Talk:Johannes Blaskowitz

message: Article needs expansion overall, wherever possible or applicable. Introduction especially needs expansion - what distinguishes him from other German WWII generals? LordAmeth 20:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If in fact it said that then it's wrong. Hitler didn't care for him and would have never promoted him to that rank.__209.179.60.161 (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment

message: From the description, Gen. Blaskowitz blatantly opposed the SS atrocities. What war crimes was he accused of? What chance did he have of being convicted?
::The specific trial became known as the "High Command Trial," the actual title however was "United States of America v. Wilhelm von Leeb, et al. (Case 12).  It was something of a follow-on to the unsuccessful effort at the prior IMT court to establish collective responsibility of the General Staff.  The crimes were crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
::I'm not entirely certain what criteria were used to pick the defendants, who seem an odd mixture; my tentative guess is that the inclusion of Blaskowitz was merely a tragically ironic coincidence; alternatively, perhaps they were aware of his protests and intended to use them as evidence of the 'guilty mind' of high ranking officers and their knowledge of what was going on. 142.167.169.231 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes 

message: This article seems to switch between referring to the general as "Blaskowitz" and as "Von Blaskowitz" at random. The two are not synonymous; "von" designates a member of the junker class. It is a common mistake to randomly insert "von"s into German names, as in the frequent error "Erich von Ludendorff" for WWI's Erich Ludendorff. In this article, the actual article is titled "Johannes Blaskowitz", but then the introduction immediately redubs him "Johannes von Blaskowitz". Which is it? Whoever knows should make appropriate edits to the page to ensure consistency. Segregold (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely "Blaskowitz" without "von". I've corrected everything (hopefully). --Bernardoni (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: @Segregold It should be said that even when the name contains the von, whether it is used as part of the last name is a matter of style. For instance, according to the American Psychological Association 7th edition style, only when there is an article along with the preposition should the preposition be part of last names. So, it'd need to be "von der" or "vom". 2804:14C:6586:553C:2A2B:FEB5:F5B0:C66E (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Blaskowitz or Von Blaskowitz?

message: Richard Giziowski, in The Enigma of General Blaskowitz — which I confess I haven't read — reportedly argues that Blaskowitz did not commit suicide, but was murdered by other high-ranking Wehrmacht officers who wanted to avoid his disclosures about their crimes during the Nazi era. I was surprised to find that neither this entry, nor the one on German Wiki, reference this theory. I was thinking about buying Giziowski's book. Now I'm wondering how credible its premise might be. Any info out there?
* Hippocrene Books,1996. ISBN-10: 0781805031; ISBN-13: 978-0781805032.
Sca (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Suicide, or ... ?

message: ... in the end he shared the overall objective of german rule in Poland, when he said: Es ist abwegig, einige Tausend Juden und Polen, so wie es augenblicklich geschieht, abzuschlachten; denn damit werden angesichts der Masse der Bevölkerung weder die polnische Staatsidee totgeschlagen noch die Juden beseitigt. Im Gegenteil, die Art und Weise der Abschlachtung bringt größten Schaden mit sich. (cit. following: Klaus-Jürgen Müller: "Das Heer und Hitler", Stuttgart 1969, p. 448) That means: It is devious, to slaughter several thousands of jews and poles, as it happens right now; because in consideration of the masses of population, neither the idea of a polish state is beaten to death nor a disposal of the jews is achieved. On the contrary, the method of slaughter entails the greatest disadvantage. - The defenders of this truly "christian general", like C. Clark, sure will comment such a statement in the way the Blasko was forced to camoflage his friendliness towards jews and poles by a language sounding nazi, but doesn't that appear a bit weak, in face of this brutal line, with due respect... --129.187.244.19 (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @2601:87:4400:BEC0:9863:B4D:CFE8:23D6 I suspect he killed himself because he agreed with you. As a psychologist, the first thing that came to mind when I read about his death was that he was certainly haunted by his role in the war. If ideological Nazis had trouble (famously the person who had the idea for Auschwitz became psychotic having hallucinating about the death of Jewish people), it's likely that he also did. And these things have a way of getting worse when you do all that and still lose. Perhaps his idea of redemption was suffering in prison or being put to death as a result of the trial, and when that did happen, he killed himself. It certainly fits the psychopathology of it all. 2804:14C:6586:553C:2A2B:FEB5:F5B0:C66E (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blaskowitz would have preferred a ''different approach'', but ...