This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure the article title is quite correct for the subject covered. General corruption in Wehrmacht should cover a much wider field than is the subject of this article which exclusively focuses on the top ranking Generals. Corruption of high-ranking Wehrmacht officers might be more fitting. On another note, the subject was covered in 1999 by G. R. Ueberschär's book Dienen und Verdienen [1] which states that the money spend annually by Hitler on his Generals went from RM 150,000 in 1933 to 3 million in 1935 and 45 million by 1945. I don't have access to the book but the review (in German) goes into some interesting detail. Calistemon ( talk) 00:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
References
To follow-up on the above discussion, the other type of corruption would be at the lower echelons such as personal enrichment of Wehrmacht personnel by looting and appropriating property in the occupied territory, especially of that belonging to the Jewish population. See for example, Marching into Darkness. It discusses instances of corruption within the 707th Infantry Division. I could create a section that addresses this aspect of corruption, and expand the lead appropriately.
Here's the full text of the dissertation that the above book is based on. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus for the proposed move. Feel free to propose an alternative though and see how that goes. — Amakuru ( talk) 20:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Corruption within the Wehrmacht →
Corruption among senior Wehrmacht officers – The current article title insufficiently reflects the true nature of the article. As stated in the discussions above this entry corruption within the Wehrmacht was far further spread than just to the upper echelons of the Wehrmacht. The current subject of the article exclusively deals with, I quote the intro, "Corruption within the Wehrmacht refers to the dishonest and fraudulent conduct of high-ranking officers of the Armed Forces of Nazi Germany to enrich themselves through bribes from the regime." The article title should reflect the specific nature of the subject.
Calistemon (
talk)
07:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Created by K.e.coffman ( talk). Nominated by Calistemon ( talk) at 09:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC).
The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 18:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Corruption within the Wehrmacht →
Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers – Renaming to narrow the scope of the article, to focus on the bribery scheme currently discussed in the article.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
04:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This whole article is bunch of nonesense. Yes...we got message...you hate fasist. And now please can you rewrite whole article and make it look as encyclopedia article and not like some antinazi propaganda pamflet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.127.88 ( talk) 13:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean to be critical but I have to agree that this really is a poor and very biased article. The sources cited, describing the "widespread" corruption at lower levels are unavailable or apocryphal. Further, the distribution of property from a head of state to generals is never otherwise regarded as "bribery"; even when it is unfortunately taken from legitimate owners. When history is distorted to accommodate biases it's not the intended, however deserving, that suffer-it's scholarship and the integrity/credibility of the writer. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Truthishope (
talk •
contribs)
06:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
"The illicit nature of the payments" is contradicted by "not technically illegal". Worse, to me, is the fact that we have a very good source (Gambetta) arguing that "bribery" is not the right word for any of this. Srnec ( talk) 13:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure the article title is quite correct for the subject covered. General corruption in Wehrmacht should cover a much wider field than is the subject of this article which exclusively focuses on the top ranking Generals. Corruption of high-ranking Wehrmacht officers might be more fitting. On another note, the subject was covered in 1999 by G. R. Ueberschär's book Dienen und Verdienen [1] which states that the money spend annually by Hitler on his Generals went from RM 150,000 in 1933 to 3 million in 1935 and 45 million by 1945. I don't have access to the book but the review (in German) goes into some interesting detail. Calistemon ( talk) 00:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
References
To follow-up on the above discussion, the other type of corruption would be at the lower echelons such as personal enrichment of Wehrmacht personnel by looting and appropriating property in the occupied territory, especially of that belonging to the Jewish population. See for example, Marching into Darkness. It discusses instances of corruption within the 707th Infantry Division. I could create a section that addresses this aspect of corruption, and expand the lead appropriately.
Here's the full text of the dissertation that the above book is based on. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus for the proposed move. Feel free to propose an alternative though and see how that goes. — Amakuru ( talk) 20:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Corruption within the Wehrmacht →
Corruption among senior Wehrmacht officers – The current article title insufficiently reflects the true nature of the article. As stated in the discussions above this entry corruption within the Wehrmacht was far further spread than just to the upper echelons of the Wehrmacht. The current subject of the article exclusively deals with, I quote the intro, "Corruption within the Wehrmacht refers to the dishonest and fraudulent conduct of high-ranking officers of the Armed Forces of Nazi Germany to enrich themselves through bribes from the regime." The article title should reflect the specific nature of the subject.
Calistemon (
talk)
07:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Created by K.e.coffman ( talk). Nominated by Calistemon ( talk) at 09:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC).
The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 18:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Corruption within the Wehrmacht →
Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers – Renaming to narrow the scope of the article, to focus on the bribery scheme currently discussed in the article.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
04:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This whole article is bunch of nonesense. Yes...we got message...you hate fasist. And now please can you rewrite whole article and make it look as encyclopedia article and not like some antinazi propaganda pamflet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.127.88 ( talk) 13:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean to be critical but I have to agree that this really is a poor and very biased article. The sources cited, describing the "widespread" corruption at lower levels are unavailable or apocryphal. Further, the distribution of property from a head of state to generals is never otherwise regarded as "bribery"; even when it is unfortunately taken from legitimate owners. When history is distorted to accommodate biases it's not the intended, however deserving, that suffer-it's scholarship and the integrity/credibility of the writer. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Truthishope (
talk •
contribs)
06:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
"The illicit nature of the payments" is contradicted by "not technically illegal". Worse, to me, is the fact that we have a very good source (Gambetta) arguing that "bribery" is not the right word for any of this. Srnec ( talk) 13:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)