Talk:Hermann Rauschning

message: Deletion of quote: "If the Jews had not existed, we would have had to invent them." (Coltz 1983).
I have removed this quote as it is not by Rauschning but rather him reporting an alleged conversation with Hitler:
"The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans and Jews. All else is facade and illusion. Behind England stands Israel, and behind France, and behind the United States. Even when we have driven the Jew out of Germany, he remains our world enemy."
I (Rauschning) asked whether that amounted to saying that the Jew must be destroyed.
"No," he (Hitler) replied. "We should have then to invent him. It is essential to have a tangible enemy, not merely an abstract one."
Extract from: Hermann Rauschning. The Voice of Destruction G P Putnam’s Sons New York 1940 p.237
Davidbeare (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 15th June, Removal of Rauschning Quote 

message: Like Tymek, I too was unhappy about the un-cited statements in this section, which is why I added the general call for citations to it. I suspect that the original contributor was quoting from the publication mentioned in which case all that is needed is a citation rather than a deletion. Un-referenced information is ok to criticise and ultimately if no citation can be provided should be deleted; that it may or may not be controversial is not. I would prefer to see more effort on the part of those who would delete to make sure a citation is not easily obtainable. I will look into this specific subject further to see if the statements should stand or not.
Hopefully as a compromise I have maintained the original general call for citations to the section and also called for individual citations (as I have already done in other sections of this article) at specific points which could be controversial if they are not quotes from the subject of the article’s book.
Finally, the statements in the edit as of 00:14, 3 June 2009: “which had come under Polish control”, seems more accurate than that of  05:00, 14 June 2009: “which returned to Poland”, because before the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, Poland had not existed since the ‘three partition’s - the latest in 1795 - other than briefly as a duchy between 1807-1815. I have therefore restored the original statement.
Davidbeare (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining your point in a civil way. Tymek (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some time has passed and still no reliable sources. Given the highly POV nature of the text, I've removed it. I've also removed stuff that was cited to Rauschning himself as he can be hardly considered a neutral or a reliable source.radek (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Obviously I am replying to a comment made 17 years ago, but considering Rauschning denounced Hitler as, in effect, insufficiently reactionary, it isn't surprising that a figure like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (who viewed Nazism as a leftist movement and was a monarchist like Rauschning) would be fond of Rauschning's books. Seraphim Rose and Noël O'Sullivan similarly wrote from conservative viewpoints seeking to demonstrate that Nazism was basically on the left. What's significant is that none of these three authors is regarded as an authority on Hitler or fascism unlike Evans, Laqueur, etc., and historians seem to generally treat Rauschning with skepticism as a source on Hitler's views. --Ismail (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 14 June 2009 

message: This entire paragraph is very bad, quotes are not entirely marked as quotes, no sensible line breaks exist and the citation of sources is not up to the standards of an encylopaedic entry. Someone should rewrite it completely. 84.137.15.134 08:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''RE: Rauschning's Phony 'Conversations With Hitler': An Update''' 

message: ===This article is in Violation of GFDL license===
I Have found out that the page history of Kalos Kagathos was tampered with.  This is in violation of the GFDL license.  Now, I research this site and the page history was also tampered with.  
::Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles[31] without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.[32][33]
This section was in the article at some point at Wikipedia and it was deleted from the page History:
==Miscellania==
*Hermann Rauschning was known to be an accurate predictor of Nazi proclivities.  In his book, Revolution of Nihilism, he uses the word "Holocaust" (in 1939) to describe what may be the result of the Third Reich.
**"...�what is this Third Reich in reality, a new order in the making or a holocaust, a national re-birth through the historic energies of the nation or a progressive, permanent revolution of sheer destruction,..." pg xi.
From the history page of Wikinfo artilce: 17:54, 14 March 2005 WHEELER (Talk | contribs | block) (via wikipedia transferring over) 
Now where is this anywhere in the history of this page?  Nowhere.  The page history of this article has been tampered with!!!!  This article is in violation of the GFDL license. So I would like the history page of this article restored.WHEELER 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. The page history has been restored.  Thanks.WHEELER 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What the hell is going on at Wikipedia

message: I Have found out that the page history of Kalos Kagathos was tampered with.  This is in violation of the GFDL license.  Now, I research this site and the page history was also tampered with.  
::Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles[31] without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.[32][33]
This section was in the article at some point at Wikipedia and it was deleted from the page History:
==Miscellania==
*Hermann Rauschning was known to be an accurate predictor of Nazi proclivities.  In his book, Revolution of Nihilism, he uses the word "Holocaust" (in 1939) to describe what may be the result of the Third Reich.
**"...�what is this Third Reich in reality, a new order in the making or a holocaust, a national re-birth through the historic energies of the nation or a progressive, permanent revolution of sheer destruction,..." pg xi.
From the history page of Wikinfo artilce: 17:54, 14 March 2005 WHEELER (Talk | contribs | block) (via wikipedia transferring over) 
Now where is this anywhere in the history of this page?  Nowhere.  The page history of this article has been tampered with!!!!  This article is in violation of the GFDL license. So I would like the history page of this article restored.WHEELER 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. The page history has been restored.  Thanks.WHEELER 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is in Violation of GFDL license

message: An IP has added this saying : "If the Jews had not existed, we would have had to invent them". (Coltz 1983)
Does anybody know the precise source ? In fact, this sentence is sometimes assigned to Hitler.
Marvoir 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of a saying. 

message: Seriously, if you don't stop pushing this non-RS POV pushing with HR's propaganda book then I will have to report you for it. I really don't want to because you appear to be new and I hate to report people just because they don't orient themselves well in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But you're being so persistent that I'll have no choice.
So once again - HR's book is 1) a primary source, 2) non reliable for the purposes of the things it talks about, 3) the author himself is non reliable for general purposes of Wikipedia, given his Nazi party affiliation and his propensity to just make stuff up (like the Hitler conversations). You cannot include stuff from the book in the article. You can include the fact that he wrote the book but you have to phrase this very carefully in order to ensure NPOV.radek (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jager 

message: Should Wikipedia really spend 13 paragraphs on the findings of revisionist WWII historians? I'm referring to the section about "authenticity". WWII revisionism is about as fringe as it gets. I propose we delete that section completely if all the sources are revisionist historians and revisionist websites? Hardly reliable sources...
RandySpears (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the section as there was no objections to your proposal. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "revisionist" Hänel was followed by non-revisionist historians. Most historians quoted in the deleted section are non-revisionist. Thus I restored the section, but without reference to the International Historic Review. Marvoir (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me this sets an absolutely awful precedent. I think that no one here will disagree that following the chaos of WWII, there was an incredibly strong need at a humanistic level for closure. Hence the rushed nature of the Nuremburg trials and the atrocious proceedings at Dachau, etc, etc (I say this as a native Pole, so please take the pressure cooker off the big burner now, thanks). From this follows first a huge desire to demonize the enemy, followed some arbitrary time later, a quiet shuffling-of-the-feet and hey-isn't-that-a-bird-up-there? -type of reversal of some of the more outrageous claims, followed by enormous shame and desire to just make it all go away. For many, that's the end of the road and it becomes a psychological bogeyman for the rest of their lives, wherein they will avoid the conversation or blow their top, etc, etc. But perhaps the healthiest thing to do would be to tighten one's belt, take a deep breath, and be brave enough to objectively assess just what happened in the war, and be ready to find things you don't want to see. (Whew, sorry! There is a point, I promise!) And sooooo => I think the overall structure of denouncing all of Rauschning's writings, simply because it is sickening to read the polemics against a nation that was soon to suffer just a tad from her neighbor... is shameful and wrong. And that is precisely what has been done here. The baby (and the tub, and the bassinet, and the shower curtain) has been thrown out with the bathwater. Yes, much of what he wrote is inarguably crap. Indeed, let me add yet another element of strong doubt that no one here has yet named: he quit in Nov'34... ring a bell? Let me help: it's just months after the Blood Purge, and he's scared shitless. (I hope I've won a modicum of trust with that whopper.) But none of that, absolutely none of it means a damn thing about the veracity of his statements about Hitler, the entire refutation thereof rests upon one thing (other that the ad hominem stuff I just mentioned): a revisionist's re-assessment! Given what is said about our pal Wolfie, is it any wonder someone might attack it? Now please, I do not by any means intend to imply here that what he wrote -is- true, or to what degree... but I'm just saying that all this deleting, all this fidgeting and all this quite obvious desire to just sweep the guy under a rug is dishonorable. If he is full of crap, then let us prove that properly. Pimpoosh (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mmmh, because it was only Revisionist historians that bothered with the authenticity of sources in that case? 197.228.10.230 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

text:  Actually, any historiography has to be revisionist to some extent, so I don't get what the problem is here. Undesired findings perhaps? 105.8.4.90 (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight to "Revisionist" historians? 

message: Have re-edited the article because it didn't tell me much about the subject. The article seemed to unduly focus around the accuracy or otherwise of Hitler Speaks. I have left the "Authenticity of Hitler Speaks" section intact though personally I think it is far too long and I am sure someone must be able to summarise the arguments into 1 or 2 paragraphs. My edit does rely perhaps too much on this article which I picked off the German wiki entry but I assume other editors can find other references. --JHumphries (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is really decisive: a Polish professor, a contemporary, says that what Rauschning wrote in "Die Entdeutschung" is based on facts (top of page 3)! He exaggerated, but what he told is true! I have tried several times so insert something about the reasons of Gustav Stresemann´s aggressiveness against Poland, the subject of HR´s "Entdeutschung", in his article (section: "In the Weimar Republic"), but whenever I inserted it, it was deleted without discussion. Jäger (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Revision 7 August