Talk:Ernst vom Rath

message: This article is still very defective. How many times will it be rewritten using very little in the way of a bibliography and who..will be deciding what it should contain? Why say that Ernst vom Rath's brother was convicted of 'homosexual offenses' without explaining that this was on the Russian front at a time when the Grynszpan trial was being planned? Why in fact is anyone's homosexuality presented here as if this were a crime? In fact it must be said that Doescher's use of alleged sources may well be a legacy of Martin Bormann and the Third Reich. Doescher should have been sued from the start. oldcitycat (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not the question. The question is whether the rumours are relevant. They are of course, because they were central to the events that led to the indefinite postponment of the trial. We do not report on the 'truth', we report on relevant information, and we present in the proper context. If you hsve any problems with the way the information is presented here then you need to explain what they are. If you are objecting to the phrasing in the Grynszpan article, then you should do so at the talk page there. Paul B (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have neglected reading carefully. Schwab is the source given for the article. Didn't you see the words "What Schwab has there is this: " ? If you don't use Schwab for your article..don't use him as a source. oldcitycat (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have neglected making sense. Is "If you don't use Schwab for your article..don't use him as a sou[r]ce" supposed to mean something? Paul B (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually it was the French who made sure Ernst vom Rath died..not the Germans who wanted to question him. oldcitycat (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Not mentioned because it's nothing more than a preposterous fantasy. Paul B (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt you're an expert on such matters. oldcitycat (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You most certainly are not, as your unsupported conspiracy theories indicate. Paul B (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

text: That's a joke. Marino is not a historian. He did no research and has been accused of making "utterly unsubstantiated and ludicrous" claims. It's sensationalism,not history. Paul B (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The article makes a strange claim that Grynszpan "fled" Germany and in the same sentence was angry that his family was being "deported from Germany."  Which it it?  Did he and his family want to stay or leave?Pgg804 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly says we do not know his motivation. However, there is no contradiction. Grynszpan chose to leave; his family were deported. There's a huge difference, especially if you have to leave jobs, property and other assets behind. Also, choosing to leave does not mean that you want to. It may mean you do so because you feel threatened and vulnerable. A person has every right to feel angry if they are forced to "flee" in such circumstances. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Grynszpan left Germany for France in 1936 because by that point it really clear that there was no future for a Jewish boy in Germany. However, his family ended staying in Germany because the French would not accept them. In 1938, the Gryszpan family like thousands of others of Polish Jews were rounded up as part of an effort to expel all the Polish Jews living in Germany. Thus, Grynszpan fled Germany while his family was deported. No contradiction. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would someone who supposedly fled a country have a desire to stay in that same country? 

message: I recall reading somewhere that vom Rath actually had a very low opinion of Hitler, and planned to leave the diplomatic corps when his Paris posting expired because of that (making his posthumous conversion into a martyr for Naziism ironic). Is there anything out there on this? Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not the case at all. If vom Rath really didn't like Hitler, he could had defected at any moment (he had living in Paris for three years after all), and he didn't. Anyhow, if vom Rath really was such an anti-Nazi, that begs the questions why he joined the NSDAP in 1932 (before Hitler was appointed Chancellor), and just what did he think he was doing representing the Nazi regime abroad for five years, starting in 1933. Do diplomats really devote five years of their lives representing the interests of a regime that they hate? Rath is really only notable for being assassinated, and if he had not been killed, I very much doubt we would have an article on him. But as far one can gather, Rath was a man who was loyally committed to the Nazi regime just like almost everybody else in the Auswärtiges Amt. A lot of people in Germany have trouble accepting the fact that the elite Auswärtiges Amt  was a criminal organization that was as everybody involved in the genocidal policies of the National Socialist state as the SS was. Hence the legend of the Auswärtiges Amt as "sand in the machine", the story that German diplomats deeply dislike the Nazi regime, and only worked for it in order to sabotage the evil doings of the Nazi leaders. The "sand in the machine" myth clearly had the effort of converting those German diplomats who loyally served Hitler into heroes of the resistance against Hitler. That myth was demolished in 2010 when the German government released a report of the activities of the Auswärtiges Amt  between 1933-45, which concluded that the Auswärtiges Amt was indeed a criminal organization. I suspect that the story of Rath, the supposed secret anti-Nazi who ironically end up as a Nazi martyr has quite a bit to do with the legend of the Auswärtiges Amt as "sand in the machine" working quietly to sabotage the Third Reich's foreign policy. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Vom Rath had the reputation of being a conservative, unsympathetic to the National Socialist Government. (86.129.39.158 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attitude toward Hitler? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ernst vom Rath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205080854/http://www.dewanhoopsdaad.com/english to http://www.dewanhoopsdaad.com/english
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I read recently in a source I trusted (I don't remember where that's why I'm not adding it to the main body just here) that vom Rath and Grynszpan were lovers and that vom Rath had just dumped Grynszpan...if someone else finds a reputable source for this it would be pretty important to include methinks.Historian932 (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The theorized vom Rath & Grynszpan relationship is covered in the 'sexuality' section of Grynszpan's wikipedia page HasisLfter (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  vom Rath had just dumped Grynszpan? 

message: This page states "Most accounts of the shooting state that Grynszpan did not ask for vom Rath by name but only asked to speak to a member of the diplomatic staff. The records were falsified in 1942, and the Germans spread propaganda that Grynszpan's intention was to kill the Nazi ambassador, Count Johannes von Welczeck." so implying the idea was made-up propoganda.
However, I saw on the Count's page that it says this idea was true: "Grynszpan had decided to assassinate the German ambassador to France, a task somewhat complicated by the fact that he did not know the name of the ambassador or what he looked like" and that Grynszpan met but didn't recognise the Count.
Although all of this could be true--Grynszpan intends to kill the Count, the records are falsified for propoganda, the idea is spread--the implication that it is just propaganda contradicts the Count's Wikipedia page.
Also, (Vom Rath page) "Most accounts of the shooting state that Grynszpan did not ask for vom Rath by name but only asked to speak to a member of the diplomatic staff" almost contradicts (the Count's page) "Grynszpan went into the embassy to ask to see the ambassador". The Count's page says Grynszpan asked to see "his excellency, the ambassador" but that contradicts "only asked to speak to a member of the diplomatic staff".
Does anyone have access to the sources? HasisLfter (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the propoganda that Grynszpan had intended to kill the ambassador made up or true?