Talk:Krupp

message: I've been reading Manchester's Arms of Krupp, and decided to write a nice article/articles. Since the original Krupp article was pretty basic. I've just started off with the very early stuff, but put in a preliminary outline for the rest of the Krupp history, up to its merger with Thyssen. I'll be adding to the page regularly (I hope), and presumably will be adding separate pages for certain topics. I don't really like the look of all the "to be written" empty parts in the article atm, but in line with the whole be bold thing, I thought it best to put in my changes right away, instead of waiting till I had a fuller history written. So that's that; we'll see how it goes. 
--Ed Halter 00:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: the new page

message: the entry  completely ignores alfred's raging reactionism, including his sponseship of proto-nazi extreme rightists. it glibly glosses over the life of Friedrich Alfred his shady business dealings with both the kaiser and tirpiz naval c-in-c and in general the family's noxios role in feuling the european arms' race at this time. it makes no mention of friedrich's suicide after the exposure in the press of his ravenous pederacy, such delicacy, and WORST OF ALL misdepicts alfried as "opposed to the nazi party" but "forced to cooperate with hitler" by bussiness concerns whereas the vile man was an unqustionable and bloodthirsty nazi hoodloom for wich he and his co-defendants were justly convicted at their trial contrary to your lying claim to the contrary, though the conviction was overturned in an atrocious miscarriage of justice by the today much despised John j. McLOY high comissioner of the american zone of occupation, and guardian angel of convicted Nazis
you-Ed Hartley- claim to have decided to write your aricle following a reading of
william mancheser's "the arms of krupp". how then, have you managed to so completely contradict all he wrote? your article is "nice", your choice of words, in sofar as it presents us with a much blander potrait of the krupp family and its enterprise then the truth, as opposed to a lie, would permit. what motivated you I wonder, shear venality fo its own sake, neo-nazi revisionism, some reward from the corporation, a combination of all?
:Let me guess.  You don't like Krupp?  You wouldn't be Jewish, would you?  Not an unbiased observer, then, I'd say.  Also not one with guts enough to sign your screed, per usual for the cowards that spout such venomous drivel.  Trekphiler 20:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  your shameful entry on krupp 

message: I do agree yuo guys that there was links between Hitler in this family. Unfortunately, these are real facts, unfortunately, rare are the books or sources mentionning.
I've heard in a university course, that is likely omitted in history books, that the Krupp family along with the Thissen and the Farben were a contributing factor on the rise of Hitler towards power. From what I heard, the three groups wanted him to be in power in order to combat union groups as well as communism but didn't care about other issues of Hitler's philosophy (i.e racism). 
And in another fact, I've haerd that in the Nuremburg trial of the Krupps mentionned that he knew what he would have done (anti-jewish policies for exemple) but he said that he didn't really care about that just the aforementioned two demands (combatting union and communism).--JForget 19:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Krupp's involvement in Hitler's rise

message: The paragraph just after the mention of Paris Guns in WWI contradicts information from the Paris Gun article themselves. I'm commenting it out. Wesha 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Paris Guns 

message: I just wanted to draw attention to the section about Alfred, currently titled "Alfred's an Idiot," and featuring the line "born in Essen as an idiot."  In addition, the photograph next to the Alfred heading sports the enigmatic caption of "cameron." I'm guessing that this is vandalism.
Marksman45 11:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: In the film Naked Lunch, the character Hans says that he uses a brand of typewriter called a "Krupp Dominator."  Did the Krupp company in fact manufacture a typewriter, or is this merely a creative invention on scriptwriter David Cronenberg's part, using the Krupp name?
Marksman45 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually called "Krups Dominator" in the film. This, however, doesn't completely answer the question if Krupp ever manufactured typewriters. 195.148.180.254 (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, there used to be a company named Krups; there's even a Wikipedia article on that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krups). That said, I have no idea whether they manufactured typewriters either. 195.148.180.254 (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  typewriter 

message: "Tires" is misspelled in the third paragraph of Alfred's era.
* No it isn't, "Tyres" is the perfectly acceptable British English spelling. 92.4.247.244 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Error 

message: I also just started reading Manchester's Arms of Krupp - this article does appear to be a little "sanitized". I will attempt to add some factual content into the article from the book. Does anybody have any comments (it might be a while before I finish the book). Megapixie 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krupp during World War Two, slave labour, operating in death camps 

message: It is a truth commonly accepted that detailed and thorough knowledge and professional competence are the basis for every statement or comment concerning historical events and developments, privately or in public. This competence as a rule is acquired by research in archives etc. and by reading relevant books and other publications which again are based on thorough research. 
Obviously this principle does not hold true with those “experts” submitting their contributions to the Krupp-articles and discussions in Wikipedia. How otherwise could it be that their propositions and comments swarm with factoids, misinterpretations, preconceptions, stereotypes and errors, to put it mildly. None of them ever seems to have had a look at more than one book, if at all. This book obviously is Manchester´s “The Arms of Krupp”, published in 1964 already and as unreliable as misleading. Manchester himself never did any archive research, his references are doubtful and his interpretations and presentations are extremely polemic and even incorrect. Reading this book only does not suffice to take part in a competent discussion. Where are references to the current state of research, where are references to e.g. the lately published books by Lothar Gall (Krupp. Der Aufstieg eines Industrieimperiums, Berlin 2000; Krupp im 20. Jahrhundert, Berlin 2002 ) or Klaus Tenfelde (Pictures of Krupp: Photography and History in the Industrial Age, London/New York 2005) ?  Nowhere. Instead of this, like a mantra, continuing repetitions of obsolete and “traditional” perceptions and misconceptions of who and what was “Krupp”. 
Granted, of course, that the atrocities committed by the protagonists and cooperators    of the Third Reich arouse anger and repulsion. But emotion cannot replace scientific thoroughness and competence, historical research is of a different stamp.
So if you are interested in history and historical research do it seriously. Thoughtless parroting does not lead to scientific knowledge but to blind ignorance.
Finally I may indicate that I will – depending on my spare time for this - do some corrections concerning the gravest errors in the present articles.
Touchstone170.56.58.153 12:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krupp discussion in general 

message: There are two literal spellings of the name Alfred in German, Alfred and Alfried.  Though the latter is very rare, both are promounced in the souther Germanic Accent as "Alfried".
So, which is it to be in this article?
"and Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach (1907 - 67) took over the management. After Germany's defeat, when Gustav proved incapable of going on trial, the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunal convicted Alfred as a war criminal "
Enjoy.
According to the quoted dates you mean Alfried. This is the whole story:
Alfred Krupp (26.4.1812-14.7.1887) was Friedrich Krupp´s son. Friedrich Krupp founded the Gussstahlfabrik (cast iron factory) Fried. (= Friedrich) Krupp in 1811. After his father´s death in 1826 Alfred Krupp carried on the business together with his family and seven workers and became sole owner of the factory in 1848. When he died in 1887 ca. 20200 workers were occupied in his company.
Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach (13.8.1907-30.7.1967) was his great-grandson. As his father Gustav von Bohlen und Halbach was not a born „Krupp“ – only after he had married Bertha Krupp in 1906 he was given the privilege to precede his name with the name “Krupp” = Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach – Alfried´s second name was „von Bohlen und Halbach”. After having taken over the company in December 1943, however,  his name was changed to “Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach”. Touchstone 170.56.58.153 10:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfred or Alfried 

message: Given the fact this article is about the Krupp Industry and not the Gustav Gun it may not be that important.  However there are some disparaging remarks about the history of the Gustav and Dora Guns.  I've done some research into them and never found anything credible to suggest the troops had a problem with the massive weapon.  While it should be mentioned that the inaccuracy of it should be weighed againgst its power considering in russia (can't remember exactly wear) the Gustav managed to destroy a ship in the harbor that it missed, the blast of the projectile in the water caused it to capsize.  If I am wrong about this or there is some credible source for this bad opinion by the troops please correct me, otherwise the disparaging remarks should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.228.71 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Remark 

message: I am starting work on Krupp artillery. On Commons I created the category Krupp artillery. Here are some references for future articles:
* 
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krupp artillery 

message: Regarding the content near the sentence "These workers were initially paid, but as Nazi fortunes declined they were kept as slave workers.", 24.192.223.24 (talk) says in this edit "detailed in the book "The Arms of Krupp" and also the Nuremberg Trial pertaining to Krupp".  Anomie⚔ 15:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from 24.192.223.24 

message: "A British documentary on the Krupp family and firm included footage of German-speakers of the 1930s etc" - which British documentary? The article doesn't say, or list it in the sources. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: The article states that the topic is about the Krupp industrial conglomerate. However, the lead opens with information about the Krupp family, and the "History" section is titled "History of the family," not the history of the corporation as would be expected. I would recommend that this article picks one topic or the other. If it is to be about the corporation, then remove information about the family and perhaps create a new article for that information. Biglulu (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a valid point. The editors are clearly trying to tackle material that goes far beyond the scope of a single article. I propose that the article be split into two articles. One should be devoted to the history of the family and the other should be devoted to family business. Would you be opposed to an Rfc to get a consensus opinion on the issue?Emiya1980 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic Confusing 

message: * 
Something needs to be added to the page more directly dealing with something still known as the "Krupp Incident" that was prominent enough to add "Berliner" and "German vice" as euphemisms for "gay" and "homosexuality" to Italian, French, and English. — LlywelynII 16:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "Krupp Incident"

message: I propose that Krupp be split into 2 articles:Krupp family and Friedrich Krupp AG . This material provided for both topics  is large and well-sourced enough to make their own pages. 
The current article, "Krupp", attempts to document the history of both the family and the business they created which is too broad and unwieldy a subject for a single article to handle. When faced with writing articles about business dynasties, editors have frequently made one devoted to the family business and one devoted to the family itself even when the family name is included in the company's title. Here is a list of examples:
*J.P. Morgan & Co. & the Morgan family 
*Lehman Brothers and the Lehman family
*Barings Bank & the Baring family 
*Rothschild & Co & the Rothschild family 
*M. M. Warburg & Co. & the Warburg family 
*Mellon Financial & the Mellon family
*DuPont & the Du Pont family
*Ford Motor Company & the Ford family
*Getty Oil & the Getty family
*Porsche & the Porsche–Piëch family
With this approach in mind, I propose the article be split into (1) "Krupp family" which documents the family's genealogy while summarizing the lives of its individual members AND (2)"Friedrich Krupp AG" which provides history about the family business. Please indicate your support or opposition below. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also feel free to comment.Emiya1980 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mostly retired from Wikipedia, though I've been more active again in the last several weeks. That said, I really don't want to get drawn into a long, contentious discussion on the topic. I'll subscribe to the topic for a while, and if I believe I should contribute to the discussion, I will do so. If not, I'll just unsubscribe and move on quietly. BilCat (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I support this as a logical and reasonable change HOWEVER I think it's crucial that a split not become a means for whitewashing the corporate history of Krupp AG. I'm not suggesting that's the intent here just that I've seen splits that remove all controversy to that other page and then it becomes a challenge figuring out which parts to include without getting too deep into undue weight problems. Krupp AG need not recapitulate all of European history between 1850 and 1950 but 1–3 paragraphs referencing/summarizing Krupp's relationship to German militarism, the Kaiser, Hitler, with historian commentary/perspective, etc. should remain on the AG page IMHO. jengod (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the intent. Any article about Krupp AG will include information about their collaboration with the Nazis. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Support split. Seems perfectly sensible to me. jengod (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting proposal

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved – robertsky (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A split isn't what's being asked for. These are two different articles about two related but distinct topics — a split already took place about a week ago, and what's at issue here is the question of what title each of the separate pages should be located at now. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The European company is the primary topic and should be at Krupp.  The article should not have been moved. Support, I suppose, since the RM is now open. 162 etc. (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Support.Emiya1980 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 May 2024