Talk:Night of the Long Knives/Archive 2

Opening paragraph

I have some problems with this sentence in the opening paragraph:

The purge primarily targeted SA leaders and members who were associated more with socialism than with nationalism, and hence were viewed as a threat to the continued support for Hitler within the army and conservative business community that had supported Hitler's rise to power. During this event, however, the Gestapo also targeted conservative rivals and elements within and outside the regime.

First, while many SA by 1934 were angry that the Nazi regime did not do more to put socialism into practice, it is wrong to say that some SA "were associated more with socialism than nationalism," as the above writer states. They were all ferocious German nationalists. To say that some "were associated more with socialism than nationalism" draws a false dichotomy between the two. Second, while many in the army supported Hitler's rise to power, it is wrong to say that "the army...supported Hitler's rise to power." It's just too simplistic to put it that way. The army and its leaders despised and feared communism. They were sympathetic to conservative parties in general. But many in the old Prussian elite looked at Nazism with distaste, and only supported it in end, as Hindenburg did, as a way of combating the communist menace. Third, I don't agree with "During this event, however, the Gestapo also targeted conservative rivals and elements within and outside the regime." The Gestapo was the instrument of Hitler, Goring, Himmler, and the rest. The above sentence may give the impression that the Gestapo worked independently of orders from Hitler or other high-ranking Nazis working at the direction of Hitler. Hitler ordered the purge, Hitler targeted specific individuals during the purge. Even if not every murder can be directly traced back to Hitler, the purge only targeted those who were seen as having opposed, or actively opposing Hitler.--Mcattell 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This sentence: "In contrast to other purges, the Night of the Long Knives did not focus on suppressing the Communists or Social Democrats, the Nazis' primary foes from the left" is redundant and shouldn't be used in the opening, since the opening paragraph states it in more general terms.

"Chancellor" Adolf Hitler.

"Chancellor Adolf Hitler" This titel is uncommon.

Hitler was still merely a Chancellor until Hindenburg's death on 2 August 1934, when subsequently Hitler merged the offices of Chancellor and President; simply referring to the combined office as the "Führer" (or Fuehrer). Rchan89 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, as the article should make clear, Hitler was still "chancellor" at the time of The Night of the Long Knives.--Mcattell 17:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I have removed this section, as it is adequatey covered in the disambiguation page. The two artist albums have little in common with the actual events discussed in the article. If anybody object, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Kareeser|^Talk! 06:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

i think that histiry is very useful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.110.99.130 (talk • contribs) .

I removed the asinine section again. I realize fan-cruft accumulates on Wikipedia, but it is completely inappropriate for this article. –Joke 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also there shouldn't be any references to Star Wars or massacres of Jedi Knights in the article.--Mcattell 18:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What about "On the Last Day of June, 1934" by Al Stewart from the Album "Past, Present, and Future" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.196.188.18 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Repetition

Several of the paragraphs are paraphrases of each other. for example:

Hitler dominated Germany's government by 1934 but still feared losing power in a coup d'état. To maintain complete control, he allowed political infighting to continue among his subordinates. As a result, a political struggle grew, with Hermann Göring, Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, and Reinhard Heydrich on one side and Ernst Röhm, the leader of the SA, on the other. The German Army and the SA were the only contenders to threaten Hitler's power.

By 1934 Adolf Hitler appeared to have complete control over Germany, but like most dictators, he constantly feared that he might be ousted by others who wanted his power. To protect himself from a possible coup, Hitler used the tactic of divide and rule and encouraged other leaders such as Hermann Goering, Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler and Ernst Roehm to compete with each other for senior positions.

David Cheater 00:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay vs. homosexual as adjective

Under Background, fourth paragraph, sentence two:

However, Röhm was a gay man which did not help his political situation; he was one of the first members of the Nazi Party and had participated in the Beer Hall Putsch.

Could this be replaced with:

However, Röhm was a homosexual man--which did not help his political situation--and was one of the first members of the Nazi Party who had participated in the Beer Hall Putsch.

Ajl772 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be switching between "gay", "homosexual", and "lesbian".

Fifth paragraph, last sentences:

Men, in particularly, who were identified as gay were forced to wear a pink triagle. Lesbians more often detected attention but when found out they too faced some of the same treatment as gay men. Despite the fall of Nazi Germany; paragraph 175 remained part of German Law until the 1960s when this law was deleted and it again became legal to be a gay person as well as under the European Common Market rules marry with full benefits. It has been estimated that as many as 700,000 gay men and women were sent to Concentration Camps--most of which were murdered there.

Ajl772 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As to the blockquote directly above, I do not see what the problem is. Gay is a term that includes both gay men and lesbians, as it is being used there: "a gay person". It should, of course, be made clear when it's not obvious whether a passage refers to "gay people" in general or "gay men" specifically. As to the first question, to use "gay" or "homosexual", I think we should err toward "gay". "Homosexual" is primarily a clinical term not widely used today. — coelacan talk — 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; "gay" is generelly preferred in US English short of the most clinical and formal contexts. I don't think the meaning would be clarified or the article is improved by using that type of language in these particular sentences. It's factual, it uses clear wording that most people will understand, and I don't see a problem. --Dhartung | Talk 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree: The term "gay" in its present sense did not exist at the time, and Rohm would have hardly described himself as a gay man. I think we should follow the lead of professional historians on this one--I cannot find any serious work on Nazism or German history that describes Rohm as "gay." I think that if you describe Rohm as a "gay man" you risk projecting the current debate about sexuality into this article, where it doesn't belong. Either way, it shoud be one or the other. Also the text, and other articles that refer to Rohm, says that Rohm was "rumored" to be a homosexual, when Rohm's homosexuality is well documented.--Mcattell 16:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In today's usage I clearly have no problem with usage of either "gay" or "homosexual". But in the 1930s the term "gay" would not have been understood to mean homosexual, and I feel it is nore in keeping with the article to use contemporary terminology. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Retroactively applying contemporary terminology is nonsensical. See the Alan Turing (or even Leonardo da Vinci) articles for precedents. Or indeed, what about the Gay Nineties? Davidelit 18:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Germany is not an English speaking country. Gays have never been called gay in Germany and are still not called gay in Germany. Therefore the discussion is moot. The German word for gay is schwul and it is used with that meaning since about 250 years. It had a derogatory meaning until the 1960s/1970s when gay people started to use it for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.61.72 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reichsmordwoche

I have to say that in Germany nobody knows anything about "Nacht der langen Messer" or "Reichsmordwoche" its called only "(Ernst) Röhm Putsch". (Okay) After a quick search I found "Nacht der langen Messer" but "Reichsmordwoche" exist definitly not in the german language. So, please call it also Röhm Putsch and no longer "Reichsmordwoche"

I'm not sure that Reichsmordwoche should be translated as "Imperial Week of Murder." Reich can also mean realm, or more colloquially the German state itself. It appears that the translation was added by an anonymous user [1], and it really feels like the work of Google and whatnot. It was originally added by WHEELER back in 2004 [2]; I'd ask him for a source but I think that he has left the project. I'm loath to translate it at all–German compound nouns really lose something auf Englisch. I'm removing the translation for the moment. Ideas? Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with removing it for now. I think we should find an authoritative source such as William L. Shirer who wrote about it at the time and can give a contemporary translation. Guessing is just wrong. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not the job of the English-speaking Wikipedia to coin German words for an event in Germany.

I would agree with above unsigned user. "Reichsmordwoche" is not a word in the German language.--Mcattell 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The name "Nacht der langen Messer" is well known in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.61.72 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

German-language titles of rank in the article

A rank name originally in a language other than English should be adapted by translating common terms and transliterating the remainder of the name.--Mcattell 19:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In introducing a number of senior Nazis, a learned Wikipedian wrote:

...a political struggle grew, with Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, and RSHA Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich on one side and SA head Ernst Röhm on the other.

Clearly the author of this sentence is very familiar with German-language titles of rank in Nazi Germany. Nonetheless, this article (in English Wikipedia) is designed for a readership of English-speaking laypersons. To include titles such as "RSHA Obergruppenführer" makes it hard to understand the sentence and exactly who these people were. Telling the reader that Heydrich was Himmler's deputy in the SS is more concise and easier to understand than saying he is a "RSHA Obergruppenführer." Also, including the formal titles makes the sentence unwieldy and hard to understand.

Again, I appreciate the writer's efforts, but for the above reasons I suggest the historical persons above be described in more clearly in English.--Mcattell 00:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Hermann Göring not a reichsmarschall at the time of this event; instead he was Minister-President of Prussia.--Mcattell 16:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct translation in English of Ministerpräsident is Prime Minister or Premier (First Minister could possibly be an even better translation, if the readership were purely British). The term Governor as used here to describe Göring's position as head of the Prussian Government is incorrect - I suspect arising from a false analogy to the US federal system. I will change the text accordingly. 62.156.255.22 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this .. titles should only be used when necessary.. but.. its sometimes very difficult to talk about these people without talking about their titles. And as 62.156.255.22 pointed out in the above edit, there can be false analogies if english translations are used. Nazi titles & ranks came out of their government system which is unlike the system an english speaking lay person would be familiar with. IE, 'Obergruppenfuhrer' was a rank in the SS, but english laypeople have no SS, so, although you can translate it to 'upper group leader', that really doesnt tell you anything more than 'obergruppenfuhrer' does. Since (almost) nobody who researches this stuff calls it 'upper group leader', we might as well all settle on calling it 'obergruppenfuhrer' and then just go read the article on 'obergruppenfuhrer' to understand what it means. IMHO. Decora (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As for 'RSHA obergruppenfuhrer', i think that might be a totally wrong and nonsensical phrase. RSHA was a bureaucratic organization... Obergruppenfuhrer was a rank in the SS or SA. some expert needs to clean that stuff up. Decora (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Excusing Hitler

I've been intently working on the article Night of the Long Knives, and some of its ancillary articles. As I initially found them, these articles seemed to share a common myth: that Hitler was hoodwinked by others in the party, including Göring, Himmler, and Heydrich, into believing that Röhm was planning a putsch against him, and that Hitler only very reluctantly ordered Röhm's arrest and death.

This is most emphatically not the case. Hitler was an shrewd political operator. He gained control of the movement, kept control of it during his time in prison, and used it to seize absolute power in Germany by remorselessly calculating the usefulness of his subordinates, and had no compunction about eliminating them if they had become a hindrance to him.

This is precisely what he did in ordering the purge that became known as the Night of the Long Knives. Röhm and the SA were very useful to Hitler during the years of his ascent because they could be counted on to terrorize political opponents. Because of that, Hitler tolerated the notorious reputation of the SA and its leadership for drinking and brawling. He also therefore tolerated Röhm's homosexuality.

One Hitler had seized power, however, there was no longer a need for a private militia that could smash up political meetings. He now had the full apparatus of the modern state, including the police forces, jails, and concentration camps to take care of that.

Röhm and the SA had outlived their usefulness to Hitler. That alone might not have resulted in a purge. However, Röhm's politics and especially his insistence that the SA supplant the Reichswehr was direct threat to the traditional army, including Hindenburg. By 1934, Blomberg, Hindenburg, and the rest of the army leadership made it clear to Hitler that if Röhm and the SA were not immediately brought to heel, they would declare martial law.

Once Hitler knew he had to act, he did so relentlessly. Either Hitler ordered Himmler and the rest to fabricate evidence implicating that Röhm was involved in a plot, so that he could later show this "evidence" to a grateful natio, or he knew the evidence was fake. It is very similar to Hitler's modus operandi when he fabricated evidence of a Polish raid on Germany, in order to create a pretext for the invasion of Poland.

Every serious history of the era, by reputable historians, agree on this: Hitler wanted Röhm eliminated because he was a threat to the army and, to a lesser extent, the Nazi's principle supporters among the wealthy and the middle classes. Hitler did not reluctantly order the purge because other Nazis had fooled him. Let's get our facts straight. --Mcattell 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not forget to cite reputable sources for the different theories. I personally think that it is important to remember that people can sincerely come to believe in things that suit them well. Andries 02:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is excellent; consider adding (with modifications) to the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.51 (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is quite clear that Hitler hesitated to act against Roehm. This is really typical of Hitler. The threat that Hindenburg would impose martial law, taking power away from the NSDAP, forced Hitler to act. After the deed was done, Hindenburg said, It's high time. Although you might like to make Hitler the unique devil behind everything that happened in Germany from 1933 to 1945, the fact is that other people were even more eager that something be done about Roehm, and they put pressure on Hitler to do it.

 HaddingtheGreat (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, Hitler was under extreme pressure from America (per Ambassador Dodd's diary) to stop the SA from beating and killing foreigners who did not salute the Nazi parades. The "Jewish Question" was also a problem and Germany was being boycotted. Also, von Papen's speech on June 17th (Marburg Speech) made Dodd think there was about to be a second revolution for the overthrow of Hitler. 68.80.249.86 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Quba Osman

Peer review of article 07/14/07

It is not agreed who initiated the purge. According to the testimony of Wilhelm Frick at Nuremburg (and his memory was wretched by then) it was Himmler who persuaded Hitler that Rohm was planning a putsch, and Himmler who enlisted Goering. Both had much to gain by the downfall of Rohm - the independence of the SS for Himmler, and the hoped for (but not attained) command-in-chief of the Reich armed forces for Goering.

I think that both Himmler and Goering took active roles in initiating the purge. However, in The Third Reich in Power, Evans writes that after being confronted by Blomberg at Neudeck, "Hitler had no option but to act. He began planning Röhm's overthrow." (p. 30) It appears that Himmler and Goering had been waiting for this moment, but the latest evidence indicates that Hitler's role was primary. I've still edited the language a bit, however.--Mcattell 16:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Added text, "Both [Goering and Himmler] had much to gain by the downfall of Rohm - the independence of the SS for Himmler, and the hoped for (but not attained) command-in-chief of the Reich armed forces for Goering."--Mcattell 17:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hitler left Berlin on June 28th to attend the wedding of Gauleiter Terboven. It could be inferred that he did not at that time feel that his position was threatened.

Added text.--Mcattell 17:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The casualty list; Hitler claimed in his speech in the Reichstag on July 13th that 61 had been shot, 13 died resisting arrest and 3 committed suicide. The White Book of the Purge, published by emigrés in Paris claims 401 deaths, but lists only 116 of them. At the 1957 trial in Munich the figure "more than 1000" was used.

I used the text "no fewer than eighty-five" deaths, but said that the toll could have risen into the hundreds. I think that the Paris emigrés list 401 deaths, but list only 116 is telling—surely they had a motive for inflating the death count, which is why I am sticking with the conservative but verifiable estimates.--Mcattell 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Gustav von Kahr, according to the records, did not die in "a hail of bullets", which in any case sounds a bit too much like a John Wayne movie. His body was found in a wood outside Munich; he had been hacked to death, it appeared by pickaxes.

Modified text for accuracy.--Mcattell 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to claim that Rohm lobbied Hitler to be appointed Minister of Defence, you need to provide sources. That he wanted to be appointed as Commander-in-Chief of a National Army derived from the Sturmabteilung is recognised, but the two posts were not at that time held by the same person.

I cite Evans on page 24, "...Rohm's real ambition...was to occupy the Ministry of Defence, held at the time by the army's representative General Werner von Blomberg."--Mcattell 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find sources linking Heydrich to action in the Purge, although I cannot refute it either. Heydrich only became prominent after April 20th, 1934, when Himmler was appointed as head of the Prussian Poitical Police, or Gestapo. Heydrich was at this time head of the SD.

Again I cite Evans on page 30, "The political police, in collaboration with Himmler and his deputy Reinhard Heydrich, head of the SS Security Service, began to manufacture evidence that Rohm and his stormtroopers were planning a nationwide uprising."--Mcattell 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Alfried Krupp died in 1887, and I assume that his inclusion in the article is a simple linkage error.

You're right, I changed the text.--Mcattell 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

At the meeting between Hitler and Hindenburg at Neudeck on 21st June 1934, Blomberg is recorded as playing a more central role than you state, in that he is reported to have shed his rather servile rôle and to have upbraided Hitler for his failure to curb the SA, in line with the Deutschland agreement.

Agreed. Text expanded.--Mcattell 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The insignia tearing-off episode occurred after the SA leaders had been arrested, and happened only to Obergruppenfuhrer Schneidhuber, a former army colonel and at the time chief of the Munich Police.

I have Evans on page 31 writing that Hitler confronted SA leaders at the Bavarian Interior Ministry, before arriving at the hotel, and tearing "off their epaulettes with his bare hands." Perhaps it happened more than once that day.--Mcattell 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You do not mention, but could, that Edmund Heines and his sexual partner were immediately shot in the Hotel grounds on the personal order of Hitler.

A purely personal opinion; I think that the phrase "gunned down" is a little over-dramatic; I would have used either "executed" or the more prosaic "shot".

You're right, I changed the text.--Mcattell 20:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be mentioned in the text, although it is in the victim list, that von Papen's associates who were killed wer Herbert von Bose, Edgar Jung, and Erich Klausener, the leader of Catholic Action. Papen was still Vice-Chancellor, and to have three of his confidantes, including his secretary killed seems significant.

Added paragraph about Papen, Jung, and Klausener.

Lippert, one of the executioners of Rohm, was tried for this crime in Munich in 1957.

Rohm's last words might add colour to the article. They were "If I am to be killed, let Adolf do it himself".

Ann additional victim; Willi Schmid was the music critic of the Meunchener Neuste Nachrichten a Munich newspaper, as was killed by the Munich SS. He was mistaken for Willi Schmidt, an SA leader who was also killed.

Added text, but Evans has real target listed as one Ludwig Schmitt, a past supporter of Otto Strasser, the brother of Gregor.[33].--Mcattell 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Scholarship of Richard J. Evans

In expanding the article I've relied on Richard J. Evans' The Third Reich in Power, recently published in 2005, which the Atlantic Monthly called a "wonder of synthesis and acute judgment...the definitive study for at least a generation." The New York Times Book Review said "Evans has done a great service simply in digesting the mountain of recent scholarship on the Nazis...," and The Boston Globe calls the book "a work drawn from from a mountain of scholarship..." The citations Evans uses are primarily original sources in German, and includes much recent scholarship that earlier writers did not have access to.

This of course does not mean that the article could not benefit from other sources. However, when there is a conflict between sources (although these are few), I've tended to defer to Evans.--Mcattell 16:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say here is that some sources are much better than others. The best sources in English language for this event are those by historians Richard J. Evans, Ian Kershaw, and Alan Bullock. Most web pages on this subject are shot through with errors.--Mcattell 16:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Already struck me as a well-researched book. I have the book at home. Andries 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Joachim C. Fest is also excellent.--Mcattell 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments 07/15/07

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

However, please provide the fair use rationale for the poster image as soon as practicable. Thanks. The Rambling Man 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help The Rambling Man. I added a fair use rationale to the SA poster that didn't have one before.--Mcattell 19:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks okay to me, thanks. The Rambling Man 19:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives Peer Review July 2007

This article deals with a pivotal event in Nazi Germany, and therefore modern history. I have added 30 citations from some of the standard works on Nazi Germany, uploaded four pictures from the public domain, and added content necessary to explain the event accurately.

I think that this article now meets featured article status, but would like to have your suggestions before it is nominated for featured article status. I am using University of Chicago Manual of Style citation- and reference-style.

Any article dealing with Hitler invites controversy, so I have tried my best to adhere to NPOV and keep the article accurate.

Thanks.--Mcattell 01:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by User:BirgitteSB

• Lead: Doesn't properly summarize the entire article. Nothing from Aftermath.

Expanded the lead paragraphs. Done

• • The name "Night of the Long Knives" is a reference to the massacre of Vortigern's men by Angle, Jute, and Saxon mercenaries in Arthurian myth I am left wondering how it came to be called "The Night of the Long Knives". The planners called it "Hummingbird" but who started using this name and when? With the British allusion I imagine it is an English name, but it it would be good to explain this. Done

The phrase "night of the long knives" predates the purge itself. It was simply a phrase in German that refers to "revenge" or maybe even "payback." I can't seem to find a reference that definitively states who came up with the code name "Hummingbird."--Mcattell 23:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hitler and the Sturmabteilung (SA): What exactly is the Strumabteilung? It is not a politcal party nor part of the army, but I can't fathom exaclty what is meant by "paramilitary orginazation". This probably can be fixed by giving a little of it's history. How long has it been around, who started it, why did they start it, and how have the goals changed over time. Maybe there needs to be a section before this one called "Background of the Strumabteilung (SA)" made from some of this section plus new material. Done

To some extent, those who want further information on the SA are going to have to click the wikilink for SA. Too much background, and the article becomes a general history of the rise of Nazism. However, I have given it more context.--Mcattell 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Röhm's "continuing revolution": I don't know if that is the best title; the sectin is as much about the army as Rohm. Maybe "The Reichswehr and the Sturmabteilung (SA)" to follow the format from the last section. Done

Section is now "Conflict between the army and the SA."--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • In response, Hitler met with Blomberg and the leadership of the SA and SS on February 28, 1934. This is the first mention of the SS since the "Lead". How exactly does the SS fit in with the army and the SA? I am not sure of their affliation at this point, although I think they are condisdered part of the army during WWII.
  • Crisis mounts: Again I am not a big fan of this title. It again seems a bit sensationalist to me. Maybe something like "Pressure against the Sturmabteilung (SA)". The section seems to focused alot on all the pressure from different groups to act against the SA.

part of the army during WWII. Done  Done**By the spring of 1934, it was clear that Röhm's vision of a new Germany was incompatible with Hitler's plan to consolidate power and expand the army. Clear to whom? If it is clear to Hitler why does he need to recieve such pressure. Why does Hitler not move against the SA until he is threatened by Hindenburg? Why does Rohm feel so confident that he would give Bloomberg the memo? I think something is missing here about either Hitler or Rohm that would explain these things.

Added, "Hitler had hesitated for months to move against Röhm, in part due to Röhm's visibility as the leader of a national militia with millions of members. However, a declaration of martial law from Hindenburg, the only person in Germany with the authority to depose the Nazi regime, left Hitler with little room for compromise."--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The eventual marginalization of the SA removed an obstacle to Himmler's accumulation of power in the coming years This is getting a little ahead of the game. Can you find something about why Himmler was against the SA at the time before this event rather that in hindsight. Done
  • There are alot of new names introduced in this section and sometimes without enough context.
    • with Prussian Minister-President Hermann Göring, Propaganda Minister Joseph Göbbels, SS Chief Heinrich Himmler, and Himmler's deputy Reinhard Heydrich arraying themselves against Röhm. Try to find a place to mention Gobbels again in this section. Also I think you can cut Heydrich everywhere, he is never mentioned indepently of Himmler. And as he is Himmlers deputy it is hardly significant that he is supporting him. Done

I find it difficult to really explain the roles of these prominent Nazis without expanding the article a bit much. I think readers should click on their wikilinks to learn more.

• • • Industrialists such as Gustav Krupp and Fritz Thyssen, It would be better to just say "Industrialists" and drop the names.
    • Privately, Papen, a Catholic aristocrat with ties to army and industry, threatened to resign if Hitler did not act This need more context. Why would Hitler care if Papen resigned? Who does Papen have influennce with? Done

Added context.

• • • Blomberg and General Walther von Reichenau, the army's liaison to the party, gave it to him by expelling Röhm from the German Officers' League, and by placing the army on alert. How is Reichenau role here independent of Blomberg? Either only mention Blomberg or explain what Reichenau did that is notable here. Done

Reichenau is now mentioned a second time in the text.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Hitler felt confident enough in his position to attend the wedding reception of Gauleiter Josef Terboven in Essen, Is the bridegroom's name really significant? Done

Agreed. Done.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Purge One thing I would watch in this section is the quoted material. It would be better to focus more on the historical analysis of of what Hitler was doing at this time than his own words, since he is hardley being sincere. (i.e it wasn't really the "worst treachery in history" it was a frame-up) I don't mind some quotes, but it needs to followed what historians say about this event rather than letting the readers draw their own conclusions. This is especially true because it is assumed he is lying in some of this.

Agreed. Done.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Hess even volunteered to shoot the "traitors" himself This is the first mention of Hess. It needs context. Done

Hess is now mentioned twice in the text.

• • Gestapo officers gunned down those loyal to Papen, First mention of the Gestapo, needs context. Done
• Tone: Overall the writing is a little sensationalist in tone.
  • Hitler hurried off to Neudeck to meet with Hindenburg. Nothing is mentioned of where his was or what he was doing that makes this important. Was Neudeck a far distance to travel? Did he cut short a vacation? Why is it imporant to say "hurried off to Neudeck" rather than "Hitler met with Hindenburg". Is something significant about Neudeck? Done

Changed text.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The frantic planning of the past week had come to this. wrong tone for an encyclopedia. Done

• • One of the followers present recounted spittle dribbling from Hitler's mouth as he spoke. Not really relevant. Done

• • to loose the death squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims a bit melodramatic. Done

• • it appeared that no law would constrain Hitler in his use of power. This fratricidal bloodletting could be seen as a harbinger of the violence that characterized the Nazi regime, from the use of force to establish an empire of conquest, to the later abattoirs of the Holocaust. again melodramatic. Done

• Partial list of victims I really dislike this sort of list. I think anyone notable should be discussed in the prose under "Purge" as some already are. Done

Overall I think this article is well-done. The big concerns I have are style and the lack of context in places. I imagine your are very familiar with this time period so just the mention of a name means a great deal more context-wise to you than the average reader and it is probably hard for you to see where more is needed. Push yourself to explain the importance all the small things even when it seems self-apparent to you. I would be happy to look it over again if you like.--BirgitteSB 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment With the edits you've done today, Mcattell, this article is definitely impressive, and worthy of its GA status. Great details and background information, while at the same time short and to the point. As far as I can see, you did not 'beat a dead horse' about any one subject in the article, instead giving fair attention and balance of material to each issue of the background, lead-up, purge, and aftermath. Great job.--PericlesofAthens 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by User:LordHarris

• Hi, looking through I definately agree you need to expand the lead in line with Wikipedia:Lead. Done

Expanded lead.

• The references all appear good though I do have one problem - mainly that they are all from a few sources and a lot from Third Reich in Power. I think IMO to go beyond GA, to FA level you need to incorporate a wider variety of references from multiple sources. The references you have are fine but I do feel that there is a large literature on the subject, with authors varying in opinions and facts etc?  Done

There are now more than a dozen references. Evans and Kershaw are the most recent and critically acclaimed (via scholars), so they are used somewhat more than others.

• I think you could expand the category section at the bottom - there must be more than one category? Done

Did it.

• Also in regards to the SA propaganda poster, can you expand the image caption? The same goes for some of the other images. See Wikipedia:Captions for more details. Good work though!  DoneLordHarris 14:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

• The scrolling ref box won't do well at FAC; somewhere on one of the talk pages of FAC or WIAFA you'll find links to guideline reasoning for why they shouldn't be used. (If you can't find it, I'll got looking for it.) Besides that they won't mirror well on other sites, and don't show in printed versions, they render me unable to analyze and help with your footnotes the way I usually do (I go to the printable version, copy the footnotes, and put them into a spreadsheet to help identify missing instances of named refs that should be used -- the printable version is invalidated by the scroll box). For example, here, named refs aren't used:
  • 61. ^ Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. W. W. Norton & Company, 520.
  • 62. ^ Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. W. W. Norton & Company, 520.  Done
    • That should be shortened and combined to one ref via named refs: Kershaw (1999), p. 520.  Done
• There's no need to repeat all of the Reference info in the footnotes; it just chunks up the article size and makes it harder to edit. I prefer author (date), p. xx. The rest of the info is already given in References and need be repeated in every footnote.  Done--Mcattell 23:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• There's an ISBN finder in the user box on my talk page that you can use to fill in ISBNs on the books.
• Very pleased that See also and External links are minimal; I prefer the strict order of appendices at WP:LAYOUT, as it gives top billing to Wikified content (See also before refs and external links). Done
• The measures taken on June 30, July 1 and 2 ... example ... WP:MOSNUM, month day combos are wikified. At about 4:30 on the morning of June 30, 1934, ... full dates are wikified. By the spring of 1934, Röhm's vision ... solo years are not wikified. Review throughout. Done
• Prose analysis is not my strength, so I didn't thoroughly read the article; I read enough to see that the prose is certainly FA standard. A few minor fixes and you should be on your way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Partial List of Victims

As of July 16, 2007 there is a "partial list of victims" list that has been placed underneath the article. User BirgitteSB 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) wrote above, "I really dislike this sort of list. I think anyone notable should be discussed in the prose under 'Purge' as some already are." I tend to agree. It appears that the list was taken directly from the German article on Night of the Long Knives. I agree that it should be deleted, especially since it contains so many names that are not linked to any article. I'd like to hear from other people first though. Leave your comments below.--Mcattell 23:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mcattell Greetings my friend. You asked my input on the article. First, I think it is extremely well written, and well sourced. You could do more in line citing, and add more references, but since no one has challenged your facts - probably because they are correct - this need is problematic, and I throw that out as a thought. I would definitely eliminate the list of partial victims since they simply are not linked to other articles. If I can be of further help, please let me know. old windy bear 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Partial list of victims I really dislike this sort of list. I think anyone notable should be discussed in the prose under "Purge" as some already are.--BirgitteSB 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (Transcluded this comment from general PR because it is relevant to this section)--Mcattell 15:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

May be we could partially re-insert the list i.e. a "List of notable victims" with the notable, or surprizing ones. Andries 16:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've created the page Victims of The Night of the Long Knives, which includes the "partial list of victims" earlier deleted from this page. I linked the Victims of The Night of the Long Knives to the lead paragraph in Night of the Long Knives, where it says "at least eighty-five victims." Putting the partial list of victims on the main page, however, is unwieldy. This is more in line of WP policy of creating new pages for greater detail.--Mcattell 17:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. I thought of that myself too. I translated the list from the German Wikipedia, so it may contain some translation mistakes or highly unneccearily unusual terms. I saw on German TV a documentary about a man that was killed by accident because he had the same name as one of Hitler's (percieved) opponent. Andries 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I think you're referring to the Schmid/Schmitt "mistake," which merits a brief mention in the fifth paragraph of Night of the Long Knives#Purge.--Mcattell 18:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Industrialists?

There was a sentence in the article that read: "Industrialists such as Gustav Krupp and Fritz Thyssen, who had provided money and support for Hitler during his rise, saw Röhm and the SA as a threat to stability." I have searched through dozens of texts in this era, and can find no evidence that either of these men had anything to do with the planning or execution of the Night of the Long Knives.--Mcattell 01:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of this sentence strikes me as correct. I have not found any scholarly book that supports this view. Andries 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad Wiessee spelling

Most books in English about the Night of the Long Knives refer to "Bad Weisse." However, the wikilink and the town's website have it as "Bad Weissee," so I'll defer to that. It's a minor point anyway.--Mcattell 20:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Law Regarding Measures of State Self-Defense

The section titled aftermath has a link to a "Main: Law Regarding Measures of State Self-Defense." I think the article should be linked on the page. However, I would disagree as placing as a link to the "Main" article for the section, because:

• "Law Regarding Measures of State Self-Defense" is but one aspect of the aftermath of the Night of the Long Knives.
  • Other parts of the aftermath include the reaction of the army, the reaction of the German people, and the long-term decline of the SA
    • These parts of the section "Aftermath" are not part of the article "Law Regarding Measures of State Self-Defense."

My recommendation: That the link be moved to "See also," along with the related article "Victims of the Night of the Long Knives."--Mcattell 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a detail, so do whatever you think is good. May be the Law Regarding Measures of State Self-Defense should be merged into this article and Wikisource. Andries 20:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to "See Also" for the above-stated reasons, although I appreciate your linking it in the first place. I think the Law Regarding Measures of State Self-Defense article is fine, although it should be expanded to provide additional information that is outside the scope of Night of the Long Knives.--Mcattell 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the subject but I cannot think of any information to be added to that is outside of the scope of Night of the Long Knives. Andries 21:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I think that since previous versions of the Night of the Long Knives did not mention the law, what the law did, the other article was fine. But at this point, I think that the Night of the Long Knives already covers everything that's already mentioned in the Law Regarding Measures of State Self-Defense. I don't think that it's necessary to have the German text transcluded into the Night of the Long Knives, so perhaps the best thing to do it just to delete the Law Regarding Measures of State Self-Defense.--Mcattell 02:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the stub again, and now agree with Andries's statement above, "I cannot think of any information to be added to that is outside of the scope of Night of the Long Knives." There is nothing in the stub that is not contained in the source article, except for few sentences in German, which does not generally belong on an English language Wikipedia page.--Mcattell 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Stub Law Regarding Measures of State Self-Defense has been merged into source page Night of the Long Knives.--Mcattell 23:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing in Aftermath section: support of the people

What I miss in the entry in the section "Aftermath" is a statement that the German people were generally happy to get rid of the undisciplined violent SA mob. I thought I had read it somewhere, either in Heinz Hoehne's book "The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS" or one of Richard J. Evans' books. Andries 03:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more complex than just to say "the German people were generally happy to get rid of the undisciplined violent SA mob." First of all, the purge did not get rid of the SA. Membership declined, but was still nearly two million by the outbreak of the war. Evans even talks about how the SA continued to cause havoc in German cities well into the 1930s from time to time. I think that most middle-class Germans (and the army) were in some way pleased that the SA was brought to heel. I tried to address that in the article with the sentence, "At the same time, however, many [Germans] seemed prepared to take the regime at its word, and to believe that Hitler had saved Germany from a descent into chaos." I think that captures it, as does the complacency of the mailman's remark.

The truth is that millions of Germans, especially those who had so recently voted for the Communists and the Social Democrats, were still part of German society, and most of those people were appalled at what happened, but kept quiet about it. Millions of other Germans, on the other hand, were thrilled, and vocally supported Hitler for doing it. The country was divided about it, just as they were divided about Nazism before Hitler's seizure of power. The difference was that you didn't hear dissenting opinions.

Of course, the article is already getting rather long, and of course there are book length treatments of the matter, so I tried to cover that briefly.--Mcattell 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For balance, but keeping in mind the length of the article, I added the comments of a German who supported Hitler: "Luise Solmitz, a Hamburg schoolteacher, echoed the sentiments of many Germans when she cited Hitler's 'personal courage, decisiveness and effectiveness' in her private diary. She even compared him to Frederick the Great, the legendary King of Prussia." Also, if you look at the citation #53, you will find a quote from Kershaw in the footnote, "It was plain that there was wide acceptance of the deliberately misleading propaganda put out by the regime." I think this, plus Klemperer's observations, cover the mixed feelings of the German people in response to the purge.--Mcattell 18:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the paragraph again, and I think it works. It doesn't cite poll numbers, because there weren't any, but it crystallizes the reaction of Germans through three individuals: Luise Solmitz represents the large number of Germans who applauded the purge; the mailman, "not a National Socialist at all," is basically indifferent, but on the whole approves; and Klemperer represents the sizable portion of Germans who never supported the Nazis in their rise, and were appalled by the purge, but kept their opinions to themselves. Given the length of the article, one paragraph is about all that can be allowed for public reaction.--Mcattell 21:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinking plus diacritics

1. Shall we wikilink authors in the reference section? (once per author)
2. The correct spelling for Göbbels is Joseph Goebbels
3. The correct spelling for Heinz Hohne is Heinz Höhne. [3]

Andries 20:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 changes

Hello User:Danny. In July 2007 this article was put through a "Good Article" review, then a "Peer Review", and finally a "FAC Review." It was promoted to featured article status with the block quote as it was and with the two images you removed. Both images and their respective fair use rationales were extensively vetted during the three reviews. I realize that you are acting in good faith and trying to improve Wikipedia articles, but you removed the images unilaterally, without encouraging discussion about the images on the article's talk page, and consequently without any consensus. As to the block quote by Hitler, I checked the WP:MOS and it appears to favor a block quotation being surrounded by a border. I think for the sake of uniformity in Wikipedia articles (especially featured articles) should adhere to Manual of Style. The format of that block quote has been changed several times. Why should it change every few weeks? I think that the style should remain as it was during the Featured Article review. I also think that the large quotation marks look cartoonish for such a sobering quotation. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. But to sum up, I think:

• The block quote should revert to its previous format, per Manual of Style, and because the change does nothing to improve the article; and
• The images should return, or at least there should be discussion on whether the fair use rationales are appropriate.

You've done a lot to improve Wikipedia, and I appreciate your efforts to improve this article.--Mcattell 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the block quotation to remove the large, stylized quotation marks surrounding the block quotation. I did this because the paragraph did not indent correctly with the large, stylized quotation marks, and because the current change reflects Wikipedia Manual of Style about block quotations.--Mcattell 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As an administrator removed the two images that were copyrighted with a fair use rationale, I decided not to fight about it and get dragged into a revert war. So I added a picture of Blomberg in the section where he is prominently measured, and one of von Papen where he is prominently measured. The photos add something to the article, and without them, there is just too much text, which makes it harder to read. I hope that we can now have some stability with this article.--Mcattell 23:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article

This is an excellent article, the references and footnotes are, in particular, very well done. Congratulations to all involved. SGGH ^speak! 07:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Alan Bullock references

Three footnotes cite Bullock but do not give any further identification. I guess this is Alan Bullock and the book an edition of A Study in Tyranny. Please could someone expand this to confirm this and identify the book used? -Wikianon 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked the remaining footnotes and all but Bullock, 1958 (see my above guess) and Klemperer, 1998 (Victor Klemperer's diaries published by Omer Bartov?) are missing from References. As a non-scholar I do not want to insert my guesses in that section. -Wikianon 14:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've added Bullock; that must be the source used. I'm less sure on Klemperer. Mackensen (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• I've tracked down the Klemperer quote in the 1998 edition of his diaries (English translation). Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Bullock's "A Study in Tyranny" is cited in the Sources section.--Mcattell 00:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

German term for the event

Our lead includes this phrase "To this day Germans usually use the term "Röhm-Putsch" to describe the event, despite its origins in Nazi propaganda claiming that the murders were needed to forestall a coup."

I find this phrasing problematic. The impression is that even now the Germans buy into Nazi propaganda, but there could be any number of reasons. Victor Klemperer reports the term in his diary (p. 74):

We were given a second powerful lift by the "Röhm Revolt." (How do historical designations come about? Why Kapp Putsch But Röhm Revolt? Alliteratively?) No sympathy at all for the vanquished, only delight, (a) that they are eating one another up, (b) that Hitler is now like a man after his first major heart attack.

Thus Röhm Revolt/Röhm Putsch enters the language; even if it is inspired by Nazi propaganda it's unclear that the usage reflects support or acceptance thereof. Is there some better way to phrase this? Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was added today.--Mcattell 16:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-edited the wording to eliminate the implication that Germans today believe that the Night of the Long Knives happened because of an imminent coup. That explanation was false then and is false now, and German histories of the subject deal with it accordingly.--Mcattell 16:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Before its execution, (...) necessary to forestall a coup.

This whole paragraph seems rather problematical to me. I will believe Kershaw's claim about the term Operation Hummingbird, even though I can find only one German website which mentions "Operation Kolibri" in this context [4] and this may have been "inspired" by wikipedia.

Nacht der langen Messer is definitely not only used synonymously with Röhm-Putsch and it is still used to describe "acts of vengeance" in general. I have seen a documentary on German television (Phoenix) which claimed that Night of the Long Knives was even used for an incident in which Germanic tribes fought against the Romans, but I have no source to verify this. I am curious, though, where medieval Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote that the Nazi purge was a reference to Arthurian myth ;).

In history class, we only used Röhm-Putsch, even though Röhm didn't try to start a revolt. The German wikipedia states that only the vernacular of that time called it Night of the Long Knives.

To sum it up, in my opinion this paragraph needs an improvement. --Babeuf 21:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph but I still think someone should come up with a citation. Otherwise, the "Arthurian myth" statement should be deleted. --Babeuf 13:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Putsch", pls forgive my ignorance on this, but I never knew what it meant. I did a search on it after reading this article and found out. Would it be a good idea to create a hyperlink in the article to what it means? It would have made it easier for me :). Regards Johndoeemail (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC) ...had to fix typo Johndoeemail (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was it called "Night of the Long Knives?"

After all, weren't most of the victims shot, not stabbed? Josh (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Learning about history but this doesn't seem to make sense...

I am trying to learn about this period of history. But this para doesn't make sense to my reading:

"Himmler envied the independence and power of the SA. Although at the time he and his deputy Reinhard Heydrich had already begun the restructuring of the SS from a bodyguard of Nazi leaders into an elite corps. One loyal to both himself and Hitler. That loyalty would prove useful to both men when Hitler chose to move against Röhm and the SA."

Perhaps someone can fix the poorly mixed-up concepts. Thanks! 121.73.92.60 (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I changed the wording a bit that should help you. The fact is Himmler wanted more power and control of all the German state's police forces. He was pushed on by Heydrich. Goring decided to allied himself with Himmler and Heydrich to help get rid of the SA (and to gain more power for himself in the vacuum that would be left). Also the way things were shaping up Goring would have had to give up the Gestapo to Himmler and Heydrich anyway so this way he was able to save face. The SS were expanding and with their loyalty to Himmler and Hitler they were the perfect ones to be used to get rid of Rohm and the SA. Kierzek (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

Aftermath - Reaction

The statement "Almost unanimously, the army applauded the Night of the Long Knives, even though the generals Kurt von Schleicher and Ferdinand von Bredow were among the victims." is without reference and miss leading.

The army was passive but an effort was made by Gerd von Rundstedt, Erwin von Witzleben and Erich von Manstein to have an enquirey. Also the Alfred von Schlieffen Society in a meeting of over 400 Staff officers declaring that Kurt von Schleicher and Ferdinand von Bredow died in the field of honor. However the press was not allowed to carry the story. thanos (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

see History of the German General Staff 1657-1945 by Walter Goerlitz, ISBN-10: 0837180929. thanos (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

The article says the term predates the event in German, but leaves hanging the question what the term refers to. Is it the seax-wielding Saxon incident referred to in disambiguation? If so, why are Germans so interested in mythological English history?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but the line "Say, why are they sharpening their knives tonight at Brandehög /the name of a farm/?" appears at a key moment in the novella "Sir Arne's Treasure" (1904) by the Swedish Nobel prize winning author Selma Lagerlöf; the reply to that line, after an ominous silence, mentions "sharpening their long knives". Lagerlöf had a huge readership in Germany and all over Europe in those decades; it turns out that the men preparing their knives will overtake the family living nearby and kill them. That story was well known in Germany around those years - it had also been made into a remarkable silent film - but Lagerlöf sometimes draws on traditional idioms, so the expression could very likely be older. Strausszek (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary writings describe this as a clear message to the homosexuals. Why is that so hard to learn from wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.165.102 (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

depiction in the movie La caduta degli dei

Visconti's film The Damned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Damned_(1969_film) features a very vivid dramatized depiction of the actual purge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.11.22 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

importance of NoLK for Hitler consolidating his power

i was just wondering whether a section on the overall importance ot this on Hitler consolidation of power could be written to try and put it into perspective

Brepar (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, it was a crucial moment.Strausszek (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing article from WikiProject LGBT studies

I removed the article from WikiProject LGBT studies because it is not related to LGBT at all. Some people might belive that Ernst Röhm was murdered because of his homosexuality, but this is wrong. See the following quotes from the article:

Adolf Hitler moved against the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, because he saw the independence of the SA and the penchant of its members for street violence as a direct threat to his newly gained political power.

While Röhm's homosexuality did not endear him to conservatives, they were more concerned about his political ambitions.

Sapere aude22 (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a Wikipedia article can be used as a source for argumentation on Wikipedia. Whether he was murdered because of his homosexuality or not, it's a fact that his homosexuality and alleged orgies at Bad Wiessee were the key arguments used in propaganda as a justification for the murders. -- megA (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph

The section that's titled "Reaction" concludes with the following paragraph:

German citizens also supported this Military operation carried out by the SS. The SA were very disorganised and in reality, were nothing but Nazi 'street thugs'. They often attacked communists ( Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands) and sometimes even civilians. The German people almost commended the elimination of this violent force. This also was due to the fact German law courts were quick to declare this legal. however obviously this action was clearly not fully legal. The Nazi party had not consulted the reichstag, thus the mass murder had not been reviewed by the Weirmar republic. Thus this action cannot be argued completely legal. However the Reichstag were all too happy to get rid of the German StormTrooper organisation. This meant this could be passed by German law courts immediately after the killing had taken place.

This paragraph was added on 8 November 2013‎ by 194.6.0.243.

(1) This paragraph contains no citations for the sweeping statements that it makes.
(2) This paragraph is almost incoherent.

• It characterizes the Night of the Long Knives as a "Military operation". The German military did not commit any of the murders; indeed, the author himself states that it was an "operation carried out by the SS."
• Furthermore, it states that "… this action was clearly not fully legal. The Nazi party had not consulted the reichstag … ." Consulting the Reichstag would not have given the government authority to commit mass murder.
• It also states: "This meant this could be passed by German law courts immediately after the killing had taken place." What "could be passed by German law courts"? Consistent with what law?
  

(3) The author capitalizes words inconsistently: Military ; Reichstag and reichstag ; however ; etc.
(4) The statement that the SA "often attacked communists ( Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands) and sometimes even civilians" is redundant: the behavior of the SA is mentioned earlier in the article.

Delete this confused, unsubstantiated mess — unless someone wants to edit it and add citations. Cwkmail (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Done per WP:BOLD.--Darius (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

1956 investigation

In the Wikipedia article on Michael Lippert, there is this paragraph:

"In 1956, the Munich authorities began an investigation into the Night of the Long Knives and in August arrested Lippert and Sepp Dietrich for their part in it. They were bailed, and the trial itself did not commence until 6 May 1957. They were represented by the lawyer Dr Alfred Seidl who had defended Rudolf Hess at the Nuremberg Trials. Lippert and Dietrich were charged with manslaughter, in Lippert's case for the death of Röhm. Lippert asserted that he had remained outside Röhm's cell, and only Theodor Eicke had gone in. On 10 May the case was summed-up and the prosecutor demanded a two-year sentence for Lippert. On 14 May the President of the Court found both Lippert and Dietrich guilty and sentenced both men to 18 months. He described Lippert as "filled with a dangerous and unrepentant fanaticism"."

Shouldn't there be something about this post-war investigation in _this_ article? 101.117.68.213 (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Reichsmordwoche

Some context for this expression: Mockery of the inflationary usage of the prefix Reichs- in German officialese at the time led to popular derogatory nicknames formed after the same pattern, such as Reichslügenbold for Goebbels, Reichstrunkenbold for Robert Ley and Reichswasserleiche for Kristina Söderbaum. Reichskristallnacht was originally a sardonic epithet as well, until it was appropriated by the Nazi Party. An earlier example is Reichshund. Reichsflugscheibe appears to be a more recent coinage. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm seeing one cite of this- and every Google result comes back to this very page. Removed. 121.75.204.76 (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A couple of points

This is an excellent article. I would point out a couple of things though.

1) I think that when "Reichsmordwoche" is mentioned there should be an immediate translation (lit. Reich murder Week but it may have a more colloquial meaning) given after it. (How many readers will know what it means?)

2) In the part where it's stated that Hitler was appointed Chancellor I would include a brief note explaining that in parliamentary systems the head of the government isn't determined by an election by the people. For those of you who live in such places this might sound unnecessary, but for Americans it's inconceivable that the people would have no say in who is in charge of the government.

3) I think that there should be more info given about the agreement between Hitler and the Army leaders about their support of getting rid of Rohm, as that went a long way to cementing the two together. Since Hitler knew Hindenburg was dying, he wanted to assume the office of President as well as Chancellor without having to run an election (as the President was an elected official). Hitler planned to hold a plebiscite, not an election, that would endorse his extra-constitutionary ploy, rather than real election. In exchange for the Army endorsing this (along with promising to disregard the Versailles Treaty and rebuild the military), Hitler agreed to get rid of Rohm and the SA and forever do away with any talk of changing the traditional standing of the Army and making it subordinate to the SA. This point is very important to understanding why this whole event occurred and should not be left out. __209.179.86.123 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. Why would educated Americans - the vast majority of the population, by the way - not understand this? Also, my country of birth (UK) is a parliamentary system, and most assuredly the head of state is determined by the people's election - even to the point of being forced to form a coalition government, which is arguably more "democratic" than the American system of government. Don't confuse the German constitutional process of that time with all forms of parliamentary government.104.169.28.35 (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Putsch?

After a little digging around I think I found out that "Putsch" means "coup". This is not directly stated anywhere. Especially the last two sentences of the introduction are confusing if you don't know what a "Putsch" is. KarstenO (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal grounding for regime

Hitler was the legal ruler of Germany. He did not need to obtain a "legal grounding for the Nazi regime". More importantly the murder of dozens of critics did not provide any "legal grounding" for the regime - though it arguably did for extrajudicial killings.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Research Office of the Reich Air Ministry

Hi, I wrote the above article and recently found out that Röhm and his cronies has been monitored continuously since the end of 1933, and it was this collected evidence which led to his doom. Apparently every telephone conversation, letter written, and every conversation that Röhm had uttered was reported to the FA. The reference comes from the military historian, Dr Wilhelm F. Flicke, who was commissioned by General Erich Fellgiebel to write a history of cryptographic operations, assuming it was for the 1000 years Reich, but which survived, until it was declassified and released by the NSA in 1978 and was published in book form. Flicke was actually there at the time, and goes into some detail on the Röhm affair. scope_creep (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sure it was a direct trigger leading to the Night of the Long Knives, but as the RS sources state it was not the only thing or evidence real and manufactured, which led to the event. Interesting article. Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)