Jump to content

Talk:Ahnenerbe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ahnenerbe in Greece

[edit]

I read the article because I was particularly interested in the activities of Ahnenerbe in Greece. While I found no mention of the country, I follow one of the links, which focused on what I was looking for. While there is an article on the subject, I discovered that the site which the link belongs is administered by people who support nationalistic organisations, which makes me doubt the credibility of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.178.118 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Anyone else notice that most of the claims of medical experiments comes from an "independent" publisher and plagiarizes Soviet experiments described in Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be little doubt that the Deutsches Ahnenerbe and SS Ahnenerbe existed, and that they were interested in the occult. But most of this article in its current form seems to take this to fanciful lengths -- can this be backed up with cites? (And no, Hellboy doesn't count as a reliable source). -- The Anome 08:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether this description of the Ahnenerbe, at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum archive is in the public domain... its provenance is unclear. -- The Anome 12:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I remember seeing a 1 hour special on this on PBS. Also, here is a German encyclopedia about Nazi history: [1]. So, this is real for sure. But I can not check all the details. Awolf002 00:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the Michael Wood Channel 4 documentary. It seems the most-quoted references are

':Kater, Michael H.: Das "Ahnenerbe" der SS 1935-1945. Ein Beitrag zur Kulturpolitik des Dritten Reiches. München 1997. ISBN 348656529X

Jacobeit, Wolfgang / Lixfeld, Hannsjost / Bockhorn, Olaf (Hg.): Völkische Wissenschaft. Gestalten und Tendenzen der deutschen und österreichischen Volkskunde in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Wien/Köln/Weimar 1994. ISBN 3-205-98208-8

but they are not that much use to me as a) I haven't got them b) I have only a very basic knowledge of German. Are there any proficient German-speakers here with access to these books? -- The Anome 10:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet

[edit]

Shouldn't there be some mention of Tibet and Seven Years in Tibet's Heinrich Harrer?

Added a barebones bit about Tibet, in the new "expeditions" part...can't believe we didn't have anything before Sherurcij 13:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Random info for later use, if anybody can interpret

[edit]

Mainly restricted to Eastern Europe were the activities of the research council "Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft Das Ahnenerbe", also subordinated to the SS. The academic members of the Ahnenerbe chiefly confiscated archaeological collections and specialist literature but also carried out excavations in occupied territories. Material of the Ahnenerbe can be found in record group NS21 "Ahnenerbe" in the Bundesarchiv Koblenz as well as in the record group Research Ahnenerbe in the Bundesarchiv Außenstelle Berlin-Zehlendorf. Sherurcij 06:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish cultural studies - Yrjö Grönhagen (Joined in Feb 37, unit was dissolved in Sept 39)

Genkunde/Genetics - Josef Otto Plassmanns (Joined in early 37, unit dissolved in April 41) - Hans Robert Scultertus (Joined in early 37)

NNbildkunde/National Image Lore - Hermann Wirth]] (March 37 - Dec 38) [[Karl Theodor Weigel - Dec 38 - April 43

Sippenzeichen/Ethnic Indicators - Karl Konrad Ruppel (Oct 37 to Nov 30th 39) Rolf Hohne (Feb-May 38) Hansschleif (May 38-April40) Herbert Jankuhn (April40-onwards)

Biology and Altertumskunde/Archaeology Rudolf Till (Feb 38) Bruno Schweizer (April38)

Rachwissenschaft/Linguistics and Land Bruno Schweizer (March38)

NST Emerich Schaffran (May 15th 1938) Philipp Freiherr von Lutzelburg (July 1938)

Rschnn Volkskunde/cultural anthropology Richard Wolfrun (September 1938)

Enkunde Steinhauser (October 1938)

Angewandte Naturkunde/Applied Nature Studies Eduard Tratz (Jan 39) Walter Greite (Jan 39)

Neuere Geschichte/Modern History Hermann Loffler (April 39) - SS Historian who wrote "Entwicklung und Aufgaben der Geschichtswissenschaft in Deutschland/Development and exercise of history studies in Germany"

Uwesen Martin Rudolph (April 39)

T Viktor Christian (April 39) - Born March 30, 1185, professor, 1942 rector of University of Vienna?, shipped Jewish books from Burgenland

Sforschung and Volkskunde Hermann Harmjanz (April 39 - April 43) - is this meant to be Heinrich Harmjanz?

Altertumskunde/archaeology Franz Dirlmeier (May 1939)

Forschung and Expedition/Research and Expedition Ernst Schafer (Jan 40-Jan 16th 1943)

Deutsche Rechtsgeschicthe/German History of Law Wolfgang Ebel (1942)

Rierung Pohl (Feb 1942) Paul Lehmann (April 42)

Ksforschung Ludwig Mulhausen (July 42) Wolfgang Krause (April 43)

Sinnbildkunde/Study of Allegories Karl Theodor Weigel (April 43)

Germanische Sprach und -chaft/Germanic language studies Richard von Kienle (April 43)

Ik Heinz Brucher (November 1st, 43)

Germanic music Anton Quellmalz (December 43)

Members of the Kuratorium: Gauleiter Dr. Alfred Meyer Siegelbewahrer (keeper of the seal) des Reichsbauernrates SS-Staf. Erwin Metzner, Berlin

Präsident des Kuratoriums: SS-Hstuf. Prof. Walther Wüst, ordentlicher Universitätsprofessor, Dekan der Philosophischen Fakultät der Unversität München

stellv. Präsident: SS-Staf. Dr. Wilhelm Kinkelein; Hauptabteilungsleiter im Stabsamt des Reichsbauernführers

Dr. Alfred Kraut (possibly a clerk?)

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:5zdtIPup9qcJ:www.nypress.com/print.cfm%3Fcontent_id%3D1054+ahnenerbe+uniform&hl=en

When Himmler became Minister of the Interior in 1943 Rudolf Brandt became Chief of the Ministerial Office; when Himmler became President of the Ahnenerbe Society, Rudolf Brandt became liaison officer between Himmler and the Reich Secretary of the Ahnenerbe Society, defendant Wolfram Sievers. -Nuremburg

Document Evidence 303 "THE AHNENERBE"

The President The Reich Leader SS H. HIMMLER

Trustee SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. WALTHER WUEST

The Reich Business Manager SS Hauptsturmfuehrer WOLFRAM SIEVERS

Reich Business Management

Deputy Reich Business Manager SS Obersturmfuehrer HERBERT MENZ

Consultant Secretary DR. GISELA SCHMITZ-KAHLMANN

The Special Commissioner of the Reich Leader SS Sturmbannfuehrer BRUNO GALKE

Administration SS Untersturmbannfuehrer HANS-ULRICH HUEHNE

Graduate of a Business College ALFONS EBEN

http://www.google.com/u/Mazal?q=Ahnenerbe&sa=Google+Search

Various members

[edit]

Worked closely with

[edit]

Mountaineering

[edit]

"When Germany overran the Caucasus in early 1942, they stationed 10,000 troops on Mount Elbrus. Three mountaineers believed to be from the Ahnenerbe held a ceremony in which they planted the Nazi flag at the peak, referring to it as a 'sacred Aryan mountain'."

I've a photo to hand of a group of mountaineers (at least 15) heading up a snowy slope, marked as

In 1942, a combined group of men from two Gebirgs divisions conquered Mount Elbrus in Russia. This photograph shows the party moving off at the start of the operation, carrying the unit flags which they placed in the snow of Elbrus's summit; Adolf Hitler described it as the 'most pointless' operation in the war.

There's a second photograph showing two flags at the summit; one is the same as in the Tibet photo, and the other appears to be a brigade flag; the two divisions appear to have been the 1st and 4th Gebirgs, judging by where they were. Could this be the origin of the "three mountaineers believed to be from the Ahnenerbe"? Shimgray | talk | 14:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sounds intriguing - I'd certainly love a scan of those photographs if you're able (or even photographing them with a digital camera). As per sources, I'm afraid I'm horrible at referencing, and don't remember where exactly that information came from. Looking online I find reference to

On Hitler’s order, Nazi Mountain Division Edelweiss was trying to hoist their symbols on Mount Elbrus

Units of the 1st motorized German division “Edelweiss” captured the southern slopes of Elbrus, the highest peak of the Big Caucasian Ridge...And on August 21st, 1942 they hoisted a Nazi flag on Elbrus peaks.

1942 August 23 A swastika banner is said to have been planted atop Mount Elbrus in the Caucasus Mountains by a special SS detachment. The flag they planted was allegedly blessed according to the secret, mystical rites of the SS inner circle. (note the August 21/23 difference)

in 1942, Hitler, because of his occult ideas about Asia & Tibet, was excited to plant a Nazi flag on the highest peak of the Caucasian mountains, Mt. Elbrus, at the specific time of 11 a.m. (From a conspiracy theory website, though...and everything I've heard would suggest you're correct about Hitler's summary, not this website. People like to assume that because Himmler was wildly esoteric, therefore by extrapolation they can say Hitler was as well)

and finally, from William Shirer, one of the more definitive sources on the Reich, we have German troops had reached the Volga just north of Stalingrad on August 23. Two days before the swastika had been hoisted on Mount Elbrus, the highest peak in the Caucasus Mountains.

So I'm thinking you're probably right, and they were not Ahnenerbe mountaineers, though it's confusing that it gets varyingly labeled "a special SS detachment", and such. There's still at least the suggestion of the Ahnenerbe organizing the flag-planting, but that it was likely just SS troops (and apparently more than a small number) who did the actual planting. Out of interest, do you happen to have a date/source for the cutline below the photo? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and get scans later, but there were no specific dates. I have read about it elsewhere, possibly in Shirer - but I certainly remember the Hitler quote from somewhere else; I'll have a quick flick through other sources and see if anything turns up. Shimgray | talk | 16:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These two scans are of pages from the German Army Handbook 1939-1945 by James Lucas, ISBN 0753703335. Image:Elbrus-p47.png and Image:Elbrus-p48.png (large files, feel free to scale them down). The images themselves may be out of copyright, but I dunno; I'll delete these scans in a week or so, since they're only of passing interest and are a bit iffy for fair-use, unless you feel it's essential to hang on to them.
It's probably worth nothing that these aren't described as SS units; indeed, as far as I can tell no SS Gebirgsjager units were active in this end of Russia at the time. They seem to have been regular mountain troops, with no SS connection, though perhaps if you look in detail you might find an attatched SS battalion somewhere. One comment I vaguely remember referred to them simply as sport-mountaineers, who had presumably ended up in a Gebirgs division through being especially suited, taking a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity...
My guess is a bit like yours - it was a slightly weird thing for the Germans to do, so people assume There Must Have Been Complex Reasons. But, then, a lot of people would probably read the paperwork for a routine night-interceptor flight over Hamburg in 1944 and decide that it must have been to chase UFOs on direct order from Himmler's astrologer... Shimgray | talk | 17:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's a good guess we could use {{GermanGov}} as a license for the images, I thought it was interesting that Gebirgsjager Edelweiss image was http://bundeswehr.kai-schoetteldreier.de/gebirgsjager/edelweiss.jpg , not the star pennant in the photographs, yet another mystery I suppose.
http://us.st11.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/badcattoys_1876_1990372 is marketed as a Gebirgsjager Unterfeldwebel, 1. Gebirgs Division, Mt. Elbrus, Caucasus 1942, and the Edelweiss Division appears to have been the 6th, so I assume the "two divisions" mentioned would be the 1st and 6th? But battlefront.co.nz says that 4. Gebirgsdivision - On 21 August 1942, troops from this division stood on the peak of the 5,633 metre high Mount Elbrus in the Caucasus, one of the furthest penetrations of the German advance.
Frustratingly, I also found a reference saying August 22, 1942 Meanwhile, elements of the 1st Gebirgsjager (Mountain) Division, raise a German flag on the peak of Mt. Elbrus, the highest point in the Caucasus Mountains., so that now gives a date of Aug 21, 22 and 23 as the possible dates.
In your one image, it's difficult to tell, but it looks like five of the figures are helmeted, so I'd discard the idea of them being just "sport mountaineers"

Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, think I spotted my own error, I assumed the "Edelweiss" referred to the the Gebirgsjager Edelweiss, although it actually references a Motorized Edelweiss, so perhaps that was a seperate support group. In that case, Div 1 & 4 would seem to be correct, although that flag with the sun doesn't seem to support any of the divisions Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, but to prove I'm in over my head, I just found a Slovak who posted on a messageboard about the SS Gebirgsjager 7. Prinz Eugen on Elbrus, lol Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 18:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have a law exam to study for, but since you mentioned it, I've been obsessive...so I finally found this thread, at the fairly reputable axishistory.com http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=28721&highlight=elbrus On 21 August 1942, a joint 23-man team from 1st and 4th Mountain Divisions (General der Gebirgstruppe Rudolf Konrad’s XXXXIX Mountain Army Corps), led by Hauptmann Heinz Groth and Hauptmann Max Gämmerler from each division respectively, scaled the 5,633-meter-high Mount Elbrus, the highest mountain in the Caucasus, and planted the Reich War Flag at the summit. Although an impressive feat, Hitler seemed to view the event as mere grandstanding

There's another summary however 18 Germans made the ascent on the mountain (14 from the 1st Mtn Div & 4 from the 4th Mtn Div) and Oberfeldwebel Kümmerle planted the German battle flag, whilst the standards of both the 1st & 4th Mtn Divisions were planted alongside on August 21st 1942. which differs on which officer led the expedition, and whether it was an 18 or 23 man team Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 18:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just when you think you have it ;) http://forum.axishistory.com/files/0f4.jpg is a very different peak, though I read that they did "plant the flag on the wrong peak" several times, so I guess we have no way of knowing which image was ultimately "the right peak" of Elbrus. However, we also get the information here's a pic in Signal 20/1942 of Oberleutnant Spindler during climb and caption says that he was in charge.However there's a lively chapter of that climb in Carell's Hitler Moves East and it says that Hauptmann Groth of 4.Gebirgs was in command, then says 16 men from 4th Division under Hauptmann Groth , and 5 men from the 1st Division under Hauptmann Gämmerler

In summary though, there does appear to be very little evidence (at least online) that the Ahnenerbe sponsored the expedition in any way Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 18:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The book had a short section on flags; a black-coloured-black triangular flag was of a brigade or divisional commander, IIRC, with the colour representing division type.
The 1st and 4th were both operating in the Caucasus, and were likely to have been the relevant units. No other gebirgs divisions, SS or regular, were operating in the area at the time so far as I can tell (they were mostly in Norway). I suspect the guess as to the 6th came from the flag looking like it had a flower on it - it's a bit wobbly in outline, like petals - but note that the emblem of the 1st was almost identical to that of the 6th. The history section of the article on the 1st is worth reading, in fact; it mentions fighting in the Elbrus area.
"The second ad-hoc formation of the 1. and 4.Gebirgs under Le Suire fought in the highest positions held by any unit in all of German military history when the 4300 meter heights of Mt. Elbrus in the deep Caucasus region was held by the Gebirgsjäger against repeated Soviet attacks and the harsh high alpine elements."
My reference to sport climbers, incidentally, was that IIRC the discussion I read suggested the instigators had been recreational mountain climbers before the war, conscripted, found themselves next to the highest mountain any of them was likely to see, and decided to take the opportunity to go off for a few days. After all, they had all this alpine equipment, they were being paid to be out there, there was a vaguely respectable military excuse for doing it...
On the whole, I think it's worth cutting out, as not an Ahnenerbe operation - maybe a short entry under the mountain article? I wonder how many of the others would be equally iffy under examination... Shimgray | talk | 19:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice point on the 1st and 6th emblems, and by all means feel free to examine the others (Brazil as I mention is suspect, as is the Pravda article) :) Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 19:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, although on the other hand, I think I just found a reference to Ahnenerbe involvement in the 1981 book "Hitler's Secret Sciences" by Nigel Pennick ISBN 0854354646 Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 19:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Tibet expedition, I notice the summit was the Reichs War Flag, not the "normal" Nazi flag. It seems a bit odd that a 1938 SS/civilian expedition would put that up - I wonder if this is a misattributed Elbrus photo?
As for the others... well, yeah, Pravda these days manages to be an even less reliable source than it was when it was the mouthpiece of the Kremlin, which is saying something - if they announced the sky was blue, I'd double-check. I can't contest any of the others specifically, but Brazil does smell pretty strongly of a crank story... Shimgray | talk | 20:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Useful book?

[edit]

I was flicking through The sacred beetle, a collection of essays in science, and found one written by Samuel Goudsmit which mentions the Ahnernerbe. This essay is apparently taken from his book "Alsos", which was written after his time leading the post-war project to study German scientific research, and so is likely a pretty good secondary source. There's a 2005 reprint of this (ISBN 1563964155) - but it's £20, so a bit much for me to get on a whim. Anyone have access to a library copy? Shimgray | talk | 19:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another useful book - "Master Plan: Himmler's Scholars and the Holocaust" (ISBN 0007148127, Fourth Estate, 2006) is about the Ahnenerbe, mostly focusing on their role in the Holocaust. Shimgray | talk | 22:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading the book The Master Plan right now and it says (p51) that the organization was called "Deutsches Ahnenerbe - Studiengesellschaft für Geistesurgeschichte" (German Ancestral Heritage - the Society for the Study of the History of Primeval Ideas). It also says "the formally stated goal... was 'to promote the science of ancient intellectual history.' " I was just wondering why none of that was included - I'm not all the way done with the book so I may just not have read something yet, which is why I posted it here instead of the actual article. If I get done with the book before anyone responds to this I'll put it in the article then. -- User: Foxhunt King 20:45,14 June 2006 (CMT)

Hrm, I think I've seen the other translation of the name more often, but I do like the "promote the science of ancient intellectual history" quote, does the book list a source for that wording? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost done with the book and my normal work laptop should be finished getting repaired by the time I'm done reading, so when I'm to that point I plan on doing a "truth audit" on a lot of this article, cross-referencing and replacing what cannot be verified with stuff that can as well as adding information on other expeditions, such as to Karelia. I've been taking fairly detailed notes on the book so working on this article should be quick and precise. Hopefully I can do some good work on this article by the beginning of July.--Foxhunt_King 03:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A much needed remodelling

[edit]

Today I finished The Master Plan and began working on redoing this article. I went through the article in MS Word and designated everything according to whether it was true and well written, I didn't have information on it and will leave it as is, should be removed, or needs to be re-written for some reason. In the near future I'm going to be going through the whole article and redoing what needs to be done. I'll post on here when I'm done. Until then I'll periodically put what I have so far on here because of the formatting changes I have to make when I change it from MS-Word format to Wikipedia format. Until then this article may look weird because it has old and new on it, but bear with me and we'll have a great article when I'm done, maybe even worth featuring. (note - I'm not signed in on this computer, it's not my personal one, but I'm user: Foxhunt_King)

I really appreciate all the new information you've provided, I may minorly tweak some sentence structure and such over the coming week, but overall I really like the new addition. I don't suppose The Master Plan has any illustrations or photographs we might be able to use? It's unfortunate that so many parts of this article are unillustrated. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The book has two sections of pictures in it - I'm not very knowledgable when it comes to stuff like copyright issues, but after I get done with the writing for this article I might look into it. Furthermore, I finally got my laptop back (although I hate Gateway now) so I'll have my laptop here to work on the article from the comfort of my own home. I have a few more topics I want to add and have a few pre-existing topics marked for revision, so I'll probably be working at this for another week or so. Note: I have this article saved as a text file in Microsoft Word which I copy and paste from to post on here, so if any changes are made to this article before I'm finished remodelling it, I may accidentally erase them if I have to copy a section from my Word document to here, so make sure anything that gets changed doesn't get changed again. Also note: I'm not very good with picture placement on here, so after I'm done if someone who knows how wants to move the pictures around to make it look better, go for it. JW 09:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the back of the book (or immediately underneath the photograph), it should list the copyright holders for each photograph - in most/many/some cases that's fine. Just make sure to include the details of who/where the book got each photograph from :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status report

[edit]
  • I'm making fair progress on this article - I haven't had as much time as I've been hoping for to work on it, but I'm doing what I can. I still want to revise the Iceland part and do a lot of revising on the Crimea part. I also have some additions, including the expedition through the Middle East, Himmler's interest in Thor's Hammer, and a summary of what happened to high members of the Ahnenerbe after the war.
  • An idea I wanted to bring up now was taking out the part on the world ice theory (Welteislehre) and making it a separate wikipedia article. In The Master Plan there are a couple pages about it I could use to make an article. In this article, only one sentence really concerns the Ahnenerbe, and I'm not sure if it's even true because my book says nothing about it (I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying I don't have any information on the part about the institute being created per se). I've had a lot on my plate lately, but once I'm done with the revision of this article I can create that article if that sounds good.
Definitely a fan of that idea Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think the German soldiers part should probably be removed. Ukraine said the skeletons were from German soldiers, and the Ahnenerbe would have had absolutely no reason to be doing experimets on German soldiers 1)outside of Germany and 2) in Crimea at the time - while Germany was occuping Ukraine the Wehrmacht was sieging Sevastopol, Stalingrad and Leningrad; the tide of the war was beginning to turn, and Hitler needed all the men he could get to fight. The unlikelihood of the Ahnenerbe carrying out experiments on Germans in the Ukraine combined with Pravda's track record and the lack of real substance in this part of the article makes me think it should be removed. Sorry if I want to cut too much, but I want to trim the fat in hopes of someday possibly getting this article featured.

JW 11:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I actually had a bounty on this article getting featured, it's a pet project of mine I suppose. But I think we should leave that part in, though probably write it to be a bit more clear that...well, it's Pravda. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finished my Tibet writing today and moved around some pictures to make it look better. I'm going to be away from an internet hookup until Sunday night, but in the meantime I plan to work on articles for the Middleast expedition and probably Iceland if I have time since there's a lot to write about the middleast. Depending on what time I get back Sunday night I'll probably upload some stuff and put some more work into this article then. Hopefully the article will be done in a week or so.JW 23:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reinserting the copyedits, just as rewrite of the information since we strive to be an encyclopaedia, not a book :) By the way, just a question, you mention that they feared internment if caught in the British-controlled Yarlung Valley in Summer 1939, but earlier said that the British had never been allowed into the region. Any clarification possible? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 23:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's unclear it can be rewritten: India was a British colony, but the place the British weren't allowed in was a remote area in Tibet which was not part of Britian's Indian colony - as far as I know Britain had no reason to take over Tibet so they therefore didn't, but Tibet liked to appease Britain and normally did what the British wanted to avoid any problems. That may make it seem like they were actually under British rule in the area. Furthermore, if the team was in the region when WW2 started, Britain probably would've had the Tibetan military take the team captive and hand them over to British authorities.
Also, the only plausible way to get back to Germany was to fly out of India or go home by boat. The team had a hair-brained idea to get back to Germany largely by foot or something like that, but either that or going through war-zone China were the only alternatives to leaving through British-India.

Then Bohmers moved on to Les Trois-Frères, “where Himmler and where so many other Nazis had long dreamed of standing – in the shrine of the ancient dead, in the dark embrace of the ancestors." - Did Pringle say that part, or Himmler himself? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pringle said it (quote frm the book) JW 00:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right now the other activities section just has Italy under it, but I have a few other sections I'm going to add to it later. I just wanted to point that out so it doesn't seem like I made a new section for just one thing.JW 19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Ice Theory (Welteislehre)

[edit]

I've had that world ice theory section on my mind for awhile, so here's what I've got about the topic to say: 1)there already is another wikipage on it, 2)the part on here is only three sentences long, and 3)the section on here doesn't cite a source and I googled hans scultetus and found four webpages talking about him and the ahnenerbe department he supposedly headed - two of those got their information straight from wikipedia, one didn't seem very credible, and the fourth simply cited a book at the end of the page (The Occult Roots of Nazism). Therefore I plan on taking this section out unless someone gives me a reason not to before I'm done with my rewrite of this article. If for no other reason, as far as I know wikipolicy is that if something does not cite a reference it is fair game for being deleted.

  • Today I inserted the Bolivia section of the article, and in it I made sure to talk about the Welteislehre, so, I got rid of the section in the article now. I don't even think it's a big deal, especially since there are probably only two of us who look at this discussion page nowadays, but I thought I'd post it on here. JW 02:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Q

[edit]

Through Baghdad the team went north to Assur where they met Sheikh Adjil el Yawar, a leader of the Shammar Bedouin tribe, and commander of the northern Camel Corps. , which camel corps is that? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...the one in the North? The book refers to it as "the northern Camel Corps" so that's all I know - I would assume it was part of the Iraqi army at the time. When I was writing that I browsed around for more information on camel corps (looking for something to link it too) but didn't find anything. The book didn't explain what the camel corps was or else I'd put that in.JW 10:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]
  • The IP address 128.255.18.XXX is me when I'm using an engineering computer, so any changes made by it are comming from me.
  • I removed the Ukraine section because it has nothing to do with the Ahnenerbe and doesn't mention anything about the organization in it, nor does it give any information that is relative anywhere else in the article.
  • The "involvement of german soldiers" title is misleading and since it happened in 2002 it can easily be put under the post-ww2 section to better organize the article.
  • I've fiished all my expedition and planned expetion entries, but I'm still going to add to other parts of the article: I'm going to revise the medical experiments section with a lot of new information as well as augment the information on the trials of members of the Ahnenerbe. I'm not 100% sure I'll keep this format, but I'll do a few more people and see how it looks. I'm also going to add to the "other ahnenerbe activities" section with entries on the Thor's hammer project (when himmler wanted to make a super weapon), the skeleton collection of Hirt and Beger, and put information back in about the relocation of the ahnenerbe headquarters near the end of the war.
  • Sherurcij - in general I like your tweaking - I write a lot when I have something to say and in general I think you do a good job of condensing it without changing the information it conveys. Some stuff I have personal issues with, but when the article is finished being produced we can polish it.JW 07:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • The Ukraine part was Ahnenerbe-funded, I'll rewrite it to make that more clear, sorry.
    • No problem with renaming the stupid Pravda thing, under Post-War, I just didn't want it connected with Ukraine's actual pre-war and wartime history.
    • Was Thor's Hammer specifically Ahnenerbe, or should we perhaps create a new Thor's Hammer Project article for it? I'm just starting to worry about the size of this article
    • No problem, I'm far from perfect, and while I try to maintain the information as clearly as possible, I do make mistakes. I'll try to be more vigilant in asking any questions I'm uncertain about, on the talk page :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 13:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's getting pretty long, and I've tried to keep my recent additions shorter - hopefully when I'm all done I'll have the time (/motivation lol) to go back and condense the whole thing even more.
  • Today I revised the medical experiments section but I don't have time to finish going through the chapter of my book regarding it right now, but when I have more time I'm likely to add more on it. -Fox 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Note to self

[edit]

I've just removed the part on Wiligut temporarily, while trying to decide how to structure the article, in terms of leadership changes and such.

An Austrian colonel in World War I, Wiligut was a mystic who believed he was a descendant of Thor, a god in Norse mythology, calling himself Weisthor (English: Wise Thor). In 1933 Wiligut had helped pick out Wewelsburg castle as a “Nordic academy, a cross between a monastic retreat and a finishing school” for senior SS officials. Himmler leased the castle in November 1933 before proceeding to renovate it, putting in mystic designs, rooms dedicated to the ancestors and excavating the surrounding area for artifacts.

For his help in the project, Himmler gave Wiligut an office in RuSHA and promoted him to SS-Standartenführer and later to SS-Brigadeführer. Wiligut would continue his service for Himmler until it was revealed he had been in a psychiatric hospital, at which time it was decided to give him an early retirement.[1]

  • I have some stuff on a demo team being sent to scuttle Wewelsburg castle if you can find a place for it - I looked and didn't find a place appropriate to put it in so I didn't, but if you do let me know. -FOX


The Wewelsberg article at least, should be updated with it :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Pringle was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

So close!

[edit]

Today I added more on Rascher (why I originally devoted a whole section to him) and talked about the HQ relocation as well as some other stuff. The only thing I have left on my list of things to do is finish the trials section and write any section summaries that are needed - then I'll be DONE! :) -FOX 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Done! (with text)

[edit]

Yesterday I changed the intro and got rid of the useless short section summaries that were there. That means I'm all done with the text! I have some scanned pictures I'm going to see about getting on wikipedia for this article, but I've never messed with putting pictures on here before. JW 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherurcij

[edit]

I added some photos for use in the article, but I'm not sure about how to do attributions and cite fair use reasoning, so if you could take this info and make sure the photos are taken care of, that would be swell.

The images I've uploaded - the reference in the book.

[edit]
  • Image:Beger_at_trial_1970.JPG - ullstein-dpa (85)
  • Image:Wolfram_Sievers_Doctors_Trial.JPG - USHMM, courtesy of Hedwig Wachenheimer Epstein
  • Image:Franz_Altheim_with_Trautmann.JPG - Frobenius-Institut
  • Image:Yrjo_no_caption.JPG - Juhani Grönhagen
  • Image:Gateway_to_the_sun.jpg - Courtesy of Javier Nuñez de Arco
  • Image:Himmler_inspecting_cotton.jpg - USHMM, courtesy of James Blevins

Other than taking care of this though, I'm done!  :) JW 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I touched them all up, except the Gateway to the Sun image. Because the photographer is still alive today, we could conceivably be infringing on his ability to sell that photograph. (Pringle likely paid him royalties for its rights) - so I've replaced the image with a Public Domain image of the same structure already on WP :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

We claim that Beger was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment in April 1971, and that in 1974 it was appealed and moved to 3 years probation - wouldn't his sentence have already been completed at that time? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • From what I understand from the book the appeal was filed before he was incarcerated - I'm not a law-buff but I gather what happened was he was given a sentence but wasn't like taken to prison after the trial like you see on tv. JW 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you'd do me a huge favour, and go through and standardise the references so they're all "References", rather than half being references, and half being "Notes". Much thanks! I'm going to tag those photos tonight :) I must say, I say we give it a few days to tidy ourselves up, maybe debate a few points, see what else we can find, then I say we submit for GA status, and maybe even look towards getting featured. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 23:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DragonRouge, et al

[edit]

The one issue this artile faces is its size, there's sipmly too much information hbeing thrown at the reader, it extends past 32k and even just scrolling down - one can see that its length is a factor working against it. We're therefore trying to keep all writing as compact as possible, and where possible, move information on say, Bruno Kress' marriage to his personal article, rather than in here. The former name of Iraq, similarly, belongs in the "History of Iraq" article, not in an article dealing with Nazi scientists. It's just a matter of squeezing everything together as much as we can. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 16:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

[edit]

I agree that this article needs to be condensed - when I write I elaborate and write in book style, which works against me on Wikipedia when I write a lot of information. Plus I'm one of those people that can't go back and tamper with their work, I'd rather rewrite something than make lots of tiny adjustments - so please people, feel free to do my dirty work for me lol.JW 05:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayeux Tapestry

[edit]

In the article, it is claimed that "The Ahnenerbe took great interest in the 900-year-old Bayeux Tapestry ... since it contained images of the Germanic Franks solidly defeating their enemies." Is there a reference for this? I ask only because the Bayeux Tapestry depicts the Norman Invasion of England, in which the "Germanic" Normans defeated the equally "Germanic" Anglo-Saxons!--Oboroten 04:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nazis weren't too fussy about historical claims being correct; they just needed to sound right when presented in a highly selective context. 82.176.196.155 13:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sites in other languages that might hold useful information

[edit]


Ahnenerbe

[edit]

The BBC documentary claims a 1939 expedition went to Peru in search of 'Tertiary'(sp?) people, who populated the world in an earlier age...any other references for this? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which "BBC documentary"? Nick Cooper 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

[edit]

The correct translation of "Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft das Ahnenerbe e.V." is "Research and Teaching Community The Ancestral Heritage (registered association)" not "of". The german translation of "Research and Teaching Community of Ancestral Heritage" would be "Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft des Ahnenerbes" or "Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft vom Ahnenerbe". "Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft das Ahnenerbe e.V." sounds a little bit unusual even in german but it's no genitiv. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.55.72 (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


The German Wikipedia entry says its"Forschungsgemeinschaft Deutsches Ahnenerbe e.V." so neither "des" nor "das" I will change the entry to that. Tash 4/4/200712.44.31.196 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please see here. This source is more reliable than the German Wikipedia. I have changed the article once more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.30.78 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
My German, the little I had, has mostly wasted away. But. In the current May 24, 2024 "Formation" section there's this:" "Deutsches Ahnenerbe Studiengesellschaft für Geistesurgeschichte" (Society for the Study of the History of Primeval Ideas)". I know without doubt that this is incorrect. The terms are mostly unfamiliar to me, so whether the English is a fair translation overall, I hesitate to say. What I DO KNOW FOR SURE is that "Deutsches" translates to "German" and no where do I see that in the supposed translation! I'm much less sure, but I also doubt "Primeval" is the best translation of ...urgeschichte - I suggest Prehistoric as a better term. (I'd translate it as German Society for the Study of the Inheritance of Prehistorical Concepts, but as I mentioned, my German isn't good enough for me to have sufficient confidence in this to do more than suggest it. (as opposed to the (missing!) German (or Germanic?) term.))98.21.68.176 (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should not mix "Deutsches Ahnenerbe" (German Ancestors' Heritage), which was its short name, into the stuff behind it, which elucidates what is was supposed to be and which seems to have changed over time. Better: German Ancestors' Heritage Society for the Study of the Prehistory of Ideas. The translation Society for the Study of the History of Primeval Ideas just omits the "Deutsches Ahnenerbe" part. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Master Plan East

[edit]

While important information to preserve on WP, is it clearly tied to the Ahnenerbe? Perhaps it should just have its own page? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious activity within the Ahnenerbe

[edit]

This link focuses on the religious and political activity within the SS-Ahnenerbe. Especially the religious issues are not mentioned at all in the existing article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.45.168 (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

False introduction

[edit]

The actual introduction is partly wrong

  • no correct translation;
  • the society was not found as "Research and Teaching Community the Ancestral Heritage" but as "Study Society for Intellectual Primordial History".

Here is a suggestion for a better introduction:

Founded by Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Wirth, and Walter Darré on July 1 1935 as Studiengesellschaft für Geistesurgeschichte ‚Deutsches Ahnenerbe´ e.V. (Study Society for Intellectual Primordial History [registered association]), 1937 renamed in Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft das Ahnenerbe e.V. ("Research and Teaching Community the Ancestral Heritage [registered association]"), was a Nazi-era government study group which tried to proof the existence of a - since milleniums existing - germanic religion.

See German Historic Museum: LeMO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.30.78 (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nazi-robot.jpg

[edit]

Image:Nazi-robot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: Invasion of Iceland

[edit]

"When Britain occupied neutral Iceland it not only broke international law..."? Is this really noteworthy, especially a year into the Second World War? After all, it was the Germans what started it. 86.144.197.42 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nazi-robot.jpg

[edit]

Image:Nazi-robot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WirthBookScan.jpg

[edit]

Image:WirthBookScan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:August Hirt.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ahnenerbe Institutes

[edit]

I have assembled a list of the Ahnenerbe's Institutes here but I feel it is far too long to insert in the article. Should I instead make a new article entitled List of Ahnenerbe institutes? Salmanazar (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queste

[edit]

The link for 'Queste' under 'Sacred Places' leads to a novel, so I suppose the redirect is wrong. The novel has no disambiguation link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.148.141 (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what are Bayeux tapestrys

[edit]

Bayeux tapestrys were cloths that royal people used to put on their beds and wall to make them look pretty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.56.125 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Swabia

[edit]

I propose that the German expedition to Antarctica should be removed from the list of Ahnenerbe expeditions. The Ahnenerbe was in no way connected with that expedition, whose sole purpose was to find an area suitable for a whaling station. I know that the German's claim to that area of Antarctica is the basis for many conspiracy theories concerning the Ahnenerbe and supposed Nazi UFOs, but, as with most conspiracy theories, there is no evidence at all to support any of these claims. After the expedition, the Germans lost interest in any development of a whaling station there and made no attempts to claim it as a formal territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EbolaRocks08 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purposed?

[edit]

What does "purposed to research the archaeological and cultural history of the Aryan race" mean? Created for the "purpose of researching the archaeological and cultural history of the Aryan race', perhaps?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ahnenerbe. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged alien skulls

[edit]

Many "ancient alien" enthusiasts have been claiming for about a year now that the Ahnenerbe discovered skulls of extraterrestrial origin in Adygea. However, there seems to be no hard evidence and serious paleontologists believe it's either a deliberate hoax, or else the skulls became deformed under the pressure of being buried so long. Few mainstream sources have discussed it, either (it's mostly just tabloids reporting neutrally, and conspiracy sites actively promoting the idea of the skulls being alien). I do think it'd be good if we could find a RS, though. The theory has attracted enough believers that it'd be worth addressing the claims here. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ahnenerbe. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

In the 1930s, a zoologist used funds from the Nazi regime to travel through the Brazilian Amazon. The expedition inspired a movie, a book and left behind a massive cross with a swastika in the jungle. https://www.dw.com/en/how-the-amazon-became-popular-in-the-third-reich/a-52835851 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:61FA:88DB:D0B5:F3DC (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Think tank"

[edit]

Is "think tank" really the best description of the Ahnenerbe? To my mind, a think tank is a semi-academic organization that makes recommendations about government policy. The Ahnenerbe didn't do that, it was a scholarly organization dedicated to the study and promotion of Nazi pseudo-science, especially pseudo-archaeology and racialism. Do reliable sources describe it as a think tank? @Obenritter: what do you think?--Ermenrich (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, no scholar considers the Ahnenerbe a "think tank" and I've not encountered anyone who ever rendered it as such in the many works I've read on this matter. In a literal sense, the nouns "Ahnen" (forebearers/ancestors) and "Erbe" combine very accurately to ancestral inheritance as the definition, as you well know (being likewise fluent in both English and German). Under the listing for Ahnenerbe on p. 13 of the well-respected Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, edited by Christian Zentner and Friedemann Bedürftig, it says See: Ancestral Inheritance. Just as you've described, historian Gretchen E. Schafft, characterized the Ahnenerbe as "an organization within the SS representing the German Ancestral Heritage Society...dedicated to proving racial hypotheses." (p. 93 in From Racism to Genocide: Anthropology in the Third Reich. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004.) Nobody delineates an organization dedicated to ethnography and the pseudoscience of racial eugenics during the Nazi era as a "think tank". Your explanation and definition Ermenrich was/is 100 percent correct.--Obenritter (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Books are Unrelieble Source for His Views(!)

[edit]

I expanded the article by using parts of Mein Kampf, and clearly stated these were Hitler's views, similar to what was done previously. However, @WikiLinuz: claims "Hitler's own writing/books aren't reliable and cannot be used here" So, this approach basically says that "What you say or write is not important, what counts is what I think you think". With this approach you are at the mercy of your enemies (for Hitler and many other people, this is the case, I am not protecting Hitler per se, but the approach is very very wrong). Imagine this has happened to you and someone says "[[Your Name]] cannot be trusted as a source for his/her own views." Imagine you are at Hitler's place; for some reason some people want to portray you as evil and only publishes the words you said which they can use to slander you, and when you said something else, they say your words on your beliefs cannot be trusted. Stalin killed more people and he can be considered as evil as Hitler; however, since he was left-wing he is protected


Left-wing (or right-wing) bias has no place on Wikipedia (or should not have); we are not the guardians of the narrative but the fighters for the truth (whether we like it or not) Mstf221 (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than assuming political bias and setting out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, just read Wikipedia's policies on WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. We can't interpret Hitler's views ourselves, and just because he said/wrote something somewhere doesn't mean that that was really even the view he most consistently held. That's why we rely on secondary sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read what WP:OR says before posting a wall of nonsense about left-wing conspiracy in Wikipedia. Interpretations of primary sources is original research and is not allowed in Wikipedia. You should use secondary or tertiary sources for writing about Hitler's own views - you cannot use Hitler's primary source for this purpose (Mein Kampf for example). --WikiLinuz (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same... Since we cannot use any right-wing sources (since they cannot be trusted(!); I saw an editor on Wikipedia apologizing for giving Fox Business as a source and promising as soon as he finds other sources he will change it; and Newsmax is not even considered as a source whereas RollingStone is while both are obviously biased). I have yet to see a left-wing source being rejected for being biased but have seen many right-wing sources rejected for this reason. I guess only right-wing sources can be biased; so we cannot use them. Also it seems we cannot interpret original sources under the Wikipedia rules, so this left us with nothing but full compliance with the left-wing narrative. Mstf221 (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that RollingStone is [considered as a source] is false. See WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS: it is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues.
Stop using this page as a forum. See WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahnenerbe&oldid=1225549609"