Talk:Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski

message: There is no significant evidence to show that this fellow and his family were anything other than wholly Germanised citizens of Prussia and that they spelt their names accordingly. The blatant Polish spellings in this article should all be changed to the correct ones. Also, someone who was, according to this article, so positively evil and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and yet never charged for any of them seems too good to be true. I shall investigate some of the Western histories on this. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Church documents in Prussia were´nt written in Polish or Latin.(HerkusMonte (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And you know that from...? They were written in Latin FOR SURE. Plus: Most catholic priests in Prussia were Polish, so it is highly probable that they used their native tongue at least from time to time. Barry Kent (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His mother (“Elżbieta Ewelina Szymańska”) was Lutheran, not catholic, and Lutheran church records were neither written in Latin nor in Polish.(HerkusMonte (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: German - Polish name

message: The article is not consistent with the timing of the addition of "von dem Bach" to his full name. First, it states the change was done in the late 30's then, later on, it says the change was made in 1925.
Someone should determine which was correct and update the page accordingly.
AJ.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.64.199 (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of name to "von dem Bach" 

message: The article should say it explicitly, he was pro-German, but an  ethnic Pole. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: and i've read he saved chopin's heart from destruction. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

text: The matter is not at all obvious, because his mother was Jewish. Bociek O-le (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

text: This fact has been added to the article now. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic Pole

message: Polish "history" is fanatically biased and on a page such as this is just out of order. English-language Wikipedia should have readily available English-language references. The minute you permit those with an axe to grind onto pages like this you are in trouble. Lastly, Kashubians are NOT Polish. this is very important. Also were the villages his father owned in Pomerellan or Pomerania. A serious distinction should be made. Did they have German names at the time and if so that is what should be cited, not names which no-one recognises except raving Polish nationalists. 86.165.190.197 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish "history"

message: Bach-Zelewski is listed as having been mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht (Wehrmacht's daily propaganda report):
Military personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht
I'd be curious to see what it say. Does anyone have access to this reference? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wehrmachtbericht reference for Bach-Zelewski 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://tygodnik2003-2007.onet.pl/3229,12454,1361279,tematy.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://tygodnik2003-2007.onet.pl/3229,12454,1361279,2,tematy.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://tygodnik2003-2007.onet.pl/3229,12454,1361279,3,tematy.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://tygodnik2003-2007.onet.pl/3229,12454,1361279,tematy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding this revert / addition, Wikipedia's policy WP:BURDEN applies as the material was uncited. Additionally, it represents intricate detail unrelated to subject's notability. I plan to restore the edit unless citations can be provided and the encyclopedic relevance of this material can be demonstrated. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: According to references Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski was re-arrested in 1962, tried again, and received a sentence of life in prison. His wartime activities were once again not disclosed. Is there a reason this is omitted from the "Trials and convictions" section? Otr500 (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1962 

message: Bandit fighting was not attacks on "those designated by the regime as ideological enemies and any other persons deemed to present danger to the Nazi rule". It was attacks on those who were actively fighting against the German occupation, along with the supporting population. There is a big difference between fighting enemy combatants engaged in open warfare, and rounding up political opponents.203.80.61.102 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "bandit fighting" not against ideological enemies 

message: Dear 203.80.61.102. 
Please explain the basis of your claim that what Von dem Bach's units did was fundamentally fighting enemy combatants. It's clear that German security operations sometimes targeted Soviet, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Jewish, etc partisan units, but the documentary record shows that the majority of victims were just people, and not armed, trained or supported combatants of any kind. The body counts versus weapons captured were orders of magnitude different. I can't deny that sometimes the targeted populations fought back. Wouldn't you? Read up on the training that the Bandenkampfverbanden officers received - let loose on Jews who were corralled into killing sites. I also don't fully understand your distinction between "political opponents" and people "actively fighting against the German occupation", given that the Germans had no right to be there in the first place, unless you accept the loathsome Nazi view of the world under which many of them operated. It's almost too easy to remind you that Von dem Bach's anti-partisan resources included Oskar Dirlewanger's unit. FiftusTheSixth (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange interpretation 

message: The article refers to the massacres at Riga having been under the jurisdiction of Einsatzgruppe B. This is incorrect. They were conducted by sub-units of Einsatzgruppe A. The HSSPF in charge was either Hans-Adolf Prutzmann or Friedrich Jeckeln, depending on the date of the action. Von dem Bach, despite his massive count of crimes against humanity, cannot be held accountable for the exterminations at Riga. FiftusTheSixth (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion of EGB for EGA 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. 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/20151224104237/https://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Hitlers-Bandit-Hunters,677031.aspx to https://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Hitlers-Bandit-Hunters,677031.aspx
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) 06:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm curious as to why you've added back the Nazi awards sections that were removed by myself and K.e.coffman. Most of these awards are relatively insignificant and only known to a very specialized audience. Also, the Nazi party number and SS number are unlikely to mean anything to the average person, and a recent discussion on Reinhard Heydrich's page concluded that they didn't belong. Catrìona (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  and thanks for your message. First up, I wasn't aware that there was a previous section dealing with his military and Party awards. As for your claim that the majority of the ones I've listed are insignificant, I would have to disagree. I have only added ones that have their own stand-alone Wiki article, so if they are, as you say, insignificant, it beggars the question as to why they all have their own Wiki article? What function do those stand-alone Wiki articles serve, if they are never to be linked to in another article? Why not just delete every Wiki article that you consider dealing with insignificant pieces of history? The Iron Cross is certainly not insignificant, the Honour Cross of WWI is not significant (read the article, I wrote most of it). It was the very first medal created by the Nazi's and the only official medal for WWI veterans and their next of kin. The chevron and dagger were quite rare, the Golden Party Badge was not insignificant by any means. I'm not trying to get into an argument with you at all over this, I hope you appreciate that. I'm just adding links to other Wiki articles. As a military man, his awards and decorations are surely part of his history? This is an encyclopaedia after all :) As for his Party and SS number, I accept what you said and will be happy to delete that. As for the claim that they are of interest to only a very specialised audience, have you read the Wiki article on Muon-catalyzed fusion? Now THAT'S only known to a very specialised audience! As an owner of many hard copy encyclopaedias, I value that not everything in them is for a mass audience, and was under the impression that Wiki was an encyclopaedia that dealt in history and facts that may not be of interest to a mass audience. I have a vast collection of reference material which I am slowly working my way through in view of adding to Wiki. At the moment I'm going through the Awards and Decorations reference books, and only, and I must stress this again, adding links to stand-alone Wiki articles. I am in no way trying to glorify the Nazi's, just adding factual content that is relevant to them, either in a military way or the Party way. I have works on Erich von dem Bach which I will use to add to his bio when I get time. I also had a quick look at some of your other work and it's very good, I hope to contribute when time permits!
Thanks again! Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section; preserving here by providing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erich_von_dem_Bach-Zelewski&type=revision&diff=853354220&oldid=853206634 this link[. My rationale was: "Excessive intricate detail; important awards are already cited in the body of the article". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying stand alone Wiki articles are not permitted to be linked in another article? Is this official Wiki policy?Troy von Tempest (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'm following; the notability of the award (i.e. having an article on it) is not really material as to whether the mention of said award is included in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Not really material to who? Again, what, if any, Wiki guideline or regulation was I in breach of by having an awards section for a military man? Or did you delete it because you personally don't agree with it? What's the guideline on "excessive intricate detail" on Wiki? I further ask, again, why it's not permitted, at least on this page, to link to another article? What is the issue you have here? I'm trying to understand why this is so upsetting for you? Is this an encyclopaedia or not? Are you now going to go and find every military serviceman or woman, Third Reich or not, who has a Wiki article and delete any awards and decorations section? Or is it just on a whim for this article? Furthermore, if it's not allowed on this article, why is it allowed on other articles? I don't understand your insistence on deletion because you are of the opinion it's unnecessary or "excessive"?. If this is your view, why don't you then go and edit all articles with an awards section in the name of consistency? Why is not permitted for anyone who just may find his military awards, major or "insignificant" if interest to read them, and furthermore, why shouldn't anyone then be able to use the link and see the stand-alone Wiki article on that award or decoration? Am I to run any other edits on other articles past you so as to make sure you find them allowable? I don't understand why this has become an issue for you unless you have an agenda that I'm unaware of?Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the concern is that the awards are not really meaningful or relevant to the reason that he is notable, and therefore don't help the reader gain a greater understanding of the subject. Zelewski's highest award was already in the article. Listing all the awards raises a concern with undue weight since scholarly sources don't discuss his awards at all and focus on his genocidal actions. Catrìona (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Heydrich's "NSDAP number, SS number" were not removed; what happened was there was some added explanation inserted. As for "Nazi awards", Troy, this should not be a surprise as we went through all this on the Ernst Röhm talk page - see here . Kierzek (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi awards