR were a "Nazi author", was totally refuted! This debate reminds me strongly of the discussion about "Golden Harvest", the latest book of Jan T. Gross, which is going on in Poland in these days.Jäger (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Total nonsense. YOU might have imagined that you "totally refuted" that HR was a Nazi but that doesn't make it so. The guy was a goddamn Nazi and this is indisputable. Likewise you can imagine that this was "my only argument" all you want. It doesn't make it so. I don't care about Jan Gross and I see that he has nothing to do with this case. This was also discussed at WP:RSN previously and you were already told that HR isn't a reliable source and that you should not present his propaganda work as fact. See section below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, there... time out. What does his being a Nazi have to do with the veracity of his claims? Pimpoosh (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This Nazi author is NOT. A. RELIABLE. SOURCE. FOR. FACTUAL. INFORMATION.

And the edit summary accompanying this revert [4] is completely false - the credibility of Rauschning has been discussed sufficiently on the talk page BUT NOT with positive result!. The only thing that the discussions show is that HR cannot be used as a reliable source for presenting factual information. This has been pointed out to death but user:Jäger insists on ignoring this and really really wants to use this ex-Nazi author to source information.

Additionally this has also been discussed over at WP:RSN [5] where the consensus was also that HR is simply not a reliable source (duh). To quote User:Stephan Schulz in response to jager's assertion that HR was reliable: Nonsense. Rauschning was politically motivated, a reactionary, and at least one of his books is now considered to be pure fabrication. He is not a RS. His book also is a 80 years old - it has to be treated as a primary source, and a suspicious one at that Another uninvolved editor stated The book is only a RS for what Rauschnings (and perhaps the Nazi party) claimed had happened with the German minority in Poland, not for what actually did happen. It should not be used as a RS for that, as it clearly was in the dif presented by Nick-D (the diff is pretty much the same as the revert given above).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Marek, you forgot to mention a litte but important detail: the discussion on WP:RNS has taken place under the false assumption that HR had joined the nazi-party already in 1926. But later on it turned out that he joined her in 1932, which had changed the situation completely. Jäger (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't change the situation at all. Rauschning was politically involved, the book he wrote was part of the ongoing conflict and cannot be considered a reliable source for the subject. Please don't reinsert until you have gained consensus for this paragraph. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That Rauschnings "Entdeutschung.." is founded on facts is undeniable and unquestionable. This has been confirmed only recently (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 21 May page Z3, Guido Hitze: "Das Komplott von Oberschlesien").Jäger (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that that source itself is pretty biased, it has nothing to do with Rauschnings who is not even mentioned in that article. Please don't try to pull a fast one on us. That article is about international diplomacy and the Silesian Uprising. Last I checked, Silesia was not the same as Poznan. And all the article says is that Silesia was contested between Poland and Germany. How in the world is this relevant to the POV text based on a Nazi author that you keep trying to insert into this article?Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the treatment of the german minority in Poland by the polish government and it tells, how this government had manipulated the league of nations-vote in upper silesia by occupying her with armed forces. Rauschning reported similar events from Posen and Westpreußen. The connection is clear! Again you call HR a "nazi author". If he was one, then he must have written a book or an article in favour of Hitler - where is it? Jäger (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC) These happenings that took place in upper silesia 90 years ago are depicted in the following book on pp 59ff:"Italien und Oberschlesien"Jäger (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, this article is about Hermann Rauschning. It is not about "the treatment of the german minority in Poland by the polish government". I have no idea what the purpose of the link you provide is supposed to be. The words "Hermann Rauschning" do not appear in that source, whatever it is.

And the logic which demands that "if he was really a nazi author then he must have written a book in favor of Hitler. He didn't write such a book, therefore he was not a Nazi" (never mind the fact that he actually joined the Nazi party) is so flawed it's hardly even worth commenting upon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Hermann Rauschning, but the debate, which is going on here, is about the fact that you, Marek, deny the atrocities against the german minority committed by the polish government after World War I. Therefore I have quoted 2 sources which illustrate these happenings! - A corn dealer is a person who is known to deal with corn. Analoguosly a "nazi author" is someone who is known to have written and published nazi-propaganda. Show me a publication by Rauschning which is of that kind and I will stop to restore the section about "The Entdeutschung ..."!Jäger (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, a Nazi author is a person who was a member of the Nazi party and wrote books.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is true, the nobel laureate Günter Grass is a "nazi-author" too!Jäger (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, if you don't see the difference between Grass and Rauschning, then there is not much I can say here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I know the difference between them very well: Grass was a member of the SS and Rauschning was a simple PG. Jäger (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to death here and at WP:RS. Rauschning is NOT a reliable source for factual information. Let it go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, Marek, this has been discussed to death here - to the death of your last argument, the "nazi author"! Jäger (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jäger please stop trying to insert this section contrary to consensus. It consists some rather serious synthesis violations, as well as problems regarding the use of primary sources (in this case the works of Rauschning himself) as mentioned above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've restored a part of Jäger's section, except the agrarian reform, which was a bit different.Henrig (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, you should say precisely what you mean by "synthesis-violation". My section about "Die Entdeutschung" contains only the description of a book, there is no room for "Synthetische Urtheile". "Contrary to consensus"? How can consensus be achieved if the only argument of one opponent is "no"? Thanks to Henrig! Jäger (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It is superflous now, since Henrig removed it, but for the record the synthesis violation (I have linked the policy in my above statement, so you should be familiar with the it) concerned your use of the Atlas zur Weltgeschichte in this edit:"According to Rauschning, the Germans there were constantly put under pressure to leave Poland. He mentions the fact that in 1925 the authorities had established an "agrarian reform act" which expropriated the German land owners, but not the Polish.". The atlas does not mention Rauschning or his claims. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument of the opponent is not just "no", but rather "no, we cannot use Nazis as reliable sources".

Anyway, I'm fine with Henrig's version, with some alterations. However there is still a problem with the claim "Rauschning decided to stay in Posen " - as far as I know this is just made up. Rauschning was born in Torun. In mid 1920's he bought an estate and lived in Gdansk. He published his book in 1930 (according to this article). So the claim that HR was actually in Poznan in the 1920's is unsourced and dubious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not yet read the mentioned page in the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, or when he moved to Poznan, but I've found mentioned online, that he had been director of the 'German library' in Poznan from 1919 to 1926.

Was he a Nazi, a rascist or did he rather join the party for other reasons, for instance career and influence? He is better known as an Anti-Nazi. It seems to be imaginable, that he was deeply shocked, when he realized the true character of Hitler and his intentions.Henrig (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Article Revision 7 August

Have re-edited the article because it didn't tell me much about the subject. The article seemed to unduly focus around the accuracy or otherwise of Hitler Speaks. I have left the "Authenticity of Hitler Speaks" section intact though personally I think it is far too long and I am sure someone must be able to summarise the arguments into 1 or 2 paragraphs. My edit does rely perhaps too much on this article which I picked off the German wiki entry but I assume other editors can find other references. --JHumphries (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is really decisive: a Polish professor, a contemporary, says that what Rauschning wrote in "Die Entdeutschung" is based on facts (top of page 3)! He exaggerated, but what he told is true! I have tried several times so insert something about the reasons of Gustav Stresemann´s aggressiveness against Poland, the subject of HR´s "Entdeutschung", in his article (section: "In the Weimar Republic"), but whenever I inserted it, it was deleted without discussion. Jäger (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for review of this article for neutrality issues

Forgive me if I'm doing this wrong -- I don't get on Wikipedia terribly often -- but I am asking that this article be reviewed by Wikipedia editors for neutrality, as it strikes me as highly biased.

"Gespräche mit Hitler (Conversations with Hitler) ... now has no standing as an accurate document on Hitler for historians." Really? NO standing? How is this borne out? In fact it is not borne out, since further in the article Hugh Trevor-Roper refers to Rauschning as "dented" -- which is scarcely the same thing as "destroyed."

Quote: "Rauschning's ideas of conservative Christian resistance to Hitler met with increasing scepticism, and were of no interest to Winston Churchill and his doctrine of uncompromising total war." Met from skepticism from whom? What is the time frame here? And how does a Briton such as Churchill even enter into a discussion of "conservative Christian resistance to Hitler," which would clearly be a domestic affair? The point here seems to be to portray Churchill as a warmonger.

Of equal concern, this article refers to "Swiss researcher Wolfgang Hänel," who has declared Rauschning's work "a fraud." (This "unmasking" conveniently happened only after Rauschning died in his mid-nineties.) The article then refers in passing to a book Hänel has supposedly written. However, no book is named or cited, and no actual page references are cited. Moreover, it appears that Hänel's alleged academic credentials with the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt (ZFI) refer, in fact, to a small fringe group that specializes in Holocaust denial.

Perhaps most crucially, I would note that this article states:

"Hänel based his book [what book?] upon a tape-recorded interview that he had led in 1981 with Emery Reves, Jewish [sic!] publisher of the original French edition of Hitler speaks [...] Reves contended that penniless Rauschning's main reason for agreeing to write Hitler speaks was the 125,000 francs advance, and, referring to preliminary talks with Rauschning in 1939 where he had agreed with the author on what themes and personality traits to apply to Hitler, considered it as largely fabrication."

Of course, Emery Reves is also conveniently deceased (dying in October 1981). No "tape-recorded interview" is sourced either.

And let us rephrase the above quotation in plain English. What it is saying is this: A "Jewish" publisher (allegedly) paid an embittered political opponent of Hitler to make up a book-length "fabrication" about him. And only decades later did the Jewish publisher admit his fraud -- just before dying. The obvious meaning here: Der Führer was libeled by the lackeys of the cosmopolitan Jews. Ah yes, of course. I can scarcely think of any assertion more dubious or tendentious, particularly since no source is cited to back these claims.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• NicholasNotabene, this is interesting. If you don't mind, however, I'm moving the tag to the section. I had a look at some of the language in the article and will make a tweak or two. However, I invite you to turn that awfully poorly organized section into some decent prose--steering clear, of course, of original research (that someone conveniently died may well be true but needs neutral language and a proper source...). But you seem to have the material at hand; please help improve the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This article still fails to convey facts from a neutral point of view, editors seem to be repeatedly adding personal views without any pretense of citation. Rather than join the affray it seems some consensus must be reached about neutral language and citations in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.193.231 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line is basically this: We know Hitler and the Nazis were utter assholes, evil, and that the Holocaust did happen. But saying that, in order to know and express these clear facts about them being the bad guys, we don't need tabloid writers and fabricators like Rauschning, who basically made up most of his book Hitler Speaks as a sensationalist dime novel by means of plagiarizing and grossly embellishing other people's writings (including Mein Kampf and Guy de Maupassant's fiction novellas) to declare Hitler a psychotic imbecile posessed by some occult supernatural powers from beyond the human realm does not equal denying the Holocaust or "pushing personal NPOV views", just because Holocaust denialists happen to agree with sensible people that Rauschning's book is a plump fabrication.

Yes, Holocaust denialists use the fact that Hitler Speaks is a fabrication for their own sinister motives, and yes, some things in the book actually make sense and can also be found in authentic sources, but that's only because Rauschning, besides fabricating most of the book, also plagiarized authentic sources. But neither of which makes Hitler Speaks any more valuable or reliable as a source than others in the sensationalist, fictional, often occultist, and mostly post-war tradition of what Hitler biographer Michael Rißmann terms fraudulent "crypto history", basically a form of pulp nazisploitation (Rißmann dedicates many pages to call out Rauschning's various fabrications and that Rauschning hardly ever met Hitler in person, especially not during those times and dates implied in the book), as a tradition of pulp fiction writing started largely by Rauschning. In fact, although the intention of both fabricators, the light in which they chose to portray Hitler, were rather different, Rauschning's methods and the results largely resemble Konrad Kujau's Hitler Diaries hoax, which also plagiarized a few authentic documents in order to create a plump forgery made with the intention to pass as an authentic source.

Much like the post-war Hitler diaries, Rauschning's book is tabloid, fabricated, fictional nazisploitation with a few microscopic authentic bits plagiarized from elsewhere and utterly useless as a legtimate historical source, even if it may have been written as a piece of pseudo-authentic fiction in an honorable intention to make the world turn against nazism (though there are hints Rauschning simply intended to backstab Hitler after he'd been ousted by the regime). Stating that fact is neither Holocaust denialism, nor a "personal NPOV assertion by some Wikipedia editors", as supporters of Rauschning's pulp novel like to claim. Hugh Trevor-Roper, whom those supporters point to, may have stated in his standard work to beware of the long-standing tradition of occultist and sensationalist nazisploitation trash trying to pass as genuine, but in this case, he clearly fell for one of those pulp fiction writers himself, in fact the one who pretty much originally kickstarted the entire genre. --2003:DA:CF04:953:C15:8E91:9BFA:3378 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)