Talk:Berghof (residence)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Capture

[1] gives a chronology of the taking of the Berghof as compared with the fictional Band of Brothers (see the section starting "Viewers should be aware that some controversy arose amongst 506th survivors, "...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 June 2004 (UTC)

Homes & Gardens' Berghof article

I have just finished putting in some more links. While doing so I noticed that there is a descrepency in the use of umlauts. For example Goering is sometimes spelt with them and sometimes without and "Hanfstaengl" is spelt umlaut free.

Could someone with access to the original source please check and see it the current use of umlauts is the same as it was in the original article. This is important because words should appear as they did in the original article as the article is an extended quote. Philip Baird Shearer 10:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the whole section as a copyvio. See for instance this page for an interesting summary of the copyvio-case that stirred lots of media attention. Very minor parts of what I deleted could be put back as short quotes, and summing up rewritten parts of it with a reference is also ok, of course. I might do it myself one day, but right now I was just in a hurry to delete it all to keep wikipedia out of legal trouble. Shanes 13:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I may have been too quick on the gun here. Reading this statement from IPC media it appears that they later dropped any intentions to follow up on copyright violations of the article. But I can't conclude from reading their statement wether the article is now in public domain, or if it's a grey area that we should stay clear of. I'll let the content stay out for now, but I'd like to have other peoples opinion on this. Obviously I haven't been very well informed since I didn't know about this last statement, but maybe somene else knows more about this case and can assure us that wikipedia is in no danger when resubmitting this. (I should probably ask somewhere else than on this hidden talk-page).
But, in either case, I really don't think a excessive verbatim copy of an article like this is suitable for wikipedia. It's more of a wikisource thing to have original text and documents. So I think a rewritten summary is the best way to deal with this, either way. Shanes 13:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I've put it all back, since historical and popular interest in this individual are so high and it's rich in detail. IPC has clearly disclaimed any copyright. Wyss 18:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Name

What an individual editor (who moved this content over to "Berghof Estate") thinks is natural sounding has no sway. It was called the Berghof and I have moved the content back to where it has been for years. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: Thanks to User:Strothra and User:Random832 for helping out with the history (which is to say, cleaning up my mess since I didn't know the old cut and paste method of doing this is obsolete). Gwen Gale 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs help

What a mess. Like lots of stuff built during the NSDAP era this house was more or less architecturally unremarkable (even if the view was stunning) so it's a big stretch for me to get stirred up about this article. Eva Braun spent a lot of time here. The intro is ok but lacks detail. I've restored the H&G passage which was simply chopped out by someone a few months back. This has to be cut way down and pulled into the narrative but I think it's more helpful to have it in the article as is for now than not at all (yes, some of the 1930s asides by the writer are so too lame). The allied capture section seems to have been written by someone who speaks French as a native language and sadly, the passage is more or less incomprehensible, wholly uncited and written maybe to highlight how French soldiers were involved in capturing the ruins. Boring, whatever. The whole article needs a thorough rewrite and bits of expansion. I'll do what I can as I have time but truth be told, it might be a month or so. Gwen Gale 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Berghof's history

Since the original building Hitler used as a retreat belonged to my family, I made some additions to the History section, describing Hitlers acquisition of the house.

I visited the Berghof ruins in June 2006 and added description and also elements from the Documentation Center exhibit about government efforts to get rid of occasional Nazi shrines that are erected irregularly.

This is original research and I've rm'd it from the article. Toland does mention AH rented the place before he bought it. Gwen Gale 08:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a long quotation on this page describing the furer in his mountain home, but no citation, Please. Who is being quoted at such length?

That's the notorious Homes & Gardens fluff hack from the 30s. I've put it back but it needs to be skived way down and fit into the narrative. Gwen Gale 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Confusing and disruptive removals

The following information was removed by User:Gwen_Gale, claiming need for verification:

Next to the Wolfsschanze this was the place where Hitler spent the most time during World War II, and it was one of the most famous of the Führer Headquarters which were located throughout Europe.

I say this is ridiculous; in WW2 history it's like demanding proof that the Earth is a sphere. Sure, we can reference EVERY piece of little information, every 0 and 1 in Wikipedia - but would this be helpful? Every knowledgeable WW2-historian knows the facts stated above, and it's so easy to check that it is ridiculous.

Furthermore, User:Gwen_Gale insists on removing the map (Image:Hitler-Headquarters-Europe.png) which shows the location of the Berghof. Why doing this, particularly when it's quite useful to the readers where the Berghof actually was located? The user claims there are errors in the map, but does not specify what the errors are.

All in all VERY confusing behavior.

Reality check needed, please. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 17:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks. Gwen Gale 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of map

Hi Gwen, can you let us know what your issues are with the accuracy of the map? The map's information is cited in the image information. I didn't restore it though just in case it is incorrect. --Strothra 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Widely put, the map appears to be original research. If the editor created this map himself (from Raiber, Richard, Guide to Hitler's Headquarters, After The Battle, No.19, Special Edition), we need more information and verifiable page numbers from that source for each marker on the map: Location, name, was this a military headquarters, or a German government facility, or a private home used by Hitler? For example there was a cluster of military facilities at Berchtesgaden but the Berghof was a private home. The Kehlsteinhaus was never used as a military headquarters yet the map lists it as such ("Eagle's nest"). The editor seems to think all this is self-evident but it is not. Readers can be easily and quickly misled by articles built with this kind of thinking.
A simple map pinpointing the location of the Berghof would be easy to source. This article is about the Berghof, AH's private home which he obviously did use for military, governmental and political purposes when he was there. The editor's proposed map is something else altogether, asserting the locations of many "Fuerher Headquarters," alternates and so on.
Yes, we all understand the informal notion of a "Fuehrer Headquarters" but what were they officially? Germany under Hitler seems superficially monolithic and easy to understand but the underlying bureaucracy was often very complex and intertwined. Were all the other places (never used by AH) listed by the editor truly intended as military offices for Hitler which were never used? Or were these generic headquarters which would have been made available to him? Who built each of them? The Wehrmacht? The SS? The German civil government? The NSDAP? Mind, I find this topic kind of very boring so I'm not too stirred up to go on about it but... I don't find helpful sourcing boring at all and these assertions each must be carefully sourced.
Lastly, the editor likes making assertions about how "famous" these places were, both in this and other articles. This assertion smacks of utter WP:OR. Famous to whom? Famous as what? Famous when? What published sources have asserted this fame? I do wish everyone all the best. Gwen Gale 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, as I said way above, the Berghof was architecturally unremarkable and this article is not in one of my core areas of interest. If consensus on this public wiki happens to sway it away from rigourous sourcing, in favour of sweeping generalizations aimed at popular culture that's ok but I can't support or edit an article built in this way. Hence, I would like to acknowledge the good faith of everyone involved in this discussion as I remove this page from my watch list. Cheers! Gwen Gale 02:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that those are good points. In this particular case, it is difficult to tell what exact information is corresponding to what citations (note that the image does list citations) which is why the accusations of inaccuracy must be specific. That is the only way to check the disputed material. If we don't know what's disputed then we don't know what to cite. I believe that the image must be checked and your above comments did much to specify your concerns so that it might be checked before added again. Checking also enables the creator to alter the image accordingly. --Strothra 03:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think I understand your concerns a little better now, Gwen Gale. The problem is you did not describe it at all before - you just simply assumed my contributions were original research. Well, I'll respond here to each of your points:
we need more information and verifiable page numbers from that source for each marker on the map
For each marker? Is this really necessary? My map is based on a big map (page 2 and 3) in "Raiber, Richard, Guide to Hitler's Headquarters, After The Battle, No.19, Special Edition". Do you want me to the scan the map and mail it to you? As I said, I researched the subject of the Fuehrer headquarters thoroughly (not original research, but editor research), verified each location and spent several days on doing that map, along with the article Führer Headquarters. The "Guide to Hitler's Headquarters" describes in detail (in separate articles) the follwing FHQ:s; Felsennest, Wolfsschlucht I/II, Tannenberg, Wolfschanze, Adlerhorst, Fuehrersonderzug and some others in Eastern Europe. Do you want the page numbers for each one of them?
was this a military headquarters, or a German government facility, or a private home used by Hitler?
As you yourself implied, things in Nazi Germany were very intertwined, so the quick answer to this is generally yes to all of the above, as the government was militaristic, Hitler was the supreme military leader, and there was virtually nothing private about Hitler.
Yes, we all understand the informal notion of a "Fuehrer Headquarters" but what were they officially?
For your information, the Fuehrer Headquarters (FHQ:s) is a term directly derived from the official German term "Führerhauptquartier". The FHQ:s were especially designed to work as command facilities for the Fuehrer, taking care of all necessary considerations; communications, conference facilities, safety measures, bunkers, guard facilities etc. Even Berghof had considerable defense facilities, bunkers, guard facilities etc. Every place Hitler stayed at was NOT a FHQ as such (Prague wasn't, his apartment in Munich wasn't), and he did not stay at every official FHQ. And the FHQ:s can not be considered as being main military HQ:s (the military had their own, sometimes way off the FHQ:s, sometimes very close). But since Hitler infamously very frequently intervened in the military command structure, the FHQ:s often became military HQ:s. Anyway, it does not matter, as it's quite clear and easy to understand: Fuehrer headquarters means simply the leader's headquarters, in this case especially built for Hitler, no more, no less, in some cases used, in some cases not.
Were all the other places (never used by AH) listed by the editor truly intended as military offices for Hitler which were never used?
Yes, unless "Raiber, Richard, Guide to Hitler's Headquarters" is wrong, which I doubt.
Or were these generic headquarters which would have been made available to him?
No, not generic, unless "Raiber, Richard, Guide to Hitler's Headquarters" is wrong, which I doubt.
Who built each of them?
I'm not 100% sure, but my guess is the OKW or the German civil government by orders from OKW. As you may know the German military command was divided into two entities, OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht - Supreme command of the Armed Forces, in reality under direct control of Hitler) and the OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres - Army High Command). For more info, please check the Wiki-articles.
This assertion smacks of utter WP:OR. Famous to whom?
Well, to most people who have read historical books about Hitler and/or Nazi Germany. Why don't you try:
Even though you might not read German or Polish (I read a little German and no Polish), have you bothered even opening these WP-articles:
If you skim these quickly, you will then see I'm not alone in my "assertions" and naming of the headquarters. If you're truly concerned, stop insinuate that I do original research - instead, request a comment at the WP:MILHIST to get responses from others who know the subject. I'm not at all afraid of being challenged, since I know the things I've done is not OR.
And again, I'm sorry if I offended you, but you made such confusing and serious accusations that I simply had to respond firmly. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 04:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Some additional info on who constructed the FHQ:s (or some at least); according to the Norwegian wikipedia (I read Norwegian, it's very similar to Swedish), the Organisation Todt built several, and this sounds feasible to me. Article: Norwegian wiki-article. I will not add it to Führer Headquarters though, as I have no external source for it. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I will now re-add the map to the article, since I think it is valuable to readers to be able to find out where the Berghof was (is) located. As far as I know (and I know the subject), the map is 100% correct. If you have any doubts, either (1) state them here, (2) contact me personally or (3) request comment at WP:MILHIST. My regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I may be more familiar with those sources than ya think. Approach this your way and casual readers will come away with visions of Wehrmacht generals in the Kehlsteinhaus with like, pre-war IBM machines, early Telefunken TV monitors and who knows what else, plotting world domination for their Fuehrer over a 100 mile horizon (amazing views, which is why hotels have been building lately). I do know they had at least a teapot and a telephone up there but whatever. This kind of pop culture approach to history does not stick on this public wiki (even in loathsome, emotionally infested topics like Germany under the NSDAP). Your edits might stand for awhile, but someday someone with more interest than me will come along and put this material on a verifiable level. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you might be familiar with the sources, that's good. But you sure have a tendency to read a lot into the map which I have created; how can it imply that the Kehlsteinhaus was used for plotting world domination? I am not fond of pop culture, and I don't think the Nazis built any UFO:s either:). I can remove the "Eagle's Nest" from the map, but what good will it do? It is associated with the Berghof, and it is present on the map precisely and only because of this, and nothing more. Don't you think it's informative to map viewers to see that the two were located in virtually the same place?
My guess is that you are somewhat hung up on the term "Fuehrer Headquarters", but I might be wrong. The term, as far as I know, poses no problem - to my knowledge this is the "common", official term. If readers might get the impressions you are afraid of, well, then this article (Berghof) should take care of it in a suitable way. The answer is not removing IMO valuable information, but instead, clarifying the issue. I know very well that the Berghof did not start as a military HQ (and never became a strict military HQ as such, except possibly in the end), but it is a fact that it was/became a "de facto" "Fuehrer" headquarters. Teapots and phones, yes those were probably present, but there was more to it than that. Why on Earth was the Allied capture carefully planned, and why did they bomb the sh*t out of it, if not the Berghof was considered a dangerous, high priority target? Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Your guess that I'm hung up on the term "Fuehrer Headquarters" is spot on :) Now, that allied capture of Berchdesgaden was watched with interest because Eisenhower had not a clue as to where AH was in April 1945 and there were also serious worries/rumours about an NSDAP redoubt being formed at Berchdesgaden (as I recall DE even noted this in Crusade in Europe but I've not read it since college). Anyway, I'm not saying you're "wrong," only that (in my humble opinion) it's not encyclopedic to give so much sway to a generic term like Fuehrer Headquarters, insert that term along with the word "famous" into other articles with a link back to Führer Headquarters and create your own map with lots of dots without carefully citing sources for each and every dot and assertion. Please take this as a friendly "heads up" on WP:OR is all. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the friendly "heads up" on OR. But Gwen, how on Earth do you want me to approach the FHQ issue in another way? The only way I know is using a term and facts which are used by external sources. I did not invent the term. I did not invent the headquarters. I did not place them on the map because I thought it would be cool. I can't undo history. The FHQ:s are a fact, whether you or I like it or not. I can't use another name, that would be OR. What you are asking me is simply not to be a serious Wikipedian who contributes to history. And what's famous or not, well, that is of course alway a POV, but I am of the opinion that at least the Führerbunker, Wolfsschanze and Berghof can be considered "famous", and I think many others would agree. Maybe also Wehrwolf to WW2-historians. The others, nah, not particularly famous. Perhaps the Führersonderzug is famous, don't know, don't care, I could write an article on it, but I don't feel like it at the moment. The fact that the article Führer Headquarters did not exist before, well that's apparently simply beacuse no-one had bothered doing it. The German, Polish, Norwegian, Netherlands (and some Asian) wiki-articles already existed before I created the English. I can't remember how and why I found this was lacking, but anyway, I tried to do something about it, since I'm interested and know the subject. There's a lot more info on the FHQ:s that could be added, and I have quite a collection of WW2-resources, but it's all about time and effort. Anyway, I will add page numbers for each "dot" to the info on the map as you suggest, in order to avoid future controversies. My regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick search on Google Scholar indicates that "Fuehrer Headquarters" is a term commonly used within this context by academicians. As a result, there's zero chance the term falls afoul of "original research." Rklawton (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can cite a Google search for word usage. Aside from the algorithms being designed for keyword searches, not usage, an editor's interpretation of the results would tend to be original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you would run the search yourself and examin a few of the hits, you will find scholarly works making this reference. It's those works I'm citing - and it's the Google tool that I recommend you use to help find them. Not all the results are relevant, but as I noted, I wasn't citing the results (reference count, for example), just the means to find the relevant works. While challenges to an article name are common "I have doubts" challenges are of little merit. "Fuehrer Headquarters" (in caps) is contained in several scholarly works. Do you have an alternative proposal - and can you defend it with sources? Rklawton (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a keyword search to me, yielding mostly generic syntaxical uses of the phrase, rather than references to an offical term used by the German government but... speaking for myself, I wouldn't rely on any Google search for anything other than what they're designed for, which is finding content on a network and lo, as it happens, I think Fuehrer Headquarters does have support:
First, the article and its name both seem to have consensus among the editors who have spoken up about it, at least.
Meanwhile the German term Führerhauptquartier appears to have been used routinely (beyond casual generic usage) by the German government to describe most of these facilities at the time. The translated English phrase "Führer Headquarters" is a bit dodgy, not meaning quite the same thing in Anglo-Saxon speech/culture today but I think it's the closest one can get, so other than naming the article Hitler Führerhauptquartier (which I would go for, being picky me, but I don't think this is overwhelmingly needed), I'm ok with this. My big worries had to do with handling the Berghof and the Kehlsteinhaus and I was concerned these might be symptoms of deeper flaws in the article's concept. Dna-Dennis has since contacted me on his own initiative (I had no plans to edit the article) and handily, succinctly addressed all of my worries (there were many, so doing this in a paragraph or two on my user page was no mean trick). Lastly, his general approach has me thinking the article will quickly grow into meaningful content, so, I think it's off to a helpful start. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Erm, meanwhile, this article, Berghof (Hitler), is a basket case. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten and thoroughly cleaned it up. The 1938 Homes and Gardens fluff piece supports most of the descriptions. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Homes and Gardens article

I did some research on it, now noted in the article.

Ignatius Phayre, Homes and Gardens, Hitler's Mountain Home, November 1938 ...very likely written under a pseudonym by political writer William George Fitzgerald in a tone which can reasonably be described as "fawning." The photographs had all been taken by Heinrich Hoffmann (many of them years earlier) and given to the magazine as publicity handouts. The article happened to surface in 2003 after decades of obscurity, see this Guardian reference: Waldman, Simon, The Guardian, At home with the Führer, 3 November 2003. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've gone ahead and further grown and cited this article. Apparently there were a bunch of tunnels dug during the war, which have become minor tourist attractions. I would suggest a separate article, maybe called Berchtesgaden tunnels, written by someone with a keener interest in them than me. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Why is this at Berghof (Hitler). Is there another? If not, what's the purpose of the parentheses? Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Berghof. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Zuckspit

i read some time ago that the peak of the mountain ( ? Kehlstine Mountain) was called Zuckspit(spelling correct?) and does any one have info on that ?

thanks willy g man 76.230.158.100 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

this above info came from USAF chats where remarks were made about US Mil using the area of the former AH home etc hwich is accurate, as they ran it as an R&R center

likely it was info about german highest mountain zugspitze see [2] willy g man76.192.5.9 (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing having to do with the Berghof ruins, but rather many unbombed buildings in Berchtesgaden, an area of startling beauty, were used as a resort/rest centre for US occupation troops. Meanwhile Garmisch-Partenkirchen also had such facilities and was a major post-war command centre for the US, so this is how I'd think the two mountain names might get muddled. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured in Valkyrie?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this building one of the ones in the movie, Valkyrie? I recognize it from the Great Hall. Just wondering, because if so, we could add a Popular Culture section... ShdSlyr2 (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Demolition in 1953?

The opening paragraph claims that the Berghof was "looted after Allied troops reached the area and demolished it in 1953." Why isn't that statement expanded later in the article? What actually happened? Rammer (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed thoroughly covered later in the article, Berghof_(residence)#Postwar_ruins. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It is? Sorry, but I don't see anything there about events in "1953"—after the first paragraph. Something is confused. Please clarify. Rammer (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Look again at the last paragraph in that section, it's there. The year was 1952, which I have fixed in the lead, I think it likely was meant to read "by 1953" and later got garbled. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berghof_(residence)/Archive_1&oldid=836816787"