Talk:Theodor Eicke

Hello, you took the false birth-place for T.E. - not Solingen, but Hampont, a village east of Château-Salins (german Lorraine then, now situated in the Moselle Département, France). I corrected that, Best regards, WernerE (germanwiki), 12.2.05

It should be noted that the SS-Totenkopfverbände units were never part of the Waffen-SS. Infact, your entire section on the SS-Totenkopfverbände is incorrect. The 3.SS "Totenkopf" was a combat formation, and fought on the front lines of the war. I think you are confusing the 3.SS with the SS-Einsatzgruppen. These formations were, infact, totally seperate. The 3.SS was part of the Waffen-SS, while the Einsatzgruppen was part of the Allgemeine-SS.

The unref tags were removed from this article but no references were added. This was not appropriate IMHO. Suggest that editors with the ability to read German consult the German article for sources.Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I changed "Eicke and his division distinguished themselves by an unmatched brutality and several war crimes" to "became known for an unmatched brutality ...." Distinguished themselves, with its positive connotations, was inappropriate for such savage acts.

Regarding the subject's photo: A face of evil. Sca (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is a staged scene; not in operation. --41.151.0.98 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

It does show the operation of same; I tweaked the picture to reflect that point. Kierzek (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Karl Ullrich's Like a Cliff in the Ocean is a WP:Primary source, supporting potentially unverifiable statement. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't see where it has been used; removed it. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have restored Eicke's ranks and awards as these are normal for inclusion in military articles. As has been explained and discussed several times (most recently at Talk:Karl_Wolff#Awards_removal), we do not normally remove rank and award information in articles of this nature. If there is a dispute with whether Eicke held certain awards or ranks, that can be discussed. -O.R.^Comms 04:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any consensus in the discussion linked that these awards 'should' be kept: Talk:Karl_Wolff#Awards_removal. Please point me to such consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

As was explained on that talk page (until people were blue in the face), dates of rank and lists of awards are commonly maintained in military officer articles. The consensus can be found in the archives of WP:MILHIST which has covered this issue before. The issue of cutting German service awards and lists of Waffen-SS ranks should really be brought up there. (I will post a note when I have a moment) -O.R.^Comms 04:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Intersting, Kierzek - who is probably the most experienced pundit on these articles - always turns a blind eye (or is just me) when coffman go on removal spree and obliterate most of data on German WWII military persons, to say nothing about whole articles being deleted. Maybe someone should tell them that a military infobox should contain what is stipulated in the military person infobox template, and is not intricate detail where the person was born or died or what units he served. Or if he served in WWI, gods forbid containing in the infobox as is intricate detail. And perhaps Kierzek know that if someone was awarded the Knight's Cross means that automatically he was also awarded (before) the Iron Cross second and first class, as it was prerequisite both version of Iron Cross to receive the Knight's Cross. So no need to delete the Iron Cross information if you keep the Knight' Cross. Pundits here, maybe you look at Allies military personnel to see how is structured and stop using double standards? Here's one for you (just random): Konstantin_Rokossovsky#Dates_of_rank -unsigned comment [1]

I don't agree with your opinion and will leave it at that. Kierzek (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

And here are two more: Colin_Powell#Dates_of_rank / James_Mattis#Military_awards -O.R.^Comms 06:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sections for awards and dates of promotions are common on military biography articles. I fail to see why, assuming they are reliable sourced, they wouldn't be retained. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

As I have written before: "...especially for high ranking members, awards and decorations should be included; and given it is a bio article on the man it is reasonable to include for that reason, as well. Like everything being considered for inclusion or to be removed, discernment should be used. It is fair that they be cited". With that said, being a volunteer project and having to work long hours, I for one, cannot go around and add cites to all these articles; as I am sure we all don't have the time. There needs to be a consensus and common policy used for all; German, American, Soviet (including Russian), Japanese, etc. Kierzek (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

German officers in WW2 should be treated by the same standards as other Ww2 officers (including other Axis one). That means we list their decoration and ranks.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

A divisional commander / concentration camp commander is of insufficiently high rank to warrant such a section. This may be more appropriate for a field marshal / army group commander, although the Erich von Manstein article, for example, does not contain it. I thus find the rationale for the Eicke article to have such section to be even more tenuous than it was in Wolff's case.

I would note that the content was ultimately removed from the Wolff article, with the closer noting: "There is no clear consensus below about appropriateness of including SS awards in military/paramilitary bios, and it is not likely to be found here" (link).

I would also note it wasn't "removed" as you implied, but rather transmigrated to the new article "Service record of Karl Wolff".

I've reverted restoration of this material & I am preserving it here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

First, although it is claimed that this is a Summary of military career, it is actually a summary of Eicke's SS career. After 1918 Eicke was not a military officer, but became an SS-Führer, and the Waffen-SS was the armed wing of the Nazi Party's SS organisation, not a part of the Wehrmacht. Second, Niels Weise's recent biography Eicke (Paderborn, 2013) features a timeline with dates that differ from the dates give here in the English Wikipedia, like promotion to Sturmführer on 27 November 1930, promotion to Standartenführer on 15 November 1931, promotion to Oberführer on 21 October 1932, and so forth.(pp. 439-443). --Assayer (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. Two notes for the people interested in Eicke's awards: According to Weise he received an Iron Cross Second Class on 25 April 1916 and an de:König Ludwig-Kreuz Third Degree on 23 August 1917. (p. 439)--Assayer (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

If that's true that there are conflicting dates, then a second look is warranted. Although I must say that statements about Record 242 from the National Archive not being a reliable source is pretty ridiculous. The dates of rank from the front of an SS record itself is as about as reliable as one can get. -O.R.^Comms 03:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

So Eicke had the rank of SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS one of the highest rank in the Waffen-SS and equivalent of a General, and coffman says commander is of insufficiently high rank to warrant such a section. Once again, coffman demonstrates how ignorant is and begs to question his competence to decide what should or should not be in military history biographical articles. And particularly what constitutes "intricate detail" in military biographies, and the appropriate structure for biography articles in general, and military biographies in particular. Maybe he could finally tell us as they have been many editors left perplexed by his edit history, particularly as he have never added to Nazi Germany WWII military personnel related articles in a constructive way. And his own attitude of Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:OR makes it difficult, he is involved in edit warring with other contributors almost every day.

I agree with OberRanks not to be involved in edit war even though coffman is too busy deleting that information or clues about it that would be useful to other editors who are actually interested in developing a balanced article, and for reference to dates of the ranks pls also see German wiki: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Eicke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.139.45 (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the comments above that it is pretty ridiculous to claim that Eicke was of "such low importance" as a Waffen-SS divisional commander that we should not include his dates of ranks and awards. Eicke was also not simply a camp commander - he was head of the entire concentration camp service and also the driving force behind the creation of the Totenkopf division which was one of the cadre units of the Waffen-SS. I don't plan to re-add this material (yet) since there is an ongoing discussion at WP:MILHIST about this matter. Also, the original editor who blanked the information has expressed a desire to shift to a more friendly approach and allow such material with inline citations. I think that is a very good compromise. -O.R.^Comms 14:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@OberRanks: concerning conflicting dates: I have also checked Joachim Lilla's Statisten in Uniform (2004). He gives the same dates as Weise. Both works have used SSO 180 and SSO 181. Weise has used both the originals and the microfilms at College Park. He also used a folder on Eicke from the BDC and the NSDAP-Gaukartei, the Dienstaltersliste der SS 1934 and various other files. Anyone who does biographical research on the Nazi era should be aware that many dates are purely formal. Take for example the differences between the dates of the commission (Patent bzw. Dienstalter) and the date of the actual promotion. Finally, I don't see a reason why someone should refer to the SSO, when the complete bio and dates are available in Lilla's standard work. The dates should at least have been crosschecked. I imagine that there is a copy available at many libraries. If not, I will be willing to provide a copy (PDF) as of Weise's timeline. --Assayer (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was going to look into this matter further, but since you two gentlemen are on it, so to speak, I will work on other matters during my limited time. BTW: I checked Michael Miller's book and he has the same dates mentioned for the examples above by Assayer, such as: promotion to Sturmführer on 27 November 1930, promotion to Standartenführer on 15 November 1931, promotion to Oberführer on 21 October 1932. (p. 287) Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

My copy of Eicke's record is actually in a cardboard box in a St. Louis storage facility, along with Wolff, Daluge, Kaltenbrunner, Jecklen, Hausser, and a few others. Hopefully will have a chance to go get it within a month or so. In the meantime, thank you all around for the civil conversation. K.E. and Assayer - you have raised some good points. -O.R.^Comms 20:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Clarification: I've stated on my Talk page that I would tag articles on high-ranking SS men before deleting unsourced material (if they have not been previously tagged) diff. But I did not say that I would allow such material with inline citations. I still consider this undue, indiscriminate detail. And it's really not up to me to "allow" or "not allow" such material :-). It's up to Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and community consensus.

I would note that no consensus to keep this material has developed at Karl Wolff discussion. Please also see: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The post on Military History Noticeboard tends to be leaning towards the opinion that cited dates of ranks and awards is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. As for this article, if the material is added again with citations, and you blank it without a valid reason or consensus, that could be seen as WP:DISRUPT and we have already had an administrator take notice of this on MILHIST and state that this behavior will probably lead to articles being protected (and no one wants that). Also, the argument that Eicke wasn't important and that this material shouldn't be included doesn't really seem to be valid for the reasons raised so far by at least three editors. By the way (and I'm not saying you did this), an editor stating in advance that they will keep certain information out of an article, at all costs no matter what citations or evidence is given, is a pretty serious breach of WP:OWN. The good news is I will not have access to my notes on Eicke's record for several weeks and probably won't have the motivation to revisit this article until several weeks after that. By then, I think this matter will have cooled down considerably. Based on the tone of some of the comments, I think people are still running hot about this. -O.R.^Comms 21:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Re: editor stating in advance that they will keep certain information out of an article, at all costs no matter what citations or evidence is given, where have I given an indication that I would do this "at all costs"? This is pretty close to casting aspersions ("I'm not saying you did this, but ... it is a pretty serious breach...") Suggest this be stricken. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Seen from a german nationalist, or nazi point of view, Hampont sounds somewhat undeutsch, in other words not acceptable; that's clear. Therefore the name was changed in WW-1, to Hudingen. Notwithstanding, when Eicke was born there it was named Hampont, and that stayed so for some years to come. It's kind of Geschichtsklitterung (history engineering), to project the spelling in 1915/18 back to 1892. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nobody is trying to promote German nationalist sentiments by offering the historical name of the place—even the temporary one—but because it shows up in so many sources written on the subject, it would confuse people new to this information if it were missing. Placing both names together makes the most sense. Stop with the attempt at aspersions on people editing around here. (Niemand schrieb absichtlich eine revisionistische Geschichte, oder eine angebliche "Geschichtsklitterung" dabei.)--Obenritter (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Obenritter is correct that we have to go with what the majority of the main-stream WP:RS cited books or works state; our own opinion does not matter, that is WP:OR. Lastly, stop with the obtuse aspersions. If you have RS cited sources to present for consideration, please do so. Kierzek (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

o.k., then let decide the Nazis himself how to write (or spell) things like their "birthplaces"...(most sources most likely could be pro-nazi sources, but I noticed - you have no problem with that, pg. Kierzek and Obenritter Deutscher Schaeferhundt ! --129.187.244.19 (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Actually it's Schäferhund and the sources we've used are respectable neutral ones. Unfounded ad hominem attacks prove that you are not here to help construct an Encyclopedia. --Obenritter (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

was, in fact, not named Salzburgen before 1941. It's heavily misleading to project Salzburgen in German Empire times. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my first wikipedia contribution. Could anyone please add the German biography: Weise, Niels (2013). Eicke. Eine SS-Karriere zwischen Nervenklinik, KZ-System und Waffen-SS. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh ISBN 978-3-506-77705-8. (456 pages) Thanks a lot! Cetarius (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Added to the Further Reading section. You need to create an account if you intend to actually edit Wikipedia in the future. Be well. --Obenritter (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply