Talk:Heinrich Himmler

Clarification Needed

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)

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)

Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmlers relationship

I would like to learn more about their relationship 164.151.16.14 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The name "Hitler" appears in this article 132 times. What do you think is missing? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"In this capacity, he took part in the genocide"

I don't think it's accurate to say Himmler "took part in the genocide" when he personally did not kill anybody. I changed it to say he "played a major role in the genocide" but was reverted. Which wording to people think is better? Discussion welcome. — Diannaa (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Ordering or coordinating it is taking part in an essential way. (Hohum ^@) 23:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

If we’re going to be sticklers for semantics, I recommend to have the sentence read Himmler “took part in orchestrating the genocide”. I think we should avoid any language that potentially plays down his role in the Holocaust. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. (Hohum ^@) 23:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Its important to be factually accurate. No one wants to downplay someone who was an architect of terror/murder/death. I would recommend: Himmler’s SS was the organisation most responsible for the genocidal murder of an estimated 5.5 to 6 million Jews and the deaths of millions of other victims during the Holocaust. He was not the only one and the SS was not the only group, unit or organisation involved. Kierzek (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As I indicated to you earlier, that sentence is needlessly verbose. Moreover, this article is about Himmler himself, not the SS. The focus of the lede should be centered around him. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s accurate. And you cannot separate one from the other. Kierzek (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate about saying Himmler took part in orchestrating the Holocaust. It is just a more concise way of conveying the same meaning of what you're trying to say. Additionally, if we frame the sentence your way, “Himmler” and some form of the phrase "was responsible" would appear two sentences in a row which is needlessly repetitive.Stop trying to use this thread to shoehorn your verbosity back in the lede. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If the sentence read “he and his SS took part in orchestrating the genocide”, would you find that an acceptable compromise?Emiya1980 (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a bit awkward. The version we had when we passed GA was "As facilitator and overseer of the concentration camps, Himmler directed the killing of some six million Jews, between 200,000 and 500,000 Romani people, and other victims; the total number of civilians killed by the regime is estimated at eleven to fourteen million people."

We could use that as a starting point; perhaps go with "In this capacity, Himmler directed the genocide of an estimated 5.5–6 million Jews as well as the deaths of millions of other victims during the Holocaust." (The total number of deaths is already covered later in the paragraph.) — Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As long as you replaced “Himmler” with “he” for reasons already mentioned and included the word “mass” alongside “killing”, I would not have an issue with the sentence as set forth in the second paragraph of your post. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

? My suggestion doesn't use the word "killing" — Diannaa (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

My mistake. I've crossed out what I said with regards to "mass killing". Emiya1980 (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And it took you six edits. Also @ Kierzek, this suggestion does not incorporate the fact that other groups besides the SS (the Wehrmacht for example) were involved in mass killings of civilians. But I don't see how we can incorporate that without the sentence getting too awkward or long. It's a bit off-topic here as well IMO. Would you be OK with that being left out? — Diannaa (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If we said Himmler "took part in orchestrating the genocide", that wouldn't be an issue. However, I get the impression neither of you like that. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe we need to clearly emphasize the fact he was the main director of policy and main conduit (through the SS) of the murder and deaths that occurred; not just “took part”. I agree to your suggested wording, Diannaa and Emiya1980, to changing “Himmler” to “he” in the sentence. I await further input from others herein. Kierzek (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Kierzek's description is entirely correct. Himmler was a major perpetrator by being in charge of the SS—the single organization most responsible for the implementation of the Final Solution—and while one could argue signing authorizations or issuing orders is participation, it is not the same thing as "taking part" in an execution. For those of you who've read about Himmler, you know he had a weak constitution and no stomach for the violence himself. Stating he played a "major role in the Holocaust" is more than sufficient. One of the reasons that "orchestrating the genocide" is not necessarily appropriate either is that he left nearly all of that to subordinates like Eichmann, Pohl, Globocnik, and a host of other ghastly figures. --Obenritter (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

So you would prefer "played a major role" rather than "directed", if I am understanding you correctly. — Diannaa (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

How about we rephrase "a major role" as "a central role"? That would better reflect the lede paragraph's characterization of him as one of the "main architect[s]" of the Holocaust. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the word “central” over “major”, but in the end would agree to the latter word if that is consensus. To me “central” means main or predominant, being at the center of something. “Major” being more important or significant. Both would describe Himmler, but we should use one word here. Kierzek (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Central role would work nicely given his place in the hierarchy.--Obenritter (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Do you have any objections to saying Himmler had a "central" as opposed to a "major" role in the Holocaust?Emiya1980 (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No objections. — Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I have implemented this change. — Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)