Talk:Heinrich Himmler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHeinrich Himmler has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 18, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
July 16, 2012Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 23, 2017, and May 23, 2020.
Current status: Good article

Himmler's death[edit]

There's been some speculation around Himmler's exact cause of death. An earlier discussion noted that some people have speculated it was an accident, whereas Youtuber Mark Felton argues it was murder. Is this worth mentioning, even if only to contrast against the mainstream historical view? CoyotesKenning (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, speculation and conjecture and fringe theory, at best. Further, YouTube is not considered a reliable source. Kierzek (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is not considered a reliable source? Dr Mark Felton PhD (History) is an acknowledged historical writer and university academic having multiple qualifications in history and teaching as well as membership of multiple recognised historical societies. Look at his YouTube page for further information (although, obviously, simply having a Wikipedia page, per se, does not validate his credentials as a reputable historian) He is as authenticated, recognised, accredited, whatever, as any other credible historian quoted in these Wikipedia pages.
Are we really saying that if Dr Felton chose to publish his investigations into the death of Himmler in a book, this would be a 'reliable source' - or that if his investigations were the subject of a BBC documentary, this would most likely be considered a reliable source - even though neither has had anything approaching formal 'peer review' - but that should Dr Felton (for obvious commercial reasons) choose to publish his work on YouTube, then this material becomes de facto, unreliable and can be dismissed? Is that an official, blanket Wikipedia policy? I doubt it.
For those wanting a very thorough analysis of the capture and death of Heinrich Himmler in British custody, his autopsy by a British pathologist and subsequent mysteries about the disposal of the body should view Mark Felton's approximately 90 minutes of content (in 6 episodes) on YouTube.
Felton's study categorically excludes the involvement of (or presence of) American soldiers, any other US military and/or OSS/CIA agents at any time after Himmler's capture, and during or after his death - contrary to some claims made in this Wikipedia talk page. There were simply no Americans. 2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:8052:4978:1068:9BEF (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing any mentions of Americans. Where are you seeing that?
  • A problem with YouTube as a source is we have no way of checking what Felton used as his sources, the way we can (for example) in Longerich's book. Longerich had access to the files in the British War Office, as did Manvell and Fraenkel, the main two books used to source this article.
  • I don't think Felton's speculations should be included if all we have is his YouTube channel as a source.
Diannaa (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've viewed the content in the "Theories" section of Episode 3, and all that's there is a mention of the existence of some alternate theories and conspiracy theories about Himmler's death. The mere existence of such theories, with no proof of credibility, does not belong in the article. — Diannaa (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa stated the reasons why, in general, Youtube is not a reliable source. And pursuant to her review, he is not stating anything as facts, just bringing up fringe theories and speculation. It should not be included in the article, I agree. Kierzek (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date of appointment to Army Group Vistula[edit]

I have checked in Kershaw and he says Himmler received this appointment on January 25, 1945. If there's a source for the 24th, please provide details here and we can discuss. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Needed[edit]

The article currently states (my emphasis in bold):

Heinrich Luitpold Himmler was born in Munich on 7 October 1900 into a conservative middle-class Roman Catholic family. His father was Joseph Gebhard Himmler (1865–1936), a teacher, and his mother was Anna Maria Himmler (née Heyder; 1866–1941), a devout Roman Catholic. Heinrich had two brothers: Gebhard Ludwig (1898–1982) and Ernst Hermann (1905–1945).[3]
Himmler's first name, Heinrich, was that of his godfather, Prince Heinrich of Bavaria, a member of the royal family of Bavaria, who had been tutored by Gebhard Himmler.[4][5]

The article is currently unclear whether it was Heinrich's brother or father who tutored the prince, since they both shared the name. Without access to the sources cited, it would appear that it was his father simply based on DOBs and the fact that his father was a teacher.

If I may suggest an alternate wording for the final sentence in my above quote:

Himmler was named after his godfather, Prince Heinrich of Bavaria, who his father had tutored.

--2607:FEA8:E983:F200:2159:71E7:4DCC:3729 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing this issue. I have fixed it by saying Himmler's first name, Heinrich, was that of his godfather, Prince Heinrich of Bavaria, a member of the royal family of Bavaria who had been tutored by Himmler's father.Diannaa (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]