This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
i had to remove this sentence because there is no citation. you just cant claim whatever you want.
"For the next two years, Eichmann performed his duties with incredible zeal, often bragging that he had personally sent over five million Jews to their deaths by way of his trains.".
"Therefore, he is often referred to as the 'Chief Executioner' of the Third Reich."
Really? By whom? National Socialist topics like this seem to get lots of sensationalist one liners.
The part "post 1945" is somewhat unclear, i think. if he left germany in 1947 and hid in an italian monastery for some years, then how come, he managed to secure a passage to south america in that exact year? O_o
An event mentioned in this article is a May 11 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment)
The trial caused huge international controversy.
-- I'm not sure that is a reasonable summary. There was controversy over the kidnapping from Argentina and lesser controversies over some aspects of the trial, but the sentence makes it sound like there was a "huge" controversy over the trial itself. I don't think so. --
zero 02:45, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
According to Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem, there were other issues of controversy regarding the trial. Two that I can remember off the top of my head are that some of the counts were charged retroactively under a different system of law than that of the defendent's state's, and also that what (in some people's opinion) should have been an international affair was being executed by Israel (whose objectivity was called into question). Ben-Gurion seemed to be pushing for a "show trial," although the three Israeli judges went to some lengths to prevent such an occurence.
Also, there is a discrepancy between the date and time of the death of Eichmann as stated in Arendt's book and the date/time in the wikipedia article. Arendt says a few minutes before midnight on 31 May, whereas the article says a few minutes after on 1 June. Arendt mentions in chapter 15 of the above mentioned book that one of the contributing factors in accelerating the execution was to avoid having the execution on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday (all of which are, according to Arendt, "religious holidays" of the three main faiths in Jerusalem).
- dws
What reliable sources? I don't want to make an ant out of a molehill, but I think it's important that this information is correct. If someone uses Adolf_Eichmann as a reference for the date of death, it could be embarrasing for them (and misinforming) if the date of death is incorrect.
Sources dating death 31 May: http://www.pbs.org/eichmann/timeline.htm, Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem
Sources dating death 1 June: - http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Adolf%20Eichmann
Here are some other Internet sources that dates Eichmann's death 1 June:
Interesting. What should be done to the main article? Leave it be or parenthetically mention the various discrepancies?
An eyewitness
William L. Hull, a Canadian Pentecostal pastor, who had several talks with Eichmann prior to his execution, was an eyewitness at the hanging. He writes in his book The Struggle for a Soul (1963) that the execution took place at 12.02 a.m. on June 1, 1962. Rienzo 08:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The most sources say May 31. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.230.193.22 (
talk)
19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
________
IMO, It's important to say more on the trial itself and it's effect on Israeli (or Jewish) society. Is there anyone willing to delve into it?
The main picture for this article looks kind of goofy. Considering that the man was a Nazi war criminal, could we find a different picture? - Branddobbe 07:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
An
automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the
Adolf_Eichmann article, and they have been placed on
this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Adolf_Eichmann}} to this page. —
LinkBot 00:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The most sources say 31 may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.193.22 ( talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm dumb, but I find the first part "Post World War II" section somewhat confusing; the first paragraph describes how Eichmann secured passage to South America and the second paragraph says that "Eichmann bought a plane ticket to Buenos Aires." Is this plane ticket the "passage" described in the first paragraph? I'm inclined to say yes, and if so, these two paragraphs should be combined to make this more explicit. -- Bletch 02:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Will someone please clean up the "Pre-Nazi" section, it's really a mess with all the articles plopped in there.
The comment that he became the only Israeli civil execution does not belong. The Wiki for execution (legal) states that execution is execution with or without a trial, making Israeli assassinations of people within its own boarder executions, such as Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. I am not trying to make a political statement, but I think the comment is supurflous and could be seen as lacking neutrality.
Minor detail: Eichmann did not travel on a fake Red Cross "passport" (actually a laisser-passer. The document was obtained by using a fake name- but it wasa legitimate document. (see http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/travel-document-feature-310507?opendocument) I'm going to effect this change ~~Raphael~~
From what I've been told, he traveled on a Vatican passport - Argentinian officials said he did. Is this not the case? Did the Argentinians lie, or was my source wrong? FlaviaR 04:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
First off thanks for all the info. Its fantastic.
Secondly, I was a bit unsure of the specifics of what he did in order to be tracked down so many years later. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they must have been bad, I just didn't get too many examples of it. Thanks.
I want to second the above, the section on the capture in particular is very engagingly written.
IMHO, what would bring this article up a class would be to flesh out the activities for which he was hunted. That is to say, as it is written now, it is weighted much more to the capture than to the reasons for it. Yes, I get it that he's a war criminal, but what's there now reads more like his CV, talking about his titles & that, instead of what did he do? Where? How did he use/exceed his authority? What's this about him trying to desert at the very end {my word not yours}? If I understand that correctly, that also is very interesting & could be expanded a little. I found one sentence stating how many people he sent to the gas chambers. THAT had to have a chronology...
My suggestion is that the section on what he did to be hunted match in detail and be as engaging as the hunt. Which like I said, was very nicely done. 75.10.128.3 ( talk) 01:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There was an HBO movie some time ago about the Mossad's capture of Eichmann. Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article? -- Micahbrwn
In Shirer' Rise and Fall of the Third Riech Eichmann is caleld Karl. Why is that? Just an error of Shirer? Or is Karl is he real first name?, but he's known as Adolf in the West, kind of like Speer being known as Albert in the West while his real first name is Berthold.
Some simple research gives me an answer to my own question. He was born Karl Adolf Eichmann. Ill add it to the article
We should keep on working on this article specially in the Trial part. It has a nazi view of the thing.
But because my english is not so well (it's not my first language) and i don't know how to write here i propose to go on working on this.
Eichmann was kidnapped as kidnapping is defined as any illegal capture and detention of persons against their will. If you find it necessary to revert, please explain why. Großhauptsturmführer 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
he was in argentina. the jews had no right to go into a foreign land and take someone out. eichmann was then tried in a court that did not exist at the time the "crimes" were comitted.
kill him on sight? we dont kill people on sight without a trial. and he was the creator of the final solution? where is the order from him? where is the order from Hitler? this is just more jewish propaganda like most of the stories of the holocaust. how do you think the jews would feel if we went into israel and kidnapped Sharon and tried him for his war crimes? Or if the British had kidnapped Begin and tried him for the bombing of the King David Hotel? the isreali court that "tried" eichmann was a joke. the court and the country didnt even exist. get your head out of your zionist butt. i see you live in israel....what a shock.
About Eichmann and the final solution, why don't you educate yourself and read some books on the holocaust ? Start with a certain conference transcript perhaps and then go back and forth during the period. It doesn't matter if the court existed or not according to international law and the crimes that Eichmann was accused for. Not that it matters, it actually makes me happy that nazi supporters are annoyed by this. Eichmann should have been tortured to death and killed with or without a trial. A trial made it more sweet in the end. Amoruso 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I am educating myself quite a lot on the subject, and I am finding a lot of unanswered questions. The first thing I notice is that it seems to always be the Jewish victims that are mentioned. What about the non-Jewish victims. Why are they ignored in most of the stories of the holocaust?
Second of all, there is no way 6 million people were gassed and then cremated. The cost of it would have drained the war fighting efforts.
Third, where are the photos of the dead children? There is a claim of 2 million dead children. I contacted the holocaust museum twice now and have received no answer on where the photos are. All the photos of holocaust victim are skinny and sickly looking. If they were starved, they would have swollen stomachs. If they had been gassed then they wouldn’t have been emaciated.
I don't doubt that Eichmann was a bad man, as were most if not all of the SS and the Nazis. I am not a supporter of the party or the philosophy. But I do resent the way the Jews are allowed to do whatever they want with no consequence. I mean, it is a crime in France to deny or downplay the official story. Thank god I live in America. keltik31
i looked over nizkor.org. i didnt find any photos of dead children who had been gassed. i contacted two holocaust sites and one said that the 230,000 children that were gassed were never photographed. i cant find any evidence of the gassing of children. why not? maybe because it never happened? keltik31
or these : http://www.auschwitz.dk/Star/Photos.htm or here : http://www.oskarschindler.com/Albums4/album3.htm or this one : http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blchildren3.htm
Amoruso 19:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
those are shocking photos and very sad. but i dont see any evidence of mass gassing of 2 million children. the photos of the dead children show emaciated bodies, likely to be caused by typhus, and not by starvation or by gas.you see, when i ask a simple question about proof this is what i get. 2 million children? what a gross exadgeration of the truth. and where is the order from hitler to exterminate the jewish population of europe?
dying from Typhus is not the same as being marched into a gas chamber and gassed. and of course the nazis are responsible for the deaths. i would never make such a claim. but i think the whole thing has been exaggerated to a great extent to drum up sympathy. god help you if you question the "offical" story. in france you can be jailed. god bless america. i am not a holocaust denier. i am just searching for the facts. what a man says in his speeches cannot be automatically translated into an organized plan for mass extermination. and why is it that the jews are so hated? why, if they had done nothing wrong, were they rounded up and put into camps? because they practiced Judaism? i dont buy that story at all. there has to be some reason for this and i have yet to find one. what were the jews doing in germany that pissed so many people off? i have asked more than one jew and i cant get a straight answer. why not?
i am just looking for facts. i am just looking for proof. and the numbers and the theories just dont add up. 6 million? aint buying it. i feel that the unjust death of one innocent person jewish or not is a holocaust. keltik31
dying from typhus or any other cause is a tradgedy. but it is not the same as an organized plan to exterminate one group of people which is what is claimed. eichmann was never given an fair trial, he was tried in a phony court in israel and no person who has ever studdied the law could argue that the laws he was tried under were valid. i have read a lot of history books, and i still dont buy the mass extermination plan because the numbers just simply dont add up. keltik31
i have read the holocaust article. and the "facts" are disputed. the official death toll at one camp was reduced from 4 million to less than two. the actual amount of effort it would have taken to kill this many people just doesnt add up. i have read many articles saying that there were no gas chambers in poland. how can you say such stupid things? that the court that tried Eichmann was "fully independant"? are you serious? the court was in israel, a country that didnt even exist at the time of these atrocities. the laws he was charged with werent even laws at the time of the "crimes". this is what is called ex-post-facto and is outlawed by the US constitution. thank god for that. what common traditional law are you referring to that can put a man on trial for doing something against the laws of a country that didnt even exist at the time the "crime" was committed?
if the story of the holocaust is sooooo true, then why do people get so upset when someone says that the story is made up? why is it illegal to downplay or deny it happened? photographs of people standing in line doesnt prove that they were marched into a gas chamber and murdered. where are the photos of otherwise healthy dead bodies??????????? cant find any.
first of all, dont tell me to sod off. the facts are in dispute. that is why there is revisionism, thank god. you resort to calling me a neo-nazi because i question the validity of a story? your argument is weak. i dont deny that there were atrocities. but i also do not deny that eichmann and others were never allowed to tell their side of the story. in every documentary about ww2 we never hear from Nazi party members, we never hear why they felt the way they did or did the things they did. all we hear about is how the jews were rounded up and murdered for being jewish. this is a story i just dont buy at all. there had to be some reason for the actions of the nazi's. i am just searching for answers. and isnt it interesting how the jews can go to argentina and kidnapp eichmann, but they refused to return a jewish man who had comitted murder here in the united states? can anyone say "double standard"?
i am not a neo anything. i am just asking questions and pointing out inconsistancies in this vast zionist tale. so you sod off, fuck off or go bang a goat for all i care. keltik31
"feed the troll"? how colorful. i heard once about civilians in either korea or japan who were "forced to rape their mother's and fathers". wartime propaganda just like most of the stories of the hoaxacaust. we all know that a man cannot rape someone unless he is aroused.
the testimony from any nazi is suspect becuase you dont know under what circumstances it was obtained, either through tourture or the threat of. i think it was wrong to go to argentina and put this man on trial. he did not recieve a fair trial. keltk31. and you resort to name calling because it is all you have.
where can i find the results of one autopsied body that proves the person died from being gassed?
Stop this rant it is irritating. Everyone that really observed the story (be it hyperbolic in some senses and judocentric in some others), knows dead victims have been burned. Complaining about the factual accuracy while neglecting obvious facts is useless, germany even admitted finding a meters thick layer of human ashes near berlin, and that is only 1 incident. You may assume that the factfinding after (and during) the war has been hampered by antisemitism, wicht is an understatement, because the whole thing couldn't have happened without the neglecting consent of international circles. That now the jewish don't want to admit (but still do at points) how they erred in calculations and assesment, and themselves ignored , seemingly ignored or undervalued other victims, has probably a lot to do with the hardship to get the attrocity anyhow recognised.(eg. 1933 or 1934) Such is not good, but it might be the story of any minority on this planet. I think they fear the extreme scale and proportion of the event will be lost from public memory when people are allowed to question the official version. It works out completely ridiculous, in such a way that for example the whole arab population gets a bias raised against them, and people critisising official government statements in general are implicated for reasons alien to them. That is a completely different point, that would be in its place in eg. a study of 20th century international relations, or general 20th century sociology, but in any case not here , on a page about eichmann that is well recognised for his role in these events , the details of them being so and so or such and such whatsoever.It's the political agenda of propaganda and selfrighteous proprietaires(the same people responsible for the international acceptance of this a holocaust), that uses the tool to incriminate opponents who generally have not the slightest antisemite intend. That is the nasty thing about it, and i have no idea where in wiki it should be placed yet, because we are still the repressed mass and not the rich ignorants filing their "justice " of no appeal on the poor. Just like then. btw. i like the term abduction, in my dutch mind it's translation is the most technical description of what happens when a person gets hijacked without his/her permission. 77.248.56.242 11:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Re the paragraph - Also instrumental in exposing Eichmann's identity was Lother Hermann, a half-Jewish worker who fled to Argentina from Germany following his incarceration in the Dachau concentration camp..... He contacted Israeli officials, who worked closely with Hermann over the next several years to learn about and formulate a plan to capture Eichmann.
I am currently reading Isser Harel's 'The house on Garibaldi street' which talks about Hermann in the first 30 pages. According to Harrel Hermann stumbled upon Eichmann but in his eagerness to solve everything himself and get money from the Israelis, he passed on some of his guesses as facts, because of which the Israelis lost their trust in him. By 1959, they had stopped contacting him.
The clues which lead to the capture of Eichmann came from another source (don't know if his identity is revealed in the book, haven't reached that far), at which point the Israelis recognised that Hermann had been right. But the usefulness of Hermann or the data that he provided in capturing Eichmann seems to be nothing, as per Harel.
Do Arendt or Cesarni talk about it being otherwise ? Tintin 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
regarding the comment that eichmann became fascinated with judaism, and in his reading developed a hatred for jews is unsubstantiated. where did you get your sources for this? the evidence leads to the conclusion that eichmann had no hatred for jews whatsoever. this is infinately more troubling.
correct History -- 24.12.1959 Fritz Bauer said Eichmann KUWAIT Press-Archiv
The blind man Lothar Hermann reported 1957 Eichmann alias Francisco Schmidt to Germany
26.12.1959 G.Schurman by Lothar Hermann Coronel Suarez Eichmann alias F.Schmidt
Mai 1960 Eichmann alias Clemens -- CIA alias-- Mafia-alias
Golda Meir April 1972 Money 10 000 US Dollar to Lothar Hermann
Simon Wiesenthal -- no role -- Eichmann
IKG-Wien attacks Wiesenthal
Special Collection 8 Learning Center Wiesenthal
Story Tuviah Friedman absolutely correct- Document Germany National Bibliothek
Letter Lothar Hermann dat.2.6.1971 attacks Israel and Fritz Bauer ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.211.248 ( talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No there are probably no photographs of children who have been gassed. Not surprisingly since the later Auschwitz gas chambers were combined with crematoria. The evidence for the Holocaust is so overwhelming, not least from Nazi sources, that it is not worth arguing. What should be mentioned is that probably less than half the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and yes we should not forget the Gypsy/Sinto, Gay, Communist and other victims, were gassed. Up to 2 million were shot and large numbers, maybe half a million, simply died through hunger - 'death by hunger' as Hans Frank, Governor General of the Generalgovernment exclaimed.
But why is this being debated? Eichmann himself never denied the Holocaust. In the extracts from his 1955 interviews with the Dutch Nazi journalist, Wilhelm Sassen he states, as a matter of fact, that Where I was implicated in the physical annihilation of the Jews, I admit my participation freely and without pressure. After all I was the one who transported the Jews to the camps.... Yet what is there to "admit?" I carried out my orders. It would be as pointless to blame me for the whole Final Solution of the Jewish Problem as to blame the official in charge of the railroads over which the Jewish transports traveled. If I had sabotaged the order of the onetime Fuhrer of the German Reich, Adolf Hitler, I woudl have been not only a scoundrel but a despicable pig... In 1941 the Fuhrer himself ordered the physical annihilation of the Jewish enemy. What made him take this step I do not know." And in a section headed 'the Chambers at Maidenek' Eichmann describes the beginning of the construction of the gas chambers in 'the latter part of 1941' which is indeed borne out. As the 'euthenasia' programme was wound down, after the outcry led by Bishop Galen of Munster, so the vans used to gas the handicapped were taken to Poland. And describing the shooting of thousands of Jews at Minsk he asks rhetorically'Why did the scene linger so long in my memory? Perhaps because I had children myself. And there were children in the pit. I saw a woman hold a child of a year or two into the air, pleading. At that moment all I wnted to say was, "Don't shoot, ahnd over the child..." There is a section entitled 'The Gas Chambers at Auschwitz'.
All of this was freely given in an interview when Eichmann was at liberty, under no compunction to admit anything. [" 'I Transported Them to the Butcher,' Eichmann's Own Story: Part I" Life November 28, 1960 reprinted in '51 Documents - Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, Lenni Brenner, pp. 264-274, Barricade Books. The suggestion that there were no gas chambers, when all the historical evidence says otherwise is ludicrous. Even David Irving in his libel suit against Penguin admitted to the use of mobile gas chambers in the Action Reinhardt camps (Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec).
The more important point, which the Eichmann trial deliberately steered clear of was the question of Kasztner, leader of Hungarian Zionism and the friendly relations established between him and the SS which led to a train of the Prominents (Kasztner's words) in exchange for silence about the Auschwitz Protocols that Rudolph Verba and Alfred Wetzler had brought out when they escaped from Auschwitz. These Protocols were handed to Kasztner on April 29th according to the deputy head of the Slovakian Judenrat Oskar Neumann. Kasztner himself launched a libel trial in Israel in 1953 against his detractors and found himself the accused as the nature and scope of his collaboration was revealed. Assasinated he was cleared on largely technical and political grounds by the Israeli Supreme Court but the facts of his going to Nuremburg to testify for Nazi war criminals was upheld as were the facts of what he did.
This evidence was deliberately excluded from the Eichmann trial with Vrba giving a deposition at the London Embassay of Israel but not being called because of what he might say. Likewise the last surviving member of the leadership of the Jewish Fighting Organisation (ZOB) of the Warsaw Ghetto, Marek Edelman, was not called as he was an anti-Zionist. In many ways the Eichmann trial was Israel's answer to the deep trauma and embarrassment of the Kasztner trial, which went on until 1957 and led to the fall of one Israeli government.
Tony Greenstein
Re the paragraph - Also instrumental in exposing Eichmann's identity was Lother Hermann, a half-Jewish worker who fled to Argentina from Germany following his incarceration in the Dachau concentration camp..... He contacted Israeli officials, who worked closely with Hermann over the next several years to learn about and formulate a plan to capture Eichmann.
I am currently reading Isser Harel's 'The house on Garibaldi street' which talks about Hermann in the first 30 pages. According to Harrel Hermann stumbled upon Eichmann but in his eagerness to solve everything himself and get money from the Israelis, he passed on some of his guesses as facts, because of which the Israelis lost their trust in him. By 1959, they had stopped contacting him.
The clues which lead to the capture of Eichmann came from another source (don't know if his identity is revealed in the book, haven't reached that far), at which point the Israelis recognised that Hermann had been right. But the usefulness of Hermann or the data that he provided in capturing Eichmann seems to be nothing, as per Harel.
Do Arendt or Cesarni talk about it being otherwise ? Tintin 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
regarding the comment that eichmann became fascinated with judaism, and in his reading developed a hatred for jews is unsubstantiated. where did you get your sources for this? the evidence leads to the conclusion that eichmann had no hatred for jews whatsoever. this is infinately more troubling.
As someone just noted, the 1945-1950 parts of the story are confused. My understanding is that he remained in Germany until 1950 (not 1947), then he went to Austria then Italy. In Italy he posed as Ricardo Klement and obtained a refugee passport under that name with the help of a Franciscan monk (but was it a Vatican passport? Actually I think it was a Red Cross passport.). Then he got an Argentinian visa and arrived in Argentina about Aug 1950. My sources of information are not good. If someone has a solid source, please fix the article. -- Zero 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The agency that Eichmann headed was actually Referat IV D4 (see Browning, "Origins of the Final Solution", pg. 59). A large number of online biographies state that his referat was called "B4". This is an error. A number of online biographies correctly state the referat name as "D4". I've corrected this in the article, but perhaps a mention should be made of this ambiguity, since some high-profile biographies, notably Nizkor, make this mistake. Primaryspace 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The evidence has not shown that the SD Amter III and VI of the RSHA participated in the extermination of the millions of Jews. All Jewish affairs were dealt with by Amt IVm, Eichmann's section. Eichmann belonged to Amt IV and was the Head of Section IV B 4. This is shown by the organizational plans of the RSHA of 1st January, 1941, and 1st October, 1942, Document L-185 and Document L-219 submitted by the prosecution.
The chain of command for the mass murder of Jews was Hitler, Himmler, Muller and Eichmann. Not one of the witnesses has indicated that Amter III, VI and VII, or any of the local branches of these offices co-operated in the extermination of Jews. In this connection I refer in particular to the testimony of Wisliceny, Page 751 of the record of the Commission, according to which there was no connection between the department of Eichmann and the Amter III, VI and VII, and further, to the record of Dr. Hoffmann (German text of Commission record Page 1793). Hoffmann stated that Amt IV was competent for deportations and that Eichmann was responsible for the final solution of the Jewish question.
In the occupied territories, also, all Jewish affairs were handled by Amt IV, Eichmann Department. The initial IV J on Document RF 1210, submitted by the prosecution shows that a department of Amt IV dealt with the Jewish questions in France. This is confirmed by the testimony of the witness Knochen (Pages 475, 476, 1105, 1113 of the Commission Record), and by the Laube Affidavit SD 54 which I submitted. They show that Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker, who was sent to France by Eichmann, also belonged to Amt IV and received his instructions directly from Eichmann himself. Thus, no connection existed between Amter III and VI and Eichmann's department.
I don't know the reliability of this testimony. But again, reliable sources do claim that Tulard gave his papers to IV-J, and it was my understanding that Eichmann was ultimately in charge. I can try to look the exact page reference of that if you want. So, IV-D is pretty clear, B4 seems to be an error unless it changed as said one user, and IV-J also seems to be correct... Tazmaniacs 18:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
be careful about "primary sources". But it would certainly be interesting seeing them. Tazmaniacs 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The video in this article doesn't seem to work. I tried renaming it to .ogm (.ogg is audio) and it still doesn't work. Is it just me? I tried several media players such as BSPlayer and VLC. -- Ynhockey 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
"In Cairo they met a member of the Haganah but the purpose of the meeting is disputed."
Unless anyone objects, I am going to remove this sentence. I cannot find any dissent as to what happened by reputable people. If you disagree, can you please supply links about this "dispute"? Where 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Reverted [2]-- 68.211.68.10 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a fair amount of literature on this. A source other than Brenner is F. Nicosia, Zionism in National Socialist Jewish Policy in Germany, 1933-1939, Journal of Modern History, vol 50, No. 3 (1978) D1253-D1282. Eichmann&Hagen's report to their superiors still exists; parts can be found translated in Brenner, 51 Documents. According to the report, Polkes told them "The Zionist state must be established by all means and as soon as possible so that it attracts a stream of Jewish emigrants to Palestine. When the Jewish state is established according to the current proposals laid down in the Peel Paper, and in line with England's partial promises, then the borders may be pushed further outwards according to one's wishes." Then later, "Nationalist Jewish circles expressed their great joy over the radical German policy towards the Jews, as this policy would increase the Jewish population in Palestine, so that one can reckon with a Jewish majority in Palestine over the Arabs in the foreseeable future." -- Zero 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The quote: "Long live Germany. Long live Austria. Long live Argentina. These are the countries with which I have been most closely associated and I shall not forget them. I had to obey the rules of war and my flag. I am ready." can be found in Arent, H. 1979. Eichmann in Jerusalem, Penguin. P.252.
I don't think that Eichmann's son deserves mention. -- Zero 13:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In the context - an overview analysis - it's fine. FlaviaR 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The recent edit is correct: his name was Otto Adolf Eichmann. The previous version "Karl Adolf Eichmann" was probably a confusion for his father's name "Adolf Karl Eichmann". His trial report [3] says that this information came from Eichmann himself. However, that leaves us with a problem: why is he here called "Adolf Otto Eichmann"? We know he used "Adolf" as his personal name, but what is the evidence that he actually reversed his name? Most people who go by their middle name don't do that. We need a solid source, not just a web page. -- Zero 10:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The story about Wiesenthal and the postcard isn't quite accurate. Wiesenthal was not who the postcard was written to. A doctor had told him to get a less stressful hobby than chasing Nazis, so he took up stamp collecting. He was shown the postcard about Eichmann by another stamp collector because of its Argentinian stamps. I think the story is in "Eichmann in my Hands" by Peter Z. Malkin. I don't have a copy to refer to but maybe someone who does can edit the article with the details. Phr ( talk) 02:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no mention of the September 21, 1939 reunion in Berlin in which Heydrich, Eichmann, the bureau chiefs of the RSHA and Emanuel Schäfer were present, in which the Nazi decision about what "to do" with the Jews in Poland (see de:Emanuel Schäfer for more details) seems to have been taken. Maybe someone who knows a bit more (or reads German) could introduce this here. Tazmaniacs 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this unsourced story: "Ben-Zvi replied quoting a passage from the Book of Samuel: "As your sword bereaved women, so will your mother be bereaved among women." (Samuel 1:15:33 , Samuel's words to Agag king of the Amalekites)." This sounds as if Ben-Zvi used this quotation in his official reply to Eichmann's appeal for clemency, but in fact Ben-Zvi only gave a formal reply: "The President of the State of Israel has decided not to exercise his pererogative to pardon offenders or reduce sentences in the case of Adolf Eichmann" (NYT, June 1, 1962). The quotation from the Book of Samuel is supposed to have been written by Ben-Zvi on a telegram he received from Eichmann's wife Vera who "begged him to show mercy for the 'mother of four children'" I don't think this anecdote meets the notability criteria. (NYT, June 2, 1962). -- Zero talk 09:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you misread this. The source says that this was a reply Ben Zvi wrote it's of course the best source possible for Ben Zvi therefore WP:RS and very important. You can add that NYT added it's for Vera if it's true, it doesn't diminish the source. The very fact it's mentioned there shows how important it is. It's not an anecdote, it's something that was important to Ben Zvi to write not because Vera btw, it's a metaphorical sense. Amoruso 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this would be article worthy, but I'm curious, in a South Park episode where Eric Cartman is hunting hippies, one of the hippies is always talking about the *big corporations* and saying something about the *little Eichmanns*. Is this a reference to Adolf Eichmann? Or someone else? or am I hearing it incorrectly? Magu 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
That is making fun of comments by Ward Churchill. 69.156.58.123 22:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Jordan
I think this sentence: "Argentina was and is a haven for many former Nazis.", contains speculations that should not be part of a Wikipedia article. Are we certain that there are still some Nazis in Argentina? What is true for the pas might not be true for the present. Unless we have some serious and documented doubts about nazis still living in Argentina, the sentence should be shortened to: "Argentina was a haven for many former Nazis." Hugo Dufort 01:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Why was he, the way he was?
What is that BIG CV doing in the middle of the article? It's making it hard to read the article! -- Lhademmor 16:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Since Israel had not judicially executed anyone before Eichmann, I wonder whether they ever had a trained executioner. This link gives the name of the Yemenite prison guard who opened the trapdoor under Eichmann's feet. But who prepared the scaffold, decided on the length of drop to give, positioned the noose? These are no trivial tasks; any mistake may lead to a disgusting result. I wonder whether Israel received "technical advice" or even "technical assistance" by a friendly government. Of course this is one of the most unimportant details for an article on Eichmann; I know that. -- Kauko56 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The jews who kidnapped him have no arrest powers in Argentina. They are not police or intelligence officers of the Argentine state. They should have acted like decent and civilized people by asking the Argentine government to arrest and extradite Eichmann, not employ mafia tactics and kidnap him. Just because a bunch of arrogant jews think they are above the law and can kidnap people they don't like, doesn't mean that they are right. A kidnap is a kidnap.
Here, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap where the article itself mentions that the capture of eichmann and vanunu are illegal kidnappings. And don't make a fool of yourself accusing me of "anti semitism" because I'm far more semitic than most people you'll ever see.
WTF? Can you try to be coherent, for once? YOu asked for sources to support my arguement, and you got one, on the wikipedia site of all places, now you're saying it doesn't prove anything? What do you want? And no, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. An illegal kidnap is an illegal kidnap. Calling it anything else is white wash.
As depicted and explained above, Eichmann was a nazi war criminal who escaped justice and was a fugitive - it's why he had an alias if you didn't notice. So of course it's a legal capture by any standard, but the word capture doesn't even imply legality while the word kindap implies illegality. See sections above, it was already discussed and decided long time ago. Amoruso 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"Capture" is fine, though a small paragraph about the legal issues could be included. As far as opinion goes on international law, it is practically impossible to find an authority arguing that the capture was legal. Of course it was a violation of the national sovereignty of Argentina and there is no legal principle that overrides that. Israel was perfectly aware of this, and that is why they first claimed that Eichmann came voluntarily and then claimed that the abductors were private citizens and not Israeli agents. The Israeli court did not attempt to argue the capture was legal, and neither did Eichmann's prosecutors. They could not have done so credibly since the relevant principles of international law are very clear and in the meanwhile there had been a Security Council resolution (#4349) confirming that the capture was illegal. What the prosecution and Court argued (paras 40-44 of the judgement) was that the illegality of Eichmann's arrest did not imply that his trial was illegal (called the Ker doctrine after an 1886 case). The several legal scholars I have read agree with that argument. In summary, even though Israel illegally captured him, it could still legally try him. ( Here is an example of a legal paper explaining this. I can give more but they need subscription.) -- Zero talk 13:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me. Is there anything you guys don't find fight over? Wikipedia is not the UN. The world won't stop spinning on its axis, and no countries will be overrun if everyone takes a break for a day. Patstuart talk| edits 06:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"Caputred" is more neutral than "kidnap." I think the fact whether it was right to kidnap him is entirely irrelevant. savidan (talk) (e@) 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Without bluffing that I am well versed in law, International or otherwise, I have to express my opinion that the word "capture" is POV and that the word "abducted" is better suited. The word "abducted" is already being used within this section. Eichmann may have been captured as enemy, but Klement was definitely abducted as an Argentine resident. Moreover, If Eichmann was captured, then why a trial instead of a tribunal? The only way that I can agree with capturing Eichmann, is if he was abducted by Israelis in order to capture an enemy. -- Rkm3612 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I did a quick survey of a large database of law journals (HeinOnLine), searching for articles with phrases like "capture of Eichmann" and "capture of Adolf Eichmann". Here are the results (counts of articles): abduction 56, kidnapping 31, capture 17, seizure 9, arrest 2. There is a clear preference for "abduction". Note that "capture" refers to grabbing hold of someone, but "abduction" in addition refers to carrying him away to another place. That makes "abduction" more accurate. I propose we use it. -- Zero talk 09:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
MiguelJoseErnst, From the article: "At the end of World War II, Eichmann was captured by the US Army, who did not know that this man who presented himself as "Otto Eckmann" was in fact a much bigger catch. Early in 1946, he escaped from US custody and hid in various parts of Germany for a few years. In 1948 he obtained a landing permit for Argentina, but did not use it immediately." There was never any doubt that Eichmann is guilty in the sense that he was a high ranked leading Nazi, the question is guilty of what exactly and what punishment he deserves. Since it already says U.S captured him, this word is fitting and accurate no doubt. The alleged search above by Zero0000 is not known at all for accuracy and is not relevant nor is it convincing (17-56 big deal), it's not a legal issue at all it's the most fitting word in english, and I think everyone has his opinions. This is the word neutral media uses a lot [8] [9] it's the word used in most books [10] and even films [11] and it's already a word used widely in other wiki articles for eichmann [12] . Since capture applies to rules of wikipedia for naming conventions then there's no reason to change it other than pov pushing which I hope nobody is engaging at. Pretty clear it should stay captured IMO. Abduct is clearly pov pushing even if non intentional as its definition is "To seize and detain (a person) unlawfully" [13] it's basically another word for "kidnap" and should not be considered. I don't have any problem with 'Seize' but I don't see what purpose that change will serve. Cheers, Amoruso 00:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I don't have time to log in properly as to the Wiki's protocols but I'll even leave my full name because I have no problem going on record. To be quite honest, I actually don't have a problem with the kidnapping/capture/etc, illegal or otherwise of Eichmann or any of the other other Nazis hiding out in cozy little South American cities in picturesque South American countries as if they were on vacation. I may not agree with everything Israel does as policy is concerned but I also refuse to attempt to use some kind of intellectual prowess to serve as apologists for the likes of Eichmann and others of that ilk. So if it was an illegal kidnapping by legal definition so what? It was also illegal to seize Jewish property but technicalities and policies and measures were put in place by the Nazis to do so anyway. There is a thing as "jailhouse justice" and no amount of semantics or "legalese" can change the history of crimes that were committed and whether you argue the use or mis-use of the term "Nazi" as I've read in some threads or whether or not certain officers were anti-semitic and to what degrees, I laugh out loud about the sheer audacity of those who equivocate to try to find some kind of so-called non-POV middle ground as if they were debating for a high school tournament. I mean there are threads where people are asking others to show proof of whether certain war criminals were anti-semitic!!! Again, LOL because does it really matter whether or not you go on record and say "I hate Jews" if you are actually demonstrating compliance with the Final Solution efforts???!!! That's like a Nazi officer saying, my best friend is a Jew!!! Yes, some of them did have Jewish friends but when Hitler and the regime began to enforce the racial purity policies the course was set no matter what. So it becomes a moot point whether some Nazi kinda liked or didn't mind Jewish people too much. It's a battle of semantics. If the program is put in place, as the Final Solution (forgot the German name for it. I suppose there will be Wiki members trying to deny it as well, or demanding a source!) was to systematically wipe out or destroy a race or ethnic group or just plain folks they were pissed off with, the fact remains that these policies existed and people suffered because of them. So in conclusion, I reiterate, who cares if Eichmann's capture was technically or officially incorrect or can be debated until the cows come home? Let us not forget that Nazi war chests helped to fill the coffers of whatever country they were hiding out in so I'd spend less time worrying about the legality of trespass issues in regard to Nazis being caught.
71.217.22.202
05:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)La-Tonia Denise Willis
PS. (This is my first Wiki post and I'll try to force myself to learn all the textbook rules but it's like those software EULA's
that you skip by and install the software already!!!) Thanks for listening.
Does anyone know the german phrase which means "desk-murder" in English? It's used to describe people who did a "sign on the dotted line" thing that caused a murder. Mike.lifeguard 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I ask because Adolf Eichmann was the name attached to that term when I heard it, and it doesn't appear in the article, nor does it have its own article. Mike.lifeguard 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Bureaucrat. Although we don't tend to add killer to the end. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I just started reading Leon Uris' famous historical novel Exodus and just came across this quote on p. 79, "The name of the great killer of them all came up over and over again: Eichmann, the German Palestinian who spoke fluent Hebrew and was the master of genocide."
Does anyone know where he got this from? All sources on Eichmann that I've seen indicate that he was born and raised in Germany. I know the term Palestinian sometimes refers (historically) to the Jews; was Eichmann part Jewish? It just seems odd that Uris would have gotten this wrong.
MiguelJoseErnst 2 February, 2007
A very similar account of Eichmann’s origins can be found in Frischauer's work Himmler (see Frischauer, W, Himmler, Odhams Press, London, 1953) and is based on the testimony of Dieter Wisliceny, one of Eichmann’s IV-B-4 representatives. Citing Wisliceny, Frischauer refers to Eichmann as a Palestine-born scholar of Jewish history - fluent in Hebrew - and claims that Eichmann made such an impression on Himmler that the latter personally appointed Eichmann to his position in the Gestapo. If we assume that Wisliceny’s testimony can be taken at face value, this would suggest that Eichmann was prone to exaggerating his own status in order to impress his subordinates. Of course, given that what we knew about Eichmann prior to his capture came from sources such as Wisliceny it is not too surprising that authors writing prior to 1960 based their accounts on rumour and hyperbole.
Jstonehouse 10:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That's something that had been bugging me since I came across it in the novel. Many thanks for the explanation.
MiguelJoseErnst 16 February 2007
The main article closes with the following:
"A footnote to Eichmann's SS career focuses on the point as to why he was never promoted to the rank of full SS-Colonel, known as Standartenführer. With Eichmann's record and responsibilities, he would have been a prime candidate for advancement, yet after 1941, his SS record contains no evidence that he was ever even recommended for another promotion. Many have speculated that Ernst Kaltenbrunner may have seen Eichmann as a dangerous man, rising through the SS ranks, and had curbed his SS career to prevent Eichmann from becoming too powerful."
This rather conspiratorial ending ignores the point that, as an enlisted man, Eichmann could never have risen higher than Lt Colonel. Also, the reference to Kaltenbrunner regarding Eichmann as a 'dangerous man' is pure speculation, and not one of the 'many' who allegedly support this view is cited in support of this allegation. The subtext of this ending suggests that Eichmann was an intimidating figure of major importance and reinforces his almost mythological status. Unfortunately, the mythology is not supported by the evidence, which tells us that Eichmann was a rather weak-willed academic failure who would have lived out his life as a salesman were it not for the emergence of a crackpot organisation such as the SS.
Jstonehouse 11:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
While I am a firm believer of punishing people who are "found guilty beyond any questionable reason" to the fullest extent of the law, and while I think Eichmann got what he deserved in the end (MY SUBJECTIVE opinion), something about this has made me wonder, though: Eichmann's defence of saying he just followed orders. Let's take me as the defendant. Let's further assume I am in the US Military. And, finally (this may be critical, but I don't know) let's assume that we are in a state of war. If a senior officer tells me to kill someone, what am I supposed to do? Disobeying will certainly get me court-marshalled and maybe even executed quickly, especially in the context of war. But if I obeyed the order, if I "just followed orders", would the US "protect" me afterwards? I think they would. If I were a US soldier, I probably would come out of this a hero... . Food for thought.
Can someone please make the names consistent of both Eichmann and his father? Eichmann himself is named Otto Adolf in the article, but Karl Adolf in the picture. His father's name has been changed from Adolf Karl to Karl Adolf, and I don't know right from wrong anymore. Er rab ee 15:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
His placement in the organizational chart of the RSHA was so far down the chain of command, how is he consideredto have had any real weight. Several people higher up in the chart were never bothered - some were later in German government positions after the war. Other than a couple of not too reliable witnesses is there any reason to reach down into a organizational chart an pick this guy - a mid-level flnky at most. 159.105.80.141 15:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
In the paragraph "Capture", the word prominent in "dedicated themselves to finding Eichmann and other prominent Nazis" seems of complimentary sense, so changed to "notorious". ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子 ^.^tell me... 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, the word high-ranking in "a high-ranking Nazi and SS Obersturmbannführer (equivalent to Lieutenant Colonel)" is not very exact, because SS Obersturmbannführer (equivalent to Lieutenant Colonel) isn't a high rank, however the position, Eichmann occupied, is the one of huge executive power. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子 ^.^tell me... 23:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
For some time the Israeli government denied involvement in Eichmann's capture, claiming that he had been taken by Jewish volunteers who eagerly turned him over to government authorities. This claim was made due to the influence of anti-Semitic sectors in the Argentinian government and military.
This sentence is quite preposterous. Anti-semitic government or not, if there was any reason for Israel to withhold its involvement in Eichmman's capture, it was the way in which the operation gave away with every international law possible. Even if Eichmann himself was the president of Argentina, his removal required a minimum of diplomatic work which was obviously ignored. By accepting that they had entered Argentinian territory with the intention of breaking the law, however favor they were doing to humanity, would have caused an international impasse that happened anyway, because nobody believed the volunteers story at the time.
The way the story is written, justify any future actions, by any country, to enter illegally into another to exercise justice without asking local authorities first. Imagine this, Spain sending agents to the US to kidnap Henry Kissinger for his involvement in Plan Condor. Not quite same case, but justified according to the views expressed in this article.
The 4th paragraph of chapter seems to be untrue: it doesn't fit in with the rest of the section and has what i believe to be inconsistencies within itself. Also it has no citations which may be further indication that it is untrue.
The capture section does have inconsistencies. Please refrence where Eichmann was supposedly asked for a cigarettes. I remember Maljin said "un moment senior" before he wrestled him in to the car (note Eichmann was not knocked out as mentioned in the article). This according Harel, I: "The House on Garibaldi Street", Viking Press, 1975
I think someone should change the article and incorporate the above facts. aliasfoxtrot 24:57, 23 November 2007
I just want to say that Eichman was not born in Germany becouse sach a state didn't existe in 1906. I've changed the flag icon and the name of the place of birth to Prussia but someone didn't like it and changed it. I protest against writing such a rubbish. Someone uncompetent did it, i think.
in "Eichmann analysis" section it says his son Rudolph condemned his fathers actions. but in his children section there is no Rudolph. (00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC))
I am not sure this paragraph belongs to the article. I am not sure why a particular country is singled out for not having NAZI hunting policy at that time. Why is not this paragraph titled BND inaction, for example?
I chose not to delete it myself, because A) I am anonymous, B) It is not inaccurate.
I just think it is not right to single out just one particular country for not trying to capture him. Especially, I am not sure, whether US law could claim a jurisdiction over him. This paragraph sounds to me like an antiamericanism. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.176.184.9 (
talk)
11:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
eichmann was kidnapped and the act was condemed. the crimes, even if true, were not crimes under the german government. the trial of eichmann was not a trial at all. how could a man accused of such a thing get a fair trial in a place like israel? this whole thing just proves that the zionists (and i am not indicting the entire jewish world population) can do whatever they want with impunity. and they can do what they want because if you critisize them for it you are called a nazi. i saw a documentary on eichmann the other night and nowhere did they show photos or film footage of the gas chambers in action. no photos of otherwise healthy bodies. nothing but photos of the poor souls who died from the typhus epedemic that nobody can dispute occurred. but this man was hanged with no physical evidence of him ever murdering anyone. i hope the zionists sleep well at night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.61.254 ( talk) 03:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Which photo is better for the lead:
Which photo is better for the lead: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)
— criterion #1 for acceptable use of unfree media, WP:NFC
Does the Library of Congress have a PD photo of Eichmann? If not, it seems to me that neither of the other images is free and that the casual picture is of higher quality. I am not sure which you would prefer to use, but either can be claimed as fair use for a dead person. What specific issue are you debating? Are you trying to use both photos? Trying to justify Fair use of either? I am a bit lost in the debate.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Eichmann.jpg is, by all appearances, a public domain image of the subject, while Image:Eichmann 001.jpg is a fair use image, for which the rationale does not specify this article or the image's purpose in this article. Previously, an image was used in the infobox to identify the subject. The argument here is which image should be used for that purpose, and I have seen nothing that would show that the non-free image serves a purpose that the free image does not, which means that we have to use the free image. The same goes for using both; if the non-free image just identifies the subject, then we can't use it under fair use because that purpose is already served by an existing free image (replaceability). The quality does not enter into the equation. Whatever the concerns about using the non-free image, there is no argument or evidence to indicate that we cannot use the free image. As a result, I'm re-adding that image to the article, since there needs to be something there. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to come in on this issue. Ok, I did some searching and I do not know how NARA was able to give that digital photograph. I could not find much about Eichmann online from government sources, except for his trial in Israel. However, NARA documents are public domain by virtue of this note. If the photo was copyrighted, they would have made a note of it or not. However, I do not know if they conveyed this to the university or not, or the university is evoking fair use. However, according to Wikipedia:PD#German_World_War_II_images, we cannot tag either image as public domain, so we have to fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a decent photo from the library of Congress. Grandia01 has claimed the one currently displayed is public domain, though his talkpage is littered with deleted image tags, so I'm not sure how much I trust that. His image is preferable, but we need to be certain it's usable. AniMate 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There is an obvious missing paragraph stating that the trial was illegal and that the Israelians that judged him and killed him went impune for their crimes. Please, we know that he was a monster, but it is a fact that the trial was illegal, and there is nothing wrong with saying the truth. See Bush, he's still alive :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.5.94 ( talk) 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In the section on Eichmann's capture, I've changed "After surveilling Eichmann for an extensive period of time" to "After observing Eichmann for an extensive period of time"; the Online Etymology Dictionary describes this usage as "a hideous back-formation [...] coined in 1960 in US government jargon" and adds an exhortation to "Pray that it dies" [17]. Opera hat ( talk) 08:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Correspondence the Blind man Lothar Hermann S W Multimedia Learning Center
Special Collection 8 Die Ergreifung Eichmanns Doc.32-33 Lothar Hermann attacks Israel Letter dat.2.6.1971
Gurion Mossad attacks Tuviah Friedman ( Wikipedia )
Isser Harel attacks Tuviah Friedman by DREW PEARSON 1961 Juni Washington
Mossad work BND - CIA 1955
Artur Asher Ben Natan ( Israel ) help -- Nazi Killer SS Walter Rauff
David Ben Gurion - Kollaborateur Nazi
Story Tuviah Friedman absolutely correct
Germany Fritz Bauer 24.12.1959 said Eichmann KUWAIT Pressarchiv
__-- The Blind Man Lothar Hermann geb.11.11.1901 report 1957 Eichmann alias Francisco Schmidt
Wiesenthal - Mafia Organisation Gangster ( Bruno Kreisky Gentleman ) H.Sch... Germany
"When Eichmann reached in his pocket he was set upon by the two by the car."
I had to read this 3 times to figure out what it meant.
66.234.43.147 (
talk)
23:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
As silly as this might sound, I've just watched the movie Eichmann and in it he had an affair with a Hungarian baroness who was portrayed as a blood-thirsty psychopath who encouraged him to kill more people. Did this person exist in real life? I cannot see any mention of her in this article. Captain Fearnought ( talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Woudnt kidnapped be a better word than captured? Captured implies that it was a legal act.
doris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr doris ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit that kidnapping (that one person takes and carries another away; by force or fraud; without the consent of the person taken; and without lawful excuse) would apply here. I recently tried to change this word but was reverted under the reason (This has been discussed; apprehend is the neutral term). 1- The only 'discussion' that I see here is the previous statement and I don't see any argument explaining why 'apprehended' would be representative here. Futhermore, all examples of apprehension/arrest in both Wikipedia itself and any dictionary that I could put my hand on imply quite clearly that an 'apprehension/arrest' is done under legal authority. Even a 'wrong' apprehension is called 'unlawful arrest' because it was done by peoples who legally represented the law, even if the event itself was done in violation is other rules/laws. Therefore I will make the change from 'apprehended' to 'kidnapped'. Please do not revert it back without explaining why. If worst come to worst we could instead switch it to 'captured' like how this even is described in the 'Mossad' article but it would need instead to be 'illegaly captured'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.158.243 ( talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
i had to remove this sentence because there is no citation. you just cant claim whatever you want.
"For the next two years, Eichmann performed his duties with incredible zeal, often bragging that he had personally sent over five million Jews to their deaths by way of his trains.".
"Therefore, he is often referred to as the 'Chief Executioner' of the Third Reich."
Really? By whom? National Socialist topics like this seem to get lots of sensationalist one liners.
The part "post 1945" is somewhat unclear, i think. if he left germany in 1947 and hid in an italian monastery for some years, then how come, he managed to secure a passage to south america in that exact year? O_o
An event mentioned in this article is a May 11 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment)
The trial caused huge international controversy.
-- I'm not sure that is a reasonable summary. There was controversy over the kidnapping from Argentina and lesser controversies over some aspects of the trial, but the sentence makes it sound like there was a "huge" controversy over the trial itself. I don't think so. --
zero 02:45, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
According to Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem, there were other issues of controversy regarding the trial. Two that I can remember off the top of my head are that some of the counts were charged retroactively under a different system of law than that of the defendent's state's, and also that what (in some people's opinion) should have been an international affair was being executed by Israel (whose objectivity was called into question). Ben-Gurion seemed to be pushing for a "show trial," although the three Israeli judges went to some lengths to prevent such an occurence.
Also, there is a discrepancy between the date and time of the death of Eichmann as stated in Arendt's book and the date/time in the wikipedia article. Arendt says a few minutes before midnight on 31 May, whereas the article says a few minutes after on 1 June. Arendt mentions in chapter 15 of the above mentioned book that one of the contributing factors in accelerating the execution was to avoid having the execution on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday (all of which are, according to Arendt, "religious holidays" of the three main faiths in Jerusalem).
- dws
What reliable sources? I don't want to make an ant out of a molehill, but I think it's important that this information is correct. If someone uses Adolf_Eichmann as a reference for the date of death, it could be embarrasing for them (and misinforming) if the date of death is incorrect.
Sources dating death 31 May: http://www.pbs.org/eichmann/timeline.htm, Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem
Sources dating death 1 June: - http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Adolf%20Eichmann
Here are some other Internet sources that dates Eichmann's death 1 June:
Interesting. What should be done to the main article? Leave it be or parenthetically mention the various discrepancies?
An eyewitness
William L. Hull, a Canadian Pentecostal pastor, who had several talks with Eichmann prior to his execution, was an eyewitness at the hanging. He writes in his book The Struggle for a Soul (1963) that the execution took place at 12.02 a.m. on June 1, 1962. Rienzo 08:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The most sources say May 31. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.230.193.22 (
talk)
19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
________
IMO, It's important to say more on the trial itself and it's effect on Israeli (or Jewish) society. Is there anyone willing to delve into it?
The main picture for this article looks kind of goofy. Considering that the man was a Nazi war criminal, could we find a different picture? - Branddobbe 07:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
An
automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the
Adolf_Eichmann article, and they have been placed on
this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Adolf_Eichmann}} to this page. —
LinkBot 00:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The most sources say 31 may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.193.22 ( talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm dumb, but I find the first part "Post World War II" section somewhat confusing; the first paragraph describes how Eichmann secured passage to South America and the second paragraph says that "Eichmann bought a plane ticket to Buenos Aires." Is this plane ticket the "passage" described in the first paragraph? I'm inclined to say yes, and if so, these two paragraphs should be combined to make this more explicit. -- Bletch 02:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Will someone please clean up the "Pre-Nazi" section, it's really a mess with all the articles plopped in there.
The comment that he became the only Israeli civil execution does not belong. The Wiki for execution (legal) states that execution is execution with or without a trial, making Israeli assassinations of people within its own boarder executions, such as Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. I am not trying to make a political statement, but I think the comment is supurflous and could be seen as lacking neutrality.
Minor detail: Eichmann did not travel on a fake Red Cross "passport" (actually a laisser-passer. The document was obtained by using a fake name- but it wasa legitimate document. (see http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/travel-document-feature-310507?opendocument) I'm going to effect this change ~~Raphael~~
From what I've been told, he traveled on a Vatican passport - Argentinian officials said he did. Is this not the case? Did the Argentinians lie, or was my source wrong? FlaviaR 04:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
First off thanks for all the info. Its fantastic.
Secondly, I was a bit unsure of the specifics of what he did in order to be tracked down so many years later. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they must have been bad, I just didn't get too many examples of it. Thanks.
I want to second the above, the section on the capture in particular is very engagingly written.
IMHO, what would bring this article up a class would be to flesh out the activities for which he was hunted. That is to say, as it is written now, it is weighted much more to the capture than to the reasons for it. Yes, I get it that he's a war criminal, but what's there now reads more like his CV, talking about his titles & that, instead of what did he do? Where? How did he use/exceed his authority? What's this about him trying to desert at the very end {my word not yours}? If I understand that correctly, that also is very interesting & could be expanded a little. I found one sentence stating how many people he sent to the gas chambers. THAT had to have a chronology...
My suggestion is that the section on what he did to be hunted match in detail and be as engaging as the hunt. Which like I said, was very nicely done. 75.10.128.3 ( talk) 01:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There was an HBO movie some time ago about the Mossad's capture of Eichmann. Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article? -- Micahbrwn
In Shirer' Rise and Fall of the Third Riech Eichmann is caleld Karl. Why is that? Just an error of Shirer? Or is Karl is he real first name?, but he's known as Adolf in the West, kind of like Speer being known as Albert in the West while his real first name is Berthold.
Some simple research gives me an answer to my own question. He was born Karl Adolf Eichmann. Ill add it to the article
We should keep on working on this article specially in the Trial part. It has a nazi view of the thing.
But because my english is not so well (it's not my first language) and i don't know how to write here i propose to go on working on this.
Eichmann was kidnapped as kidnapping is defined as any illegal capture and detention of persons against their will. If you find it necessary to revert, please explain why. Großhauptsturmführer 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
he was in argentina. the jews had no right to go into a foreign land and take someone out. eichmann was then tried in a court that did not exist at the time the "crimes" were comitted.
kill him on sight? we dont kill people on sight without a trial. and he was the creator of the final solution? where is the order from him? where is the order from Hitler? this is just more jewish propaganda like most of the stories of the holocaust. how do you think the jews would feel if we went into israel and kidnapped Sharon and tried him for his war crimes? Or if the British had kidnapped Begin and tried him for the bombing of the King David Hotel? the isreali court that "tried" eichmann was a joke. the court and the country didnt even exist. get your head out of your zionist butt. i see you live in israel....what a shock.
About Eichmann and the final solution, why don't you educate yourself and read some books on the holocaust ? Start with a certain conference transcript perhaps and then go back and forth during the period. It doesn't matter if the court existed or not according to international law and the crimes that Eichmann was accused for. Not that it matters, it actually makes me happy that nazi supporters are annoyed by this. Eichmann should have been tortured to death and killed with or without a trial. A trial made it more sweet in the end. Amoruso 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I am educating myself quite a lot on the subject, and I am finding a lot of unanswered questions. The first thing I notice is that it seems to always be the Jewish victims that are mentioned. What about the non-Jewish victims. Why are they ignored in most of the stories of the holocaust?
Second of all, there is no way 6 million people were gassed and then cremated. The cost of it would have drained the war fighting efforts.
Third, where are the photos of the dead children? There is a claim of 2 million dead children. I contacted the holocaust museum twice now and have received no answer on where the photos are. All the photos of holocaust victim are skinny and sickly looking. If they were starved, they would have swollen stomachs. If they had been gassed then they wouldn’t have been emaciated.
I don't doubt that Eichmann was a bad man, as were most if not all of the SS and the Nazis. I am not a supporter of the party or the philosophy. But I do resent the way the Jews are allowed to do whatever they want with no consequence. I mean, it is a crime in France to deny or downplay the official story. Thank god I live in America. keltik31
i looked over nizkor.org. i didnt find any photos of dead children who had been gassed. i contacted two holocaust sites and one said that the 230,000 children that were gassed were never photographed. i cant find any evidence of the gassing of children. why not? maybe because it never happened? keltik31
or these : http://www.auschwitz.dk/Star/Photos.htm or here : http://www.oskarschindler.com/Albums4/album3.htm or this one : http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blchildren3.htm
Amoruso 19:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
those are shocking photos and very sad. but i dont see any evidence of mass gassing of 2 million children. the photos of the dead children show emaciated bodies, likely to be caused by typhus, and not by starvation or by gas.you see, when i ask a simple question about proof this is what i get. 2 million children? what a gross exadgeration of the truth. and where is the order from hitler to exterminate the jewish population of europe?
dying from Typhus is not the same as being marched into a gas chamber and gassed. and of course the nazis are responsible for the deaths. i would never make such a claim. but i think the whole thing has been exaggerated to a great extent to drum up sympathy. god help you if you question the "offical" story. in france you can be jailed. god bless america. i am not a holocaust denier. i am just searching for the facts. what a man says in his speeches cannot be automatically translated into an organized plan for mass extermination. and why is it that the jews are so hated? why, if they had done nothing wrong, were they rounded up and put into camps? because they practiced Judaism? i dont buy that story at all. there has to be some reason for this and i have yet to find one. what were the jews doing in germany that pissed so many people off? i have asked more than one jew and i cant get a straight answer. why not?
i am just looking for facts. i am just looking for proof. and the numbers and the theories just dont add up. 6 million? aint buying it. i feel that the unjust death of one innocent person jewish or not is a holocaust. keltik31
dying from typhus or any other cause is a tradgedy. but it is not the same as an organized plan to exterminate one group of people which is what is claimed. eichmann was never given an fair trial, he was tried in a phony court in israel and no person who has ever studdied the law could argue that the laws he was tried under were valid. i have read a lot of history books, and i still dont buy the mass extermination plan because the numbers just simply dont add up. keltik31
i have read the holocaust article. and the "facts" are disputed. the official death toll at one camp was reduced from 4 million to less than two. the actual amount of effort it would have taken to kill this many people just doesnt add up. i have read many articles saying that there were no gas chambers in poland. how can you say such stupid things? that the court that tried Eichmann was "fully independant"? are you serious? the court was in israel, a country that didnt even exist at the time of these atrocities. the laws he was charged with werent even laws at the time of the "crimes". this is what is called ex-post-facto and is outlawed by the US constitution. thank god for that. what common traditional law are you referring to that can put a man on trial for doing something against the laws of a country that didnt even exist at the time the "crime" was committed?
if the story of the holocaust is sooooo true, then why do people get so upset when someone says that the story is made up? why is it illegal to downplay or deny it happened? photographs of people standing in line doesnt prove that they were marched into a gas chamber and murdered. where are the photos of otherwise healthy dead bodies??????????? cant find any.
first of all, dont tell me to sod off. the facts are in dispute. that is why there is revisionism, thank god. you resort to calling me a neo-nazi because i question the validity of a story? your argument is weak. i dont deny that there were atrocities. but i also do not deny that eichmann and others were never allowed to tell their side of the story. in every documentary about ww2 we never hear from Nazi party members, we never hear why they felt the way they did or did the things they did. all we hear about is how the jews were rounded up and murdered for being jewish. this is a story i just dont buy at all. there had to be some reason for the actions of the nazi's. i am just searching for answers. and isnt it interesting how the jews can go to argentina and kidnapp eichmann, but they refused to return a jewish man who had comitted murder here in the united states? can anyone say "double standard"?
i am not a neo anything. i am just asking questions and pointing out inconsistancies in this vast zionist tale. so you sod off, fuck off or go bang a goat for all i care. keltik31
"feed the troll"? how colorful. i heard once about civilians in either korea or japan who were "forced to rape their mother's and fathers". wartime propaganda just like most of the stories of the hoaxacaust. we all know that a man cannot rape someone unless he is aroused.
the testimony from any nazi is suspect becuase you dont know under what circumstances it was obtained, either through tourture or the threat of. i think it was wrong to go to argentina and put this man on trial. he did not recieve a fair trial. keltk31. and you resort to name calling because it is all you have.
where can i find the results of one autopsied body that proves the person died from being gassed?
Stop this rant it is irritating. Everyone that really observed the story (be it hyperbolic in some senses and judocentric in some others), knows dead victims have been burned. Complaining about the factual accuracy while neglecting obvious facts is useless, germany even admitted finding a meters thick layer of human ashes near berlin, and that is only 1 incident. You may assume that the factfinding after (and during) the war has been hampered by antisemitism, wicht is an understatement, because the whole thing couldn't have happened without the neglecting consent of international circles. That now the jewish don't want to admit (but still do at points) how they erred in calculations and assesment, and themselves ignored , seemingly ignored or undervalued other victims, has probably a lot to do with the hardship to get the attrocity anyhow recognised.(eg. 1933 or 1934) Such is not good, but it might be the story of any minority on this planet. I think they fear the extreme scale and proportion of the event will be lost from public memory when people are allowed to question the official version. It works out completely ridiculous, in such a way that for example the whole arab population gets a bias raised against them, and people critisising official government statements in general are implicated for reasons alien to them. That is a completely different point, that would be in its place in eg. a study of 20th century international relations, or general 20th century sociology, but in any case not here , on a page about eichmann that is well recognised for his role in these events , the details of them being so and so or such and such whatsoever.It's the political agenda of propaganda and selfrighteous proprietaires(the same people responsible for the international acceptance of this a holocaust), that uses the tool to incriminate opponents who generally have not the slightest antisemite intend. That is the nasty thing about it, and i have no idea where in wiki it should be placed yet, because we are still the repressed mass and not the rich ignorants filing their "justice " of no appeal on the poor. Just like then. btw. i like the term abduction, in my dutch mind it's translation is the most technical description of what happens when a person gets hijacked without his/her permission. 77.248.56.242 11:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Re the paragraph - Also instrumental in exposing Eichmann's identity was Lother Hermann, a half-Jewish worker who fled to Argentina from Germany following his incarceration in the Dachau concentration camp..... He contacted Israeli officials, who worked closely with Hermann over the next several years to learn about and formulate a plan to capture Eichmann.
I am currently reading Isser Harel's 'The house on Garibaldi street' which talks about Hermann in the first 30 pages. According to Harrel Hermann stumbled upon Eichmann but in his eagerness to solve everything himself and get money from the Israelis, he passed on some of his guesses as facts, because of which the Israelis lost their trust in him. By 1959, they had stopped contacting him.
The clues which lead to the capture of Eichmann came from another source (don't know if his identity is revealed in the book, haven't reached that far), at which point the Israelis recognised that Hermann had been right. But the usefulness of Hermann or the data that he provided in capturing Eichmann seems to be nothing, as per Harel.
Do Arendt or Cesarni talk about it being otherwise ? Tintin 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
regarding the comment that eichmann became fascinated with judaism, and in his reading developed a hatred for jews is unsubstantiated. where did you get your sources for this? the evidence leads to the conclusion that eichmann had no hatred for jews whatsoever. this is infinately more troubling.
correct History -- 24.12.1959 Fritz Bauer said Eichmann KUWAIT Press-Archiv
The blind man Lothar Hermann reported 1957 Eichmann alias Francisco Schmidt to Germany
26.12.1959 G.Schurman by Lothar Hermann Coronel Suarez Eichmann alias F.Schmidt
Mai 1960 Eichmann alias Clemens -- CIA alias-- Mafia-alias
Golda Meir April 1972 Money 10 000 US Dollar to Lothar Hermann
Simon Wiesenthal -- no role -- Eichmann
IKG-Wien attacks Wiesenthal
Special Collection 8 Learning Center Wiesenthal
Story Tuviah Friedman absolutely correct- Document Germany National Bibliothek
Letter Lothar Hermann dat.2.6.1971 attacks Israel and Fritz Bauer ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.211.248 ( talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No there are probably no photographs of children who have been gassed. Not surprisingly since the later Auschwitz gas chambers were combined with crematoria. The evidence for the Holocaust is so overwhelming, not least from Nazi sources, that it is not worth arguing. What should be mentioned is that probably less than half the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and yes we should not forget the Gypsy/Sinto, Gay, Communist and other victims, were gassed. Up to 2 million were shot and large numbers, maybe half a million, simply died through hunger - 'death by hunger' as Hans Frank, Governor General of the Generalgovernment exclaimed.
But why is this being debated? Eichmann himself never denied the Holocaust. In the extracts from his 1955 interviews with the Dutch Nazi journalist, Wilhelm Sassen he states, as a matter of fact, that Where I was implicated in the physical annihilation of the Jews, I admit my participation freely and without pressure. After all I was the one who transported the Jews to the camps.... Yet what is there to "admit?" I carried out my orders. It would be as pointless to blame me for the whole Final Solution of the Jewish Problem as to blame the official in charge of the railroads over which the Jewish transports traveled. If I had sabotaged the order of the onetime Fuhrer of the German Reich, Adolf Hitler, I woudl have been not only a scoundrel but a despicable pig... In 1941 the Fuhrer himself ordered the physical annihilation of the Jewish enemy. What made him take this step I do not know." And in a section headed 'the Chambers at Maidenek' Eichmann describes the beginning of the construction of the gas chambers in 'the latter part of 1941' which is indeed borne out. As the 'euthenasia' programme was wound down, after the outcry led by Bishop Galen of Munster, so the vans used to gas the handicapped were taken to Poland. And describing the shooting of thousands of Jews at Minsk he asks rhetorically'Why did the scene linger so long in my memory? Perhaps because I had children myself. And there were children in the pit. I saw a woman hold a child of a year or two into the air, pleading. At that moment all I wnted to say was, "Don't shoot, ahnd over the child..." There is a section entitled 'The Gas Chambers at Auschwitz'.
All of this was freely given in an interview when Eichmann was at liberty, under no compunction to admit anything. [" 'I Transported Them to the Butcher,' Eichmann's Own Story: Part I" Life November 28, 1960 reprinted in '51 Documents - Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, Lenni Brenner, pp. 264-274, Barricade Books. The suggestion that there were no gas chambers, when all the historical evidence says otherwise is ludicrous. Even David Irving in his libel suit against Penguin admitted to the use of mobile gas chambers in the Action Reinhardt camps (Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec).
The more important point, which the Eichmann trial deliberately steered clear of was the question of Kasztner, leader of Hungarian Zionism and the friendly relations established between him and the SS which led to a train of the Prominents (Kasztner's words) in exchange for silence about the Auschwitz Protocols that Rudolph Verba and Alfred Wetzler had brought out when they escaped from Auschwitz. These Protocols were handed to Kasztner on April 29th according to the deputy head of the Slovakian Judenrat Oskar Neumann. Kasztner himself launched a libel trial in Israel in 1953 against his detractors and found himself the accused as the nature and scope of his collaboration was revealed. Assasinated he was cleared on largely technical and political grounds by the Israeli Supreme Court but the facts of his going to Nuremburg to testify for Nazi war criminals was upheld as were the facts of what he did.
This evidence was deliberately excluded from the Eichmann trial with Vrba giving a deposition at the London Embassay of Israel but not being called because of what he might say. Likewise the last surviving member of the leadership of the Jewish Fighting Organisation (ZOB) of the Warsaw Ghetto, Marek Edelman, was not called as he was an anti-Zionist. In many ways the Eichmann trial was Israel's answer to the deep trauma and embarrassment of the Kasztner trial, which went on until 1957 and led to the fall of one Israeli government.
Tony Greenstein
Re the paragraph - Also instrumental in exposing Eichmann's identity was Lother Hermann, a half-Jewish worker who fled to Argentina from Germany following his incarceration in the Dachau concentration camp..... He contacted Israeli officials, who worked closely with Hermann over the next several years to learn about and formulate a plan to capture Eichmann.
I am currently reading Isser Harel's 'The house on Garibaldi street' which talks about Hermann in the first 30 pages. According to Harrel Hermann stumbled upon Eichmann but in his eagerness to solve everything himself and get money from the Israelis, he passed on some of his guesses as facts, because of which the Israelis lost their trust in him. By 1959, they had stopped contacting him.
The clues which lead to the capture of Eichmann came from another source (don't know if his identity is revealed in the book, haven't reached that far), at which point the Israelis recognised that Hermann had been right. But the usefulness of Hermann or the data that he provided in capturing Eichmann seems to be nothing, as per Harel.
Do Arendt or Cesarni talk about it being otherwise ? Tintin 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
regarding the comment that eichmann became fascinated with judaism, and in his reading developed a hatred for jews is unsubstantiated. where did you get your sources for this? the evidence leads to the conclusion that eichmann had no hatred for jews whatsoever. this is infinately more troubling.
As someone just noted, the 1945-1950 parts of the story are confused. My understanding is that he remained in Germany until 1950 (not 1947), then he went to Austria then Italy. In Italy he posed as Ricardo Klement and obtained a refugee passport under that name with the help of a Franciscan monk (but was it a Vatican passport? Actually I think it was a Red Cross passport.). Then he got an Argentinian visa and arrived in Argentina about Aug 1950. My sources of information are not good. If someone has a solid source, please fix the article. -- Zero 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The agency that Eichmann headed was actually Referat IV D4 (see Browning, "Origins of the Final Solution", pg. 59). A large number of online biographies state that his referat was called "B4". This is an error. A number of online biographies correctly state the referat name as "D4". I've corrected this in the article, but perhaps a mention should be made of this ambiguity, since some high-profile biographies, notably Nizkor, make this mistake. Primaryspace 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The evidence has not shown that the SD Amter III and VI of the RSHA participated in the extermination of the millions of Jews. All Jewish affairs were dealt with by Amt IVm, Eichmann's section. Eichmann belonged to Amt IV and was the Head of Section IV B 4. This is shown by the organizational plans of the RSHA of 1st January, 1941, and 1st October, 1942, Document L-185 and Document L-219 submitted by the prosecution.
The chain of command for the mass murder of Jews was Hitler, Himmler, Muller and Eichmann. Not one of the witnesses has indicated that Amter III, VI and VII, or any of the local branches of these offices co-operated in the extermination of Jews. In this connection I refer in particular to the testimony of Wisliceny, Page 751 of the record of the Commission, according to which there was no connection between the department of Eichmann and the Amter III, VI and VII, and further, to the record of Dr. Hoffmann (German text of Commission record Page 1793). Hoffmann stated that Amt IV was competent for deportations and that Eichmann was responsible for the final solution of the Jewish question.
In the occupied territories, also, all Jewish affairs were handled by Amt IV, Eichmann Department. The initial IV J on Document RF 1210, submitted by the prosecution shows that a department of Amt IV dealt with the Jewish questions in France. This is confirmed by the testimony of the witness Knochen (Pages 475, 476, 1105, 1113 of the Commission Record), and by the Laube Affidavit SD 54 which I submitted. They show that Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker, who was sent to France by Eichmann, also belonged to Amt IV and received his instructions directly from Eichmann himself. Thus, no connection existed between Amter III and VI and Eichmann's department.
I don't know the reliability of this testimony. But again, reliable sources do claim that Tulard gave his papers to IV-J, and it was my understanding that Eichmann was ultimately in charge. I can try to look the exact page reference of that if you want. So, IV-D is pretty clear, B4 seems to be an error unless it changed as said one user, and IV-J also seems to be correct... Tazmaniacs 18:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
be careful about "primary sources". But it would certainly be interesting seeing them. Tazmaniacs 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The video in this article doesn't seem to work. I tried renaming it to .ogm (.ogg is audio) and it still doesn't work. Is it just me? I tried several media players such as BSPlayer and VLC. -- Ynhockey 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
"In Cairo they met a member of the Haganah but the purpose of the meeting is disputed."
Unless anyone objects, I am going to remove this sentence. I cannot find any dissent as to what happened by reputable people. If you disagree, can you please supply links about this "dispute"? Where 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Reverted [2]-- 68.211.68.10 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a fair amount of literature on this. A source other than Brenner is F. Nicosia, Zionism in National Socialist Jewish Policy in Germany, 1933-1939, Journal of Modern History, vol 50, No. 3 (1978) D1253-D1282. Eichmann&Hagen's report to their superiors still exists; parts can be found translated in Brenner, 51 Documents. According to the report, Polkes told them "The Zionist state must be established by all means and as soon as possible so that it attracts a stream of Jewish emigrants to Palestine. When the Jewish state is established according to the current proposals laid down in the Peel Paper, and in line with England's partial promises, then the borders may be pushed further outwards according to one's wishes." Then later, "Nationalist Jewish circles expressed their great joy over the radical German policy towards the Jews, as this policy would increase the Jewish population in Palestine, so that one can reckon with a Jewish majority in Palestine over the Arabs in the foreseeable future." -- Zero 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The quote: "Long live Germany. Long live Austria. Long live Argentina. These are the countries with which I have been most closely associated and I shall not forget them. I had to obey the rules of war and my flag. I am ready." can be found in Arent, H. 1979. Eichmann in Jerusalem, Penguin. P.252.
I don't think that Eichmann's son deserves mention. -- Zero 13:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In the context - an overview analysis - it's fine. FlaviaR 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The recent edit is correct: his name was Otto Adolf Eichmann. The previous version "Karl Adolf Eichmann" was probably a confusion for his father's name "Adolf Karl Eichmann". His trial report [3] says that this information came from Eichmann himself. However, that leaves us with a problem: why is he here called "Adolf Otto Eichmann"? We know he used "Adolf" as his personal name, but what is the evidence that he actually reversed his name? Most people who go by their middle name don't do that. We need a solid source, not just a web page. -- Zero 10:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The story about Wiesenthal and the postcard isn't quite accurate. Wiesenthal was not who the postcard was written to. A doctor had told him to get a less stressful hobby than chasing Nazis, so he took up stamp collecting. He was shown the postcard about Eichmann by another stamp collector because of its Argentinian stamps. I think the story is in "Eichmann in my Hands" by Peter Z. Malkin. I don't have a copy to refer to but maybe someone who does can edit the article with the details. Phr ( talk) 02:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no mention of the September 21, 1939 reunion in Berlin in which Heydrich, Eichmann, the bureau chiefs of the RSHA and Emanuel Schäfer were present, in which the Nazi decision about what "to do" with the Jews in Poland (see de:Emanuel Schäfer for more details) seems to have been taken. Maybe someone who knows a bit more (or reads German) could introduce this here. Tazmaniacs 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this unsourced story: "Ben-Zvi replied quoting a passage from the Book of Samuel: "As your sword bereaved women, so will your mother be bereaved among women." (Samuel 1:15:33 , Samuel's words to Agag king of the Amalekites)." This sounds as if Ben-Zvi used this quotation in his official reply to Eichmann's appeal for clemency, but in fact Ben-Zvi only gave a formal reply: "The President of the State of Israel has decided not to exercise his pererogative to pardon offenders or reduce sentences in the case of Adolf Eichmann" (NYT, June 1, 1962). The quotation from the Book of Samuel is supposed to have been written by Ben-Zvi on a telegram he received from Eichmann's wife Vera who "begged him to show mercy for the 'mother of four children'" I don't think this anecdote meets the notability criteria. (NYT, June 2, 1962). -- Zero talk 09:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you misread this. The source says that this was a reply Ben Zvi wrote it's of course the best source possible for Ben Zvi therefore WP:RS and very important. You can add that NYT added it's for Vera if it's true, it doesn't diminish the source. The very fact it's mentioned there shows how important it is. It's not an anecdote, it's something that was important to Ben Zvi to write not because Vera btw, it's a metaphorical sense. Amoruso 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this would be article worthy, but I'm curious, in a South Park episode where Eric Cartman is hunting hippies, one of the hippies is always talking about the *big corporations* and saying something about the *little Eichmanns*. Is this a reference to Adolf Eichmann? Or someone else? or am I hearing it incorrectly? Magu 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
That is making fun of comments by Ward Churchill. 69.156.58.123 22:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Jordan
I think this sentence: "Argentina was and is a haven for many former Nazis.", contains speculations that should not be part of a Wikipedia article. Are we certain that there are still some Nazis in Argentina? What is true for the pas might not be true for the present. Unless we have some serious and documented doubts about nazis still living in Argentina, the sentence should be shortened to: "Argentina was a haven for many former Nazis." Hugo Dufort 01:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Why was he, the way he was?
What is that BIG CV doing in the middle of the article? It's making it hard to read the article! -- Lhademmor 16:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Since Israel had not judicially executed anyone before Eichmann, I wonder whether they ever had a trained executioner. This link gives the name of the Yemenite prison guard who opened the trapdoor under Eichmann's feet. But who prepared the scaffold, decided on the length of drop to give, positioned the noose? These are no trivial tasks; any mistake may lead to a disgusting result. I wonder whether Israel received "technical advice" or even "technical assistance" by a friendly government. Of course this is one of the most unimportant details for an article on Eichmann; I know that. -- Kauko56 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The jews who kidnapped him have no arrest powers in Argentina. They are not police or intelligence officers of the Argentine state. They should have acted like decent and civilized people by asking the Argentine government to arrest and extradite Eichmann, not employ mafia tactics and kidnap him. Just because a bunch of arrogant jews think they are above the law and can kidnap people they don't like, doesn't mean that they are right. A kidnap is a kidnap.
Here, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap where the article itself mentions that the capture of eichmann and vanunu are illegal kidnappings. And don't make a fool of yourself accusing me of "anti semitism" because I'm far more semitic than most people you'll ever see.
WTF? Can you try to be coherent, for once? YOu asked for sources to support my arguement, and you got one, on the wikipedia site of all places, now you're saying it doesn't prove anything? What do you want? And no, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. An illegal kidnap is an illegal kidnap. Calling it anything else is white wash.
As depicted and explained above, Eichmann was a nazi war criminal who escaped justice and was a fugitive - it's why he had an alias if you didn't notice. So of course it's a legal capture by any standard, but the word capture doesn't even imply legality while the word kindap implies illegality. See sections above, it was already discussed and decided long time ago. Amoruso 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"Capture" is fine, though a small paragraph about the legal issues could be included. As far as opinion goes on international law, it is practically impossible to find an authority arguing that the capture was legal. Of course it was a violation of the national sovereignty of Argentina and there is no legal principle that overrides that. Israel was perfectly aware of this, and that is why they first claimed that Eichmann came voluntarily and then claimed that the abductors were private citizens and not Israeli agents. The Israeli court did not attempt to argue the capture was legal, and neither did Eichmann's prosecutors. They could not have done so credibly since the relevant principles of international law are very clear and in the meanwhile there had been a Security Council resolution (#4349) confirming that the capture was illegal. What the prosecution and Court argued (paras 40-44 of the judgement) was that the illegality of Eichmann's arrest did not imply that his trial was illegal (called the Ker doctrine after an 1886 case). The several legal scholars I have read agree with that argument. In summary, even though Israel illegally captured him, it could still legally try him. ( Here is an example of a legal paper explaining this. I can give more but they need subscription.) -- Zero talk 13:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me. Is there anything you guys don't find fight over? Wikipedia is not the UN. The world won't stop spinning on its axis, and no countries will be overrun if everyone takes a break for a day. Patstuart talk| edits 06:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"Caputred" is more neutral than "kidnap." I think the fact whether it was right to kidnap him is entirely irrelevant. savidan (talk) (e@) 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Without bluffing that I am well versed in law, International or otherwise, I have to express my opinion that the word "capture" is POV and that the word "abducted" is better suited. The word "abducted" is already being used within this section. Eichmann may have been captured as enemy, but Klement was definitely abducted as an Argentine resident. Moreover, If Eichmann was captured, then why a trial instead of a tribunal? The only way that I can agree with capturing Eichmann, is if he was abducted by Israelis in order to capture an enemy. -- Rkm3612 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I did a quick survey of a large database of law journals (HeinOnLine), searching for articles with phrases like "capture of Eichmann" and "capture of Adolf Eichmann". Here are the results (counts of articles): abduction 56, kidnapping 31, capture 17, seizure 9, arrest 2. There is a clear preference for "abduction". Note that "capture" refers to grabbing hold of someone, but "abduction" in addition refers to carrying him away to another place. That makes "abduction" more accurate. I propose we use it. -- Zero talk 09:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
MiguelJoseErnst, From the article: "At the end of World War II, Eichmann was captured by the US Army, who did not know that this man who presented himself as "Otto Eckmann" was in fact a much bigger catch. Early in 1946, he escaped from US custody and hid in various parts of Germany for a few years. In 1948 he obtained a landing permit for Argentina, but did not use it immediately." There was never any doubt that Eichmann is guilty in the sense that he was a high ranked leading Nazi, the question is guilty of what exactly and what punishment he deserves. Since it already says U.S captured him, this word is fitting and accurate no doubt. The alleged search above by Zero0000 is not known at all for accuracy and is not relevant nor is it convincing (17-56 big deal), it's not a legal issue at all it's the most fitting word in english, and I think everyone has his opinions. This is the word neutral media uses a lot [8] [9] it's the word used in most books [10] and even films [11] and it's already a word used widely in other wiki articles for eichmann [12] . Since capture applies to rules of wikipedia for naming conventions then there's no reason to change it other than pov pushing which I hope nobody is engaging at. Pretty clear it should stay captured IMO. Abduct is clearly pov pushing even if non intentional as its definition is "To seize and detain (a person) unlawfully" [13] it's basically another word for "kidnap" and should not be considered. I don't have any problem with 'Seize' but I don't see what purpose that change will serve. Cheers, Amoruso 00:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I don't have time to log in properly as to the Wiki's protocols but I'll even leave my full name because I have no problem going on record. To be quite honest, I actually don't have a problem with the kidnapping/capture/etc, illegal or otherwise of Eichmann or any of the other other Nazis hiding out in cozy little South American cities in picturesque South American countries as if they were on vacation. I may not agree with everything Israel does as policy is concerned but I also refuse to attempt to use some kind of intellectual prowess to serve as apologists for the likes of Eichmann and others of that ilk. So if it was an illegal kidnapping by legal definition so what? It was also illegal to seize Jewish property but technicalities and policies and measures were put in place by the Nazis to do so anyway. There is a thing as "jailhouse justice" and no amount of semantics or "legalese" can change the history of crimes that were committed and whether you argue the use or mis-use of the term "Nazi" as I've read in some threads or whether or not certain officers were anti-semitic and to what degrees, I laugh out loud about the sheer audacity of those who equivocate to try to find some kind of so-called non-POV middle ground as if they were debating for a high school tournament. I mean there are threads where people are asking others to show proof of whether certain war criminals were anti-semitic!!! Again, LOL because does it really matter whether or not you go on record and say "I hate Jews" if you are actually demonstrating compliance with the Final Solution efforts???!!! That's like a Nazi officer saying, my best friend is a Jew!!! Yes, some of them did have Jewish friends but when Hitler and the regime began to enforce the racial purity policies the course was set no matter what. So it becomes a moot point whether some Nazi kinda liked or didn't mind Jewish people too much. It's a battle of semantics. If the program is put in place, as the Final Solution (forgot the German name for it. I suppose there will be Wiki members trying to deny it as well, or demanding a source!) was to systematically wipe out or destroy a race or ethnic group or just plain folks they were pissed off with, the fact remains that these policies existed and people suffered because of them. So in conclusion, I reiterate, who cares if Eichmann's capture was technically or officially incorrect or can be debated until the cows come home? Let us not forget that Nazi war chests helped to fill the coffers of whatever country they were hiding out in so I'd spend less time worrying about the legality of trespass issues in regard to Nazis being caught.
71.217.22.202
05:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)La-Tonia Denise Willis
PS. (This is my first Wiki post and I'll try to force myself to learn all the textbook rules but it's like those software EULA's
that you skip by and install the software already!!!) Thanks for listening.
Does anyone know the german phrase which means "desk-murder" in English? It's used to describe people who did a "sign on the dotted line" thing that caused a murder. Mike.lifeguard 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I ask because Adolf Eichmann was the name attached to that term when I heard it, and it doesn't appear in the article, nor does it have its own article. Mike.lifeguard 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Bureaucrat. Although we don't tend to add killer to the end. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I just started reading Leon Uris' famous historical novel Exodus and just came across this quote on p. 79, "The name of the great killer of them all came up over and over again: Eichmann, the German Palestinian who spoke fluent Hebrew and was the master of genocide."
Does anyone know where he got this from? All sources on Eichmann that I've seen indicate that he was born and raised in Germany. I know the term Palestinian sometimes refers (historically) to the Jews; was Eichmann part Jewish? It just seems odd that Uris would have gotten this wrong.
MiguelJoseErnst 2 February, 2007
A very similar account of Eichmann’s origins can be found in Frischauer's work Himmler (see Frischauer, W, Himmler, Odhams Press, London, 1953) and is based on the testimony of Dieter Wisliceny, one of Eichmann’s IV-B-4 representatives. Citing Wisliceny, Frischauer refers to Eichmann as a Palestine-born scholar of Jewish history - fluent in Hebrew - and claims that Eichmann made such an impression on Himmler that the latter personally appointed Eichmann to his position in the Gestapo. If we assume that Wisliceny’s testimony can be taken at face value, this would suggest that Eichmann was prone to exaggerating his own status in order to impress his subordinates. Of course, given that what we knew about Eichmann prior to his capture came from sources such as Wisliceny it is not too surprising that authors writing prior to 1960 based their accounts on rumour and hyperbole.
Jstonehouse 10:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That's something that had been bugging me since I came across it in the novel. Many thanks for the explanation.
MiguelJoseErnst 16 February 2007
The main article closes with the following:
"A footnote to Eichmann's SS career focuses on the point as to why he was never promoted to the rank of full SS-Colonel, known as Standartenführer. With Eichmann's record and responsibilities, he would have been a prime candidate for advancement, yet after 1941, his SS record contains no evidence that he was ever even recommended for another promotion. Many have speculated that Ernst Kaltenbrunner may have seen Eichmann as a dangerous man, rising through the SS ranks, and had curbed his SS career to prevent Eichmann from becoming too powerful."
This rather conspiratorial ending ignores the point that, as an enlisted man, Eichmann could never have risen higher than Lt Colonel. Also, the reference to Kaltenbrunner regarding Eichmann as a 'dangerous man' is pure speculation, and not one of the 'many' who allegedly support this view is cited in support of this allegation. The subtext of this ending suggests that Eichmann was an intimidating figure of major importance and reinforces his almost mythological status. Unfortunately, the mythology is not supported by the evidence, which tells us that Eichmann was a rather weak-willed academic failure who would have lived out his life as a salesman were it not for the emergence of a crackpot organisation such as the SS.
Jstonehouse 11:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
While I am a firm believer of punishing people who are "found guilty beyond any questionable reason" to the fullest extent of the law, and while I think Eichmann got what he deserved in the end (MY SUBJECTIVE opinion), something about this has made me wonder, though: Eichmann's defence of saying he just followed orders. Let's take me as the defendant. Let's further assume I am in the US Military. And, finally (this may be critical, but I don't know) let's assume that we are in a state of war. If a senior officer tells me to kill someone, what am I supposed to do? Disobeying will certainly get me court-marshalled and maybe even executed quickly, especially in the context of war. But if I obeyed the order, if I "just followed orders", would the US "protect" me afterwards? I think they would. If I were a US soldier, I probably would come out of this a hero... . Food for thought.
Can someone please make the names consistent of both Eichmann and his father? Eichmann himself is named Otto Adolf in the article, but Karl Adolf in the picture. His father's name has been changed from Adolf Karl to Karl Adolf, and I don't know right from wrong anymore. Er rab ee 15:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
His placement in the organizational chart of the RSHA was so far down the chain of command, how is he consideredto have had any real weight. Several people higher up in the chart were never bothered - some were later in German government positions after the war. Other than a couple of not too reliable witnesses is there any reason to reach down into a organizational chart an pick this guy - a mid-level flnky at most. 159.105.80.141 15:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
In the paragraph "Capture", the word prominent in "dedicated themselves to finding Eichmann and other prominent Nazis" seems of complimentary sense, so changed to "notorious". ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子 ^.^tell me... 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, the word high-ranking in "a high-ranking Nazi and SS Obersturmbannführer (equivalent to Lieutenant Colonel)" is not very exact, because SS Obersturmbannführer (equivalent to Lieutenant Colonel) isn't a high rank, however the position, Eichmann occupied, is the one of huge executive power. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子 ^.^tell me... 23:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
For some time the Israeli government denied involvement in Eichmann's capture, claiming that he had been taken by Jewish volunteers who eagerly turned him over to government authorities. This claim was made due to the influence of anti-Semitic sectors in the Argentinian government and military.
This sentence is quite preposterous. Anti-semitic government or not, if there was any reason for Israel to withhold its involvement in Eichmman's capture, it was the way in which the operation gave away with every international law possible. Even if Eichmann himself was the president of Argentina, his removal required a minimum of diplomatic work which was obviously ignored. By accepting that they had entered Argentinian territory with the intention of breaking the law, however favor they were doing to humanity, would have caused an international impasse that happened anyway, because nobody believed the volunteers story at the time.
The way the story is written, justify any future actions, by any country, to enter illegally into another to exercise justice without asking local authorities first. Imagine this, Spain sending agents to the US to kidnap Henry Kissinger for his involvement in Plan Condor. Not quite same case, but justified according to the views expressed in this article.
The 4th paragraph of chapter seems to be untrue: it doesn't fit in with the rest of the section and has what i believe to be inconsistencies within itself. Also it has no citations which may be further indication that it is untrue.
The capture section does have inconsistencies. Please refrence where Eichmann was supposedly asked for a cigarettes. I remember Maljin said "un moment senior" before he wrestled him in to the car (note Eichmann was not knocked out as mentioned in the article). This according Harel, I: "The House on Garibaldi Street", Viking Press, 1975
I think someone should change the article and incorporate the above facts. aliasfoxtrot 24:57, 23 November 2007
I just want to say that Eichman was not born in Germany becouse sach a state didn't existe in 1906. I've changed the flag icon and the name of the place of birth to Prussia but someone didn't like it and changed it. I protest against writing such a rubbish. Someone uncompetent did it, i think.
in "Eichmann analysis" section it says his son Rudolph condemned his fathers actions. but in his children section there is no Rudolph. (00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC))
I am not sure this paragraph belongs to the article. I am not sure why a particular country is singled out for not having NAZI hunting policy at that time. Why is not this paragraph titled BND inaction, for example?
I chose not to delete it myself, because A) I am anonymous, B) It is not inaccurate.
I just think it is not right to single out just one particular country for not trying to capture him. Especially, I am not sure, whether US law could claim a jurisdiction over him. This paragraph sounds to me like an antiamericanism. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.176.184.9 (
talk)
11:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
eichmann was kidnapped and the act was condemed. the crimes, even if true, were not crimes under the german government. the trial of eichmann was not a trial at all. how could a man accused of such a thing get a fair trial in a place like israel? this whole thing just proves that the zionists (and i am not indicting the entire jewish world population) can do whatever they want with impunity. and they can do what they want because if you critisize them for it you are called a nazi. i saw a documentary on eichmann the other night and nowhere did they show photos or film footage of the gas chambers in action. no photos of otherwise healthy bodies. nothing but photos of the poor souls who died from the typhus epedemic that nobody can dispute occurred. but this man was hanged with no physical evidence of him ever murdering anyone. i hope the zionists sleep well at night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.61.254 ( talk) 03:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Which photo is better for the lead:
Which photo is better for the lead: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)
— criterion #1 for acceptable use of unfree media, WP:NFC
Does the Library of Congress have a PD photo of Eichmann? If not, it seems to me that neither of the other images is free and that the casual picture is of higher quality. I am not sure which you would prefer to use, but either can be claimed as fair use for a dead person. What specific issue are you debating? Are you trying to use both photos? Trying to justify Fair use of either? I am a bit lost in the debate.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Eichmann.jpg is, by all appearances, a public domain image of the subject, while Image:Eichmann 001.jpg is a fair use image, for which the rationale does not specify this article or the image's purpose in this article. Previously, an image was used in the infobox to identify the subject. The argument here is which image should be used for that purpose, and I have seen nothing that would show that the non-free image serves a purpose that the free image does not, which means that we have to use the free image. The same goes for using both; if the non-free image just identifies the subject, then we can't use it under fair use because that purpose is already served by an existing free image (replaceability). The quality does not enter into the equation. Whatever the concerns about using the non-free image, there is no argument or evidence to indicate that we cannot use the free image. As a result, I'm re-adding that image to the article, since there needs to be something there. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to come in on this issue. Ok, I did some searching and I do not know how NARA was able to give that digital photograph. I could not find much about Eichmann online from government sources, except for his trial in Israel. However, NARA documents are public domain by virtue of this note. If the photo was copyrighted, they would have made a note of it or not. However, I do not know if they conveyed this to the university or not, or the university is evoking fair use. However, according to Wikipedia:PD#German_World_War_II_images, we cannot tag either image as public domain, so we have to fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a decent photo from the library of Congress. Grandia01 has claimed the one currently displayed is public domain, though his talkpage is littered with deleted image tags, so I'm not sure how much I trust that. His image is preferable, but we need to be certain it's usable. AniMate 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There is an obvious missing paragraph stating that the trial was illegal and that the Israelians that judged him and killed him went impune for their crimes. Please, we know that he was a monster, but it is a fact that the trial was illegal, and there is nothing wrong with saying the truth. See Bush, he's still alive :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.5.94 ( talk) 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In the section on Eichmann's capture, I've changed "After surveilling Eichmann for an extensive period of time" to "After observing Eichmann for an extensive period of time"; the Online Etymology Dictionary describes this usage as "a hideous back-formation [...] coined in 1960 in US government jargon" and adds an exhortation to "Pray that it dies" [17]. Opera hat ( talk) 08:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Correspondence the Blind man Lothar Hermann S W Multimedia Learning Center
Special Collection 8 Die Ergreifung Eichmanns Doc.32-33 Lothar Hermann attacks Israel Letter dat.2.6.1971
Gurion Mossad attacks Tuviah Friedman ( Wikipedia )
Isser Harel attacks Tuviah Friedman by DREW PEARSON 1961 Juni Washington
Mossad work BND - CIA 1955
Artur Asher Ben Natan ( Israel ) help -- Nazi Killer SS Walter Rauff
David Ben Gurion - Kollaborateur Nazi
Story Tuviah Friedman absolutely correct
Germany Fritz Bauer 24.12.1959 said Eichmann KUWAIT Pressarchiv
__-- The Blind Man Lothar Hermann geb.11.11.1901 report 1957 Eichmann alias Francisco Schmidt
Wiesenthal - Mafia Organisation Gangster ( Bruno Kreisky Gentleman ) H.Sch... Germany
"When Eichmann reached in his pocket he was set upon by the two by the car."
I had to read this 3 times to figure out what it meant.
66.234.43.147 (
talk)
23:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
As silly as this might sound, I've just watched the movie Eichmann and in it he had an affair with a Hungarian baroness who was portrayed as a blood-thirsty psychopath who encouraged him to kill more people. Did this person exist in real life? I cannot see any mention of her in this article. Captain Fearnought ( talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Woudnt kidnapped be a better word than captured? Captured implies that it was a legal act.
doris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr doris ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit that kidnapping (that one person takes and carries another away; by force or fraud; without the consent of the person taken; and without lawful excuse) would apply here. I recently tried to change this word but was reverted under the reason (This has been discussed; apprehend is the neutral term). 1- The only 'discussion' that I see here is the previous statement and I don't see any argument explaining why 'apprehended' would be representative here. Futhermore, all examples of apprehension/arrest in both Wikipedia itself and any dictionary that I could put my hand on imply quite clearly that an 'apprehension/arrest' is done under legal authority. Even a 'wrong' apprehension is called 'unlawful arrest' because it was done by peoples who legally represented the law, even if the event itself was done in violation is other rules/laws. Therefore I will make the change from 'apprehended' to 'kidnapped'. Please do not revert it back without explaining why. If worst come to worst we could instead switch it to 'captured' like how this even is described in the 'Mossad' article but it would need instead to be 'illegaly captured'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.158.243 ( talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)