Talk:Wernher von Braun/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wan Hu

It says in Wan Hu article that "The legend of Wan Hoo was not recorded in any Chinese history book. It was first mentioned in Rockets and Jets written by American author Herbert S. Zim in 1945. It was then introduced into China via translation, and that is why what exact Chinese name this legendary person had (萬虎 or 萬戶) as mentioned above could not be determined just based on the pronunciation. This story is more an urban legend invented a half century ago, than a Chinese history record." And this article tells a anecdote about 12-year-old Wernher who was affected by the legend of Wan Hu, which means the legend was known in 1924. So there's quite clear conflict. Latre 17:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the same conflict, and changed the Wan Hoo entry accordingly. The Rockets and Jets reference is the first written mention of the myth. Presumably the von Braun family swapped stories about ancient Chinese astronomers when they weren't planning the final solution.Tafinucane 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I do belive I own that book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.135.175 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 May 2006

Tafunicane, you come off sounding like an ignorant bigot with your offhand comment of "planning the final solution". My suggestion is that you refrain from editing Wikipedia. 71.116.122.74 (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove

I find it strange that the On film and television section does not mention Dr. Strangelove.

Ziusudra 20:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

College/university

The Technical College of Berlin did not become the Technical University of Berlin until 1946. Therefore, it would be more proper to use college with a link to the university article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Germany doesn't have (or have had) colleges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.76.108 (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian in science?

Apparently his receiving a telescope as a present for his Lutheran confirmation is the reason he's put into the category of "Christians in science". Is there any evidence of his professing and/or practicing any form of Christianity in his adulthood?

--Hieronymus Illinensis 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun WolfKeeper 02:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC) i think heis.look a t his grave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.209.17 (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Christian is who has been baptized and has not actively decided and made clear not to be a Christian. --77.4.45.169 (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Casualities from V-1 and V-2 attacks on Britain

The claimed total of 66,000+ deaths from V1 and V2 attacks on Britain in 1944 and 1945 is very different to the number asserted in the wikipedia entries for those weapons. They cant both be right. And the number mentioned in this article is implausibly large and more likely to be wrong

66,000+ is the rough total number of civilian deaths caused by German air attacks on Britain during WW II - as opposed to 600,000+ German civilian deaths caused by British and US air attacks on German cities, half of them in the last year of the war. About 8,000+ fatal casaualties, mostly civilians, can be attributed to V2 attacks. Compare the number of people involved in the V2 project: 80,000, both scientists, engineers and slave labourers. Ontologix (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

The story given in this article about von Braun being influenced by the legend of Wan Hu at the age of 12 (1924) contradicts the story given in the section "The Origin of Wan Hoo" on the above-mentioned article. If the story of Wan Hu was not given in any Chinese history book, and was first mentioned in print in 1945, then introduced to China later, how could von Braun possibly have heard of it in 1924? Diego001 10:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wernher von Braun

Stating that Wernher von Braun was head of the team that developed the Nazi V2-rockets "that killed over 7000 people in Britain in 1944 and 1945" is incomplete.

V2-rockets (+ V1-bombs) were also fired at Belgium in particular the city of Antwerp. Surrounding areas of Antwerp ware also hit.

This is not the first time I have noticed that the V2-rockets and V1-bombs were only supposed to have hit Britain. Could it be because these articles were written by a British citizen who thinks only "his/her Britain" suffered under the V2 and V1 attacks ?

Perhaps you should also mention what the V in V1 / V2 actually meant.--41.244.9.37 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One should try to provide a complete and objective picture of these matters and I feel personally offended by the statement in this article on Wernher von Braun. (background: 4 of my family members were killed and my father was severely injured by a V1-bomb). Jerry bogie 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Although I agree that many nations suffered the scourge of V-2rockets.England was the worst hit.Thousands of people were killed in the bombardment which took place almost dailyGwendeloyn 14:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)gwendeloyn

Cause of death: crash?

There is doubt on Ucla9030's addition on 22:50, 20 March 2006:
"Von Braun sustained an injury from a crash and unbeknownst to him started to bleed internally. By the time his family convinced him to go to the hospital it was too late to stop the bleeding."

Please provide a source for that statement.

It is just bunk. The cause of death was cancer.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is confusing to the reader about whether his death from from Kidney or Pancreatic cancer as sections in it are conflicting. 71.67.124.201 (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Career after NASA

"After leaving NASA, von Braun became a vice-president of Fairchild Industries in Germantown, Maryland, where he helped establish and promote the National Space Institute,..." This sounds kind of "to clichee to be true". ;-) Is this a fake? Please provide a source for that statement. --Nemissimo II 09:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Verification took me about 7seconds, using Google. Gwen Gale 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nemissimo II 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I am so pleased to find this post-NASA career verified. I had previously believed an urban legend that von Braun was reduced to driving a taxicab in New York City because he was unable to find employment after NASA cutbacks. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.192.231 (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Roswell

Von Braun's secret presence at White Sands is a simple explanation for whatever crashed at Roswell, and also for the "meteorites" that landed in Greensburg Kansas in 1948.Frizb 16:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a great theory! If one could show that von Braun's presence at White Sands (or the involvement of his team in the launches there) was being kept a secret, it would not only make the theory more plausible, but enhance the current article as well. (It doesn't currently say his presence was secret. Do you have a citable source for that?) (sdsds - talk) 06:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do, but the FBI regularly greps the Internet for the author's name.

In addition I once read in a book at the library that the German scientists used to go down into Mexico for binge drinking in the cantinas there. This might have something to do with the reason they were transferred to Alabama, Redstone. A friend of mine who knows an expert thinks it is probably due to something else. Frizb (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Far more likely than any possible conspiracy theory is that US Senator John Sparkman saw an opportunity to funnel billions of Federal dollars into the sleepy cotton town (with an almost-abandoned chemical weapons depot) that he called home. There's a reason a major road and a couple of schools in Huntsville are named for Sparkman and it ain't the Roswell aliens. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling Huntsville a "sleepy cotton town" indicates to me a negative bias toward the city. Sleepy certainly hasn't been ::descriptive of the town since World War II and the area was never known for growing cotton. To be sure, textile mills ::utilizing cotton was the principle industry in Huntsville's early history but that doesn't make it a cotton town any more than ::Linden, New Jersey is an "oil town" because of its large refinery. I'll certainly agree with you that Senator John

Sparkman played a significant role in the town's post-war development.TL36 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Press coverage while at Redstone Arsenal

The article currently states:

from 1945 to 1957 [...] the press tended to dwell on von Braun's past as a member of the SS and the slave labor used to build his V-2 rockets.

While his SS and slave labor connections are currently well documented, the article would be very much improved by citing a source citation from press coverage during 1945-1957 that mentions it. This would directly illuminate one of the most noteworthy questions about von Braun's career: "Who knew what, when?" (sdsds - talk) 19:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer and libel

I've removed the sentence "Von Braun later sued Lehrer for libel and forced Lehrer to hand over all royalties from the song.", as most sources appear to suggest that this is untrue, and merely an urban legend. Please do not repeat this assertion unless you can provide cites to verifiable, reliable, sources that back this up. -- The Anome 09:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Christian writings

Wernher did not write against evolution and on religious subjects? He figures prominently in some creationist tracts and of course his views on subjects which are not related to aerospace engineering are somewhat suspect. So what is the origin of all the material he supposedly wrote on evolution? Is this all forged material? What is it? I share the disgust of some of the authors here with the "born again" agenda, but I am trying to be as honest and as straightforward as I can in documenting the situation.--Filll 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy Photo redux

I found another photo in the NASA archives of Kennedy and von Braun. The caption reads "President Kennedy and Dr. von Braun, Director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in the official vehicle for touring the center during the President's visit to MSFC on September 11, 1962." So now I have to question is not only the "ABMA" part wrong but is the "1963" part wrong as well? If there's consensus, I can replace the existing photo with this photo which has a well-documented setting and date. Thoughts? - Dravecky 00:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The photo you have found is better documented, but sadly not as visually compelling, largely because they are seated rather than walking. You are right that the copy of the "walking" photo on Wikipedia is not well documented. It is public domain, but is a work of the U.S. Army, not a work of NASA. According to the Redstone archive[1], the date of the "walking" visit was 19 May 1963. The ABMA part, though, appears to have been a misconstruction of a Wikipedia editor. (sdsds - talk) 06:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Disney photo

Walt Disney and Wernher von Braun, shown in this 1954 photo holding a model of his Mars lander, collaborated on a series of three educational films.

I don't know why Glst2 insists on deleting this image since it's definitely still available in the Commons and is visible to me and several colleagues using various browsers. The frame, as best I can tell, hasn't been "blank for weeks" so if I can get a bit of consensus that we're not having a mass hallucination of Disney and von Braun plaing with model rockets then I'd like to add this image back into the article. It illustrates a key time in von Braun's life and his rise to popularity with the general public. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dravecky (talk • contribs).

Dravecky, its not bad intent. The image is blank not only in the WvB article, but also in Commons where it has been uploaded; and also in the two other articles where it is inserted, Walt Disney and TWA Moonliner. (I can see all other images in these articles.) When I right-click-save the "image" to harddisk and open it with the Windows image and fax viewer or with Photoshop, it comes up blank. If you can still see it, it might be because it is still cached on your machine. You might want to empty your browser cache and try again. But I am eager to hear what others are seeing to the right of this text, or aren't. - If the image can be restored to WikiCommons, I would be the first to put it back into the WvB article, as it is the perfect illustration to this section. In fact, I have written the legend for it. --Glst2 15:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're acting in good faith. To that end, I've flushed my cache and forced reloads and the image is still present. I've had friends across Texas, some of whom had never before been to Wikipedia, look at it and they can all still see it. I will, of course, wait for other editors to weigh in on this but I don't understand why it's not showing up for you. Maybe a flush of your cache then a load of this link is worth a try? Color me puzzled. - Dravecky 05:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This nagged me, so I had people access the image in Commons, and on this talk page, using WinXP/IE7 and Linux/FF. Result: there is something definitely weird going down here. Apparently everybody else CAN see the image. Only my high-end HP mobile workstation, which had given me the image before (and continues to reliably show me any other image in Wikipedia or whatever else I access during my long working hours) seems to have developed a problem with this particular image, whatever way I try to look at it. When I try to save it, I'm getting not a JPEG but a 1-pixel GIF. Well, I'm putting it back into the article and apologize for the confusion, humbly recognizing that computing can still give me surprises after 20 yerars of intense practice. --Glst2 07:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny =) I can see the picture right here in the discussion, but it doesn't come up in the article. That's Vodoo :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.97 (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wernher von Braun 'Surrender'?

Finding sources

I have been researching for a book about 30 Commando Assault Unit - 30AU and have uncovered documentary evidence that they captured some of the Nazi scientists that reportedly 'Surrendered' along with the von Brauns and Dornberger in Bavaria. I have also heard and read memoirs, from the few surviving 30AU Marine veterans, that at least one of the von Braun brothers did not 'surrender' but was in fact captured from within Germany by 30AU then handed over to US agents on board a DC3 at a captured airbase in northern Germany. These and many more things are revealed in this new website dedicated to 30AU - http://www.30AU.co.uk - Ian Fleming's 'Red Indians' and the secret missions that remain classified by the US and UK Governments.--GHubert-Smith

I don't consider http://www.30AU.co.uk to be credible because of its strong emphasis on sales and because of its requirement of Javascript. I don't trust that site to run Javascript in my browser. Anyway, it seems like we have to pay them money before we can attempt to verify anything. Do you know the website operator or book author? Can you get them to release some information (free) for verification purposes?--Mumia-w-18 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the title of the book? What is its ISBN number? Who authored it? Who published it?--Mumia-w-18 18:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mumia, The references and sources are mainly - Attain by Surprise edited by David Nutting ISBN 095262572-5 & The Paper Clip Conspiracy by Tom Bower ISBN 0-586-08686-2 & Artic Snow to Dust of Normandy by Patrick Dalzel-Job(e) ISBN 1-84415-238-3 & From Pole to Pole by J.P.Riley ISBN 1-871999-02-2 & The Hazard Mesh by J.A.C. Hugill - out of print & the orginal Attain by Surprise - Out of print & From Nazis to NASA by Bob Ward ISBN 0-7509-4303-3 & the Papers of J.A.C. Hugill ref: GBR/0014/HUGL - Churchhill archives & History of 30 Assault Unit Ref GB99 KCLMA - Liddell Hart Centre & National Archives Docs History of 30 Commando Ref ADM223/214 and others, these are all used for the website and information sources.

I have removed everything pertaining to my book and my agent will furnish you with answers to further questions very shortly.

As regards to the website, it is not for me to judge, but I hope it can be looked at objectively by someone who can allow javascript and be taken on it's merits, which in my opinion are many.GHubert-Smith 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello GHubert-Smith. Let's talk here.--Mumia-w-18 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes that better, thanks for advice and comments, I'm new to this and have probably jumped the gun a bit! I'll slow down and approach with more consideration as things progress.. i'll happily send you any information you require about the documents I've uncovered from the National Archives and the interviews i've conducted with the few surviving veterans of 30AU that remain.GHubert-Smith 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The website now has list of references and sources and access to FREE PDF with regard to claims made therein. Most sources are linked to book sales from Amazon.com, the sources not avaliable there are covered within FREE pdf. Hopefully that may be sufficient for you to reconsider it as a creditable source? and if so i'd like to ask if you may reconsider my above entry into the Wernher von Braun, Talk section? GHubert-Smith 13:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this entire section belongs on Talk:Wernher von Braun, so it's best to move it there soon. I have some other things to do, so I'm going to stop watching that page as well as your talk page soon. Good luck.--Mumia-w-18 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

GHubert-Smith, please indulge me and tell me, in one paragraph or less, what you believe the true account of von Braun's "surrender" or "capture" to be. I'm about to research your claims, but I have to know what your claims are first.--Mumia-w-18 (November 23 2007).

I have bad news Mr. GHubert-Smith, I'm at the library, and their card catalog doesn't recognize any of the book sources you provided. In addition, none of the ISBN's you supplied us with are recognized by Google Books. I don't think my prospects of getting access to specific British Army Intellgence documents is good, so I'm beginning to think that the information you provided fails the verifiability test.--Mumia-w-18 (November 23 2007).

I'm in America, and the British Army Intelligence documents ([GBR/0014/HUGL] and [GB99 KCLMA]) you referred me to are inaccessible to me. Your information fails WP:VERIFY.--Mumia-w-18 (November 23 2007)

I apologize Mr. GHubert-Smith. There was a searching failure on my end. The books you referenced do seem to exist. I'll consult them when I get a chance.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mumia, I can assure you they do all exist, but it will be like finding needle in a haystack picking out the discrepancies. I will need to email you the PDF (available from website) which has copies of relevant documents from the English Archives which do not match the American documents used for 'The Paperclip Conspiracy' by Tom Bower. It also has maps and timelines which give a clear indication of the actual version of events.

Please bare in mind that the existence of 30AU was classified and even denied right up until 1997. The PDF also contains the conversations and writings of the few surviving veterans who give a different version of events to that historically recorded. The documents only prove that Prof. Herbert Wagner, designer of the H293 Guided bomb (already used to sink HMS Egret and the HMT Rohna) was captured by an American Naval Officer Lambie, who was attached to 30AU and commanding a very small force of British Royal Marine Commandos (Team 5), whereas US documents reported that he 'surrendered' in Bavaria with the von Braun's and Dornberger. According to the the version of events I have uncovered from a 30AU sniper and other interviews, at least one of the von Braun brothers was captured in the Harz Mountain range and handed to American agents hanging out of a Dakota at an airfield in Northern Germany, then flown to Bavaria where the 'Surrender' was then staged for the world's media to record. Now there were hundreds of scientists involved and I do not know how all this was achieved or orchestrated but in my opinion what I have uncovered puts the whole thing in serious doubt. It is a very complicated story with a lot of information to absorb which all points to the same conclusion.GHubert-Smith (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. All the documents pertaining to my discoveries are in public archives and available to anyone who asks for them. I am also in the process of scanning and completing a PDF of them ALL (a large task) for free download on the website.GHubert-Smith (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's continue this conversation in Digging for information.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Digging for information

Hello again GHubert-Smith. I'm reading The Paperclip Conspiracy (ISBN 0316103993) right now. I'm going through the indexed items relating to Wernher von Braun; is there a specific page that I need to look at to verify the alternate "surrender" scenario?--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mumia, I fully accept that a part of what I'm saying comes under the heading 'The Truth' and 'Original Research' but I would also argue that National Archive documents that are available to anyone do constitute verifiable publication and when those documents conflict with other 'historical' record and cast doubt over large parts of what the world has had to swallow as 'fact' for sixty years then we (you) have a problem. The pages I refer to in that book are P.129 which clearly states that Prof. H. Wagner 'Surrendered' with the von Brauns and Dornberger in Bavaria. But according to 'Attain by Surprise' and National Archive documents he was in fact captured by 30AU then flown to Bavaria to be part of the 'staged surrender' (alongside one of the von Brauns according to my 'Original Research'). All of which leads us to here.

Can I suggest that I could possibly construct a paragraph explaining the 'verifiable' conflict without eluding to my 'original research' that at least points to the area of doubt that the conflict represents?

Apologies for putting you to all this trouble, I'm not trying to pervert the course of history or to create unnecessary argument or conflict just get to the facts.GHubert-Smith (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This information, if confirmed, would be too insignificant for a paragraph; it would be too insignificant for even a sentence. It would be a footnote. I'm not trying to belittle your contribution, but in the overall life of Wernher von Braun, the issue of whether he was captured or surrendered is not very significant. I might create a footnote like so:

<ref>The account of Wernher von Braun's acquisition by the Americans is disputed. See ''Attain by Surprise'' page ???.</ref>--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think this information isn't admissible . My doing original research to confirm this scenario wouldn't make things any better.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mumia, I was only originally asking for a small footnote, less than one line. I guess it's all a matter of where your principles, morals and allegiances lay. If you think that it is insignificant for Governments to lie about the very foundation of the US space program and in essence all of human history, from that point in time, then I would have to disagree! strongly! Especially when that foundation is so contentious and shaky to start with!

I'd like to thank you very much for all your time, obviously I have no choice but to accept your ruling. I do realise that maybe it is too close to 'original research' and 'The Truth' over 'verifiable information' and I will have to wait for my footnote.GHubert-Smith (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Physics

It will be interesting if someone shown if he ever was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics. Mistico (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of his contributions he should have been anyway. I've just altered his description in the first paragraph to 'rocket physicist and astronautics engineer' which hopefully gives the semantically best description. I know he was probably the most experienced and capable rocket scintist ever, but when you consider the man you realise for him it was a means to an end. He was, for me an Astronauts Engineer/Scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.217.39 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Moon should be capitalized

The Moon, when referring to Earth's moon, should be capitalized. It is not throughout the article. I don't have time to correct it. 69.215.151.205 (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

I endorse. Aldo L (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Mistake

In the article stay "Several German cities (Bonn, Neu-Isenburg, Mannheim, Mainz), and dozens of smaller towns, have named streets after Wernher von Braun. Remarkably, all these places are situated in Germany's Southwest and South - the American and French parts of the Allied occupation zones. There seem to be no von Braun streets in the northern parts of the former Federal Republic of Germany, which were occupied by the British. Having had London suffer from his rockets, it is quite understandable that the United Kingdom would have discouraged German attempts at honoring von Braun."

This is not correct also in NRW for example Hamm (West-Germany, former britisch sector) (http://maps.google.de/maps?hl=de&q=Wernher-von-Braun-Stra%C3%9Fe+12,+59077+Hamm,+Deutschland&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title) is a street named after him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.98.40 (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it's total rubbish. Streets in Germany are always named after persons already died. you won't find a Helmut-Kohl-Street or anything similar, Braun died in 1977, I don't think British government had any influence or interest in German Streetnames at that time. It's pure OR and a (stupid) POV, I deleted the sentence. 84.139.232.206 (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

He did not do well in physics and mathematics at school?

I have found this quote elsewhere. But I see it very difficult to swallow. This man designed several of the most magnificent pieces of machinery of the 20th Century, so in those matters he was clearly above us, poor mortals. Spaniard Antonio Ribera wrote in "La conquista del Espacio" (apparently based on some Willy Ley's opus) that even as a child von Braun was obviously of superior intellect, to the point that in one occasion when the math teacher didn't show up he stood up by the blackboard and lectured his fellow classmates. Ribera confirms, however, that he was in constant trouble with the faculty, due to his stubborn attitude towards the feasibility of science fiction (a teacher came close to call him a "lunatic"), and maybe because of some hint of blueblooded arrogance coming from young Wernher. Aldo L (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is nevertheless true. He was a lazy student and got poor marks. He didn't start to study seriously until he got the bug for rocketry when he was 17 or so. This question feeds into a common misperception that von Braun was a scientist (as shown by the question above about the Nobel Prize for Physics). He was not a scientist: he never worked as a physicist or a mathematician. He worked as an engineer - he built rockets. He did not work on the basic science that underlay rocketry, although of course he understood it. His real genius was as a manager of large-scale engineering projects: First at Peenemunde, then at Nordhausen, then at Huntsville. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL Mr. Toad. From Nasa.gov: von Braun received a Ph.D. in physics on July 27, 1934. TL36 (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 12, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

The review can be found here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Portrait or Photograph?

The image of Maria von Braun in this article is described as a portrait, though it looks more like a photograph. I know that technically a portrait can be a photograph, but common usage of the word tends toward a painting. I found myself staring at this looking for possible brush strokes! (Could be because I'm up too late!) CosineKitty (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly a photograph can be a photograph, but I would suggest that it is more appropriate for one that is thoughtfully prepared and carefully taken with the intent that it will be formally displayed, or reproduced in a significant publication. On the other hand, a few people believe that a "portrait" is any well-framed and displayed picture!98.148.116.163 (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

His thesis

This is an observation/query to those who are acquainted with the subject: 'His actual full thesis...was kept classified by the army' - which army? The post-war German army, the wartime German army, or the US army? If the answer is 'the post-war German army', was it kept secret from the US, or from the public? This isn't clear. Bbmap (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The thesis was commissioned by the Reichswehr and they paid WvB while he wrote it. It was classified top secret and even the university library wasn't allowed to have a copy. (Neufeld, Von Braun, 68-9) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In-depth 1958 TIME profile

I've added "Reach for the Stars". TIME Magazine. 1958-02-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) as a reference to one sentence in this article. In fact, it's an in-depth 1958 profile of von Braun that could easily be used to expand or at least better-reference this article. I encourage other editors to use this resource. - Dravecky (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Von Braun as "rocket scientist"

There has been some controversy as to whether von Braun should be called a "rocket scientist", "a physicist" or "a rocket engineer." His most recent biographer, Michael J Neufeld, writes:

One term you will not find in this book is "rocket scientist." There has been a deep-rooted failure in the English-speaking media and popular culture to grapple with the distinction between science and engineering... Although Wehrner von Braun got a doctorate in physics in 1934, he never worked a day in his life thereafter as a scientist. He was an engineer and a manager of engineers, and he used that vocabulary when he was talking to his professional peers. Thus the correct term is "rocket engineer." (Michael J Neufeld, Wehrner von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War, Alfred A Knopf 2007, xv)

Of von Braun's thesis, Neufeld notes:

"A major section on the theory of combustion in a rocket engine can fairly be described as physics, but most of the typescript was actually an engineering treatise on his rocket motors." (Neufeld 68).

Note that the statement that von Braun was an engineer and not a scientist or a physicist is now sourced to the best possible reference, namely a direct statement on the subject in the most recent biography by a highly qualified author. (Neufeld is chair of the Space History Division of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, and has written the definitive hisory of the German rocket program, The Rocket and the Reich.) Thus it is not open to contributors here to continue to assert that von Braun was primarily a scientist or a physicist, and I will revert any edit that does so. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC) This is one of the crosses that engineers have to bear. I'm not one, but I know several from a message board to which I belong. The exact problem, actually, is that people don't know what engineers really do, and how vital they are to, really, everything. So their title gets inappropriately stolen by others, or misapplied by people generally to jobs that are not engineering jobs, and, as in the case of rocket scientists (sic), many true engineers aren't referred to as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pithecanthropus (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr Toad. It seems to annoy you that Braun WAS in fact a physicist. How else could he have earned a PhD in physics in 1934. Get over your huge ego because you're really starting to make yourself look like a fool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.92.57 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

The spate of nonsense vandalism largely comes from the 161.97.212.* IP range which traces back to *.bhm.bvsd.k12.co.us and the Boulder Valley School District. No idea why the youth of Colorado have chosen this article to go after but please be vigilant while editing this article. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fallout 3

I think it's pretty safe to say that the character of Dr Braun in Fallout 3 is based on Wernher con Braun... If anybody can confirm that then put it in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.165.81 (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wernher von Braun the Nietzschean

A recent edit of mine concerning the Philosophical position of Wernher von Braun related to an internet amazon feedback comment concerning a book. I am uncertain of Wernher von Braun's position in relation to Nietzsche, but wish to point out the following :

According to "Dr. Space By Bob Ward, John (FRW) Glenn", ISBN number : "[He]..could pilot an array of aircraft, loved scuba diving, and was a brilliant conversationalist, as much at ease discussing Nietzsche as nuclear fission."

Having searched briefly for Wernher von Braun and Nietzsche on Google Books (which is far from an in depth study of what Wernher von Braun thought of Nietzsche, and whether he believed in Nietzsche's philosophy), I have a general perception that Wernher von Braun was not only knowledgeable of Nietzsche (with what must have been an in-depth knowledge at that), but was verly likely sympathetic to Nietzsches political opinions and moral viewpoints . This is probably of nonsensical utility, but I think the article should address some of these issues at least partially.

ConcernedScientist (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

American stealing of German patents

Dozens of German high tech patents were stolen by the U.S. Government after WWII, part of the Morgenthau Plan to dismantle hundreds of German factories. A great part of this plan was undertaken as the Wikipedia article surlines. Later Americans just returned 10% of the stolen material under the Marshall Plan, but the overwhelming majority of the patents, factories, industrial and scientific material was never returned to Germany. In fact, a great part of the post-War American economic expansion should be credited to the transfer of German high tech to U.S. soil.--79.154.37.157 (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is nationalistic nonsense, German technology was not vastly more advanced than US technology, that it would have this kind of sweeping impact on the economy. The V-2 was full of copied US technology, copies of Sperry gyroscopes, the radio control system was based on an airplane landing system developed by NBS, etc. Furthermore, war reparations are not theft? 24.16.88.14 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also regarding patents: Anybody have solid information about von Braun and Robert Goddard's widow suing the US government for infringement of Goddard's patents? Million dollar settlement? Seems unlikely. ("I read it on the internet, so it must be true.")Lynxx2 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Lynxx2

Wernher von Braun and the SS

This section contains many errors. First, von Braun's membership in the SS was well known to be honorary (Bob Ward, Dr. Space, page 47 or check his FBI file - page 10 of the linked file). He commanded no troops, had no formal SS training, and rarely wore a uniform. Himmler would often give people an honorary membership in order to gain influence and control in various aspects of German society. This is not the same thing as being a real SS officer. Furthermore, he was never a member of the "Waffen-SS" at all. Where do you get this from? That was an armed branch of the SS that participated in battles. Wernher von Braun wasn't involved in anything like that. Furthermore, the SS riding club he was a member of was run by the "Reiter-SS" which was a different thing altogether. Anybody could join whether they were SS or not. It was a riding club designed to attract German nobility. There are many errors here with dates, details and ouright false information.

Furthermore, the statements implying he received no pressure to join are not sourced and should be removed. 98.166.247.147 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the references added to the statements claiming he received no pressure to join the SS, that reference (Bob Ward's Dr Space) does not say what is claimed in the text. It actually says quite the opposite. Instead it says "Dornberger advised von Braun to accept the commission; rejecting it would be taken as a dangerous show of disloyalty and a personal insult to the powerful, merciless Himmler". It would seem that not only is the article riddled with serious errors - it is outright dishonest. Does anybody care? 98.166.241.218 (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Allegations

It seems there are many here who either do not understand that Wikipedia strives to be factual, and not a forum for self righteous pseudo-intellectuals on a moronic crusade. Here is an actual statement that is on this page:

"The whole article is biased. No real mention of war criminal allegations"

No "real" mention of "allegations". Ummmm....This is not Conspirapedia, Allegatapedia, or Opinionpedia. Unless there is a viable reason, and sufficient documentation to even mention or elaborate about certain "allegations", they should not even be mentioned. If every well known allegation is given validity, then we would have President Obama's entry full of paragraphs alleging he was born in Kenya and all sorts of assorted foolishness. I hate to break it you little wannabe Simon Wesenthals, but minds a lot more learned than your own have investigated Von Braun and no smoking guns have been found. If some information surfaces about him at another time, then that information can be looked at.

In the meanwhile, I'd suggest that if you do not have verifiable information, but strong opinions that can not be proven, go to a conspiracy theory web site, or self publish a book outlining your opinions and theories. You need to keep it factual here, whether you look down on Von Braun's Nazi past or not. Stick to the facts, and don't use Wikipedia articles to modify a biographical article to conform with your personal opinions, or to engage in a self righteous "see what a good liberal I am" internet witch hunt. The facts speak for themselves and readers can reach their own conclusions. We are not conducting a virtual War Crimes trial here.(75.69.241.91 (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

father

His father was a member of the conservative DNVP (Winkler, Germany: the long road west, Volume 1). I changed the sentence (never a party politician) accordingly. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Newfeld's "Rocket an the Reich" briefly discusses von Braun's father's right-wing activity. DonPMitchell (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

New York Times Book Review/1/10/10

Here's a new book that someone who knows what they are doing may wish to add to the Additional Reading section of the von Braun article:

Dark Side of the Moon

Wernher von Braun, the Third Reich, and the Space Race by Wayne Biddle

The review, by David Holloway of Stanford University, is entitled "Houston, We Have a Problem"

"Werner von Braun, and this country, skirted the moral implications of his connection to the Nazis"

Easily searchable for necessary details, of course.

75.37.138.216 (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that von Braun in WW2-era Germany was not very political. He was a technical guy with dreams of space travel, he took rocket work where he could find it, and joined the Nazi party because people at his level were required to. Issues related to his connection with the Nazis are of course well-documented and appropriate for the article, but the placement in the lede paragraph that he was a Nazi party member and SS officer seem to put undue weight on these facts. I've read Bob Ward's biography (not exactly bad, but sort of lightweight) and looked through Neufeld's (more thorough than Ward's), and my impression is based on both of these. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Goddard and von Braun

I am sure that Goddard's work influenced von Braun, and it is true that the Germans had a couple spies who observed Goddard's experiemnts (Guellich) and relayed news and publications about Goddard (von Boetticher in the German embassy). Von Braun's group also spied on the Russians (probably more relevant to the V-1, which resembled the GIRD-6 project somewhat) and had copies of Glushko's rocket-engine work in their technical library.

However, the comments about Goddard in the "Prussian rocketeer..." section are not properly cited. The A-1/A-2 rocket did resemble and experiment by Goddard with heavy rotor to stabilize a rocket, but can we be sure this was copied? Goddard's comments about the V-2 was speaking in generality, there were no components in the V-2 copied from Goddard's rockets (which were nowhere near as large or sophisticated). Boris Chertok reports that some components in the V-2 were copies of Sperry gyroscope systems, but that is unrelated to Goddard. DonPMitchell (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Other writers have commented on Goddard examining V-2 components and realizing that their designs were based on some of his. Refer to this WP section on Goddard, Goddard -V2 for a general discussion, but I'm sure you'll find much more detailed information via Google. HarryZilber (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cordell Hull

"On June 20, 1945, U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull approved the transfer of von Braun and his specialists to America; however this was not announced to the public until October 1, 1945. "

Cordell Hull wasn't U.S. Secretary of State on June 20, 1945. Edward Stettinius, Jr. held the position.--Gintaras8182 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Space Camp

The first paragraph is ridiculous. 3 main ideas are introduced: he was a nazi engineer in Germany, he lead the space program in the US, he invented space camps. The space camp is an anecdote compared to the first two ideas. It's like mentioning Hitler's paintings as part of his legacy to the world. It's an insult to the victims of nazis to put space camps at the same level as forced labor and war crimes that Von Braun passively or actively condoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.236.223 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Diamonds Are Forever

That bit about Blofeld being a German scientist based on von Braun seems like crap to me. Blofeld wasn't portrayed as German, or a scientist, though he did employ someone who was both called Professor Dr. Metz, who might be based on von Braun. I might just change it. Sheavsey33 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

NASA and Weaponized Ballistic Rockets

von Braun Trained American Rocket Scientists for carrying weaponized payloads.

While working on the Saturn V rocket, von Braun taught at the Florida Institute of Technology, a top research and development institute designed as a feeder to NASA, on how to weaponize rockets with a lethal payload. For this, von Braun received recognition in the Florida Institute of Technology (Florida Tech) commencement address: see, Wernher von Braun Florida Institute of Technology http://www.fit.edu/graduation/documents/graduation_prog-spring11.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.13.246 (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

two different causes of death

At the end of the article, in two separate paragraphs, two different causes of death are given: kidney cancer and pancreatic cancer. One of them is obviously wrong. Unfortunately, I do not know the right answer, please, someone should correct it. (From a pure medical point of view, considering the level of cancer treatment back in the seventies, pancreatic cancer would have killed him much faster. But it is only my opinion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgarBrazda (talk • contribs) 10:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no inconsistency. It says he was diagnosed with kidney cancer in 1973, and then that he died of pancreatic cancer. Renal cell carcinomas are known to be among the most common causes of metastases to the pancreas (see http://bjr.birjournals.org/content/71/851/1208.full.pdf). It would, however, be nice if the article explicitly made the connection (if that is indeed known). Whatthefat (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly however, if you were to pose the question: what kind of cancer would a person who spent many years round rockets and rocket fuels get, renal cell carcinoma (i.e. 'kidney cancer') would jump out as a biggie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.161.195 (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Material based on work of Reinhard Kargl

A lot of sourced text was recently deleted and replaced by text based on the work of RK. I've never heard of him and I see no reason to prefer his opinion to the earlier ones. No evidence was offered that the replaced passages were wrong and no published references were given for RK's alleged opinions. The edits should have been reverted and discussed directly after they were made, but unfortunately I didn't notice them then. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox icons

Please see Template talk:Infobox military person#Image clutter. -84user (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Please note i set up archiving of this talk page. Hopefully it works. Azx2 05:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

von Braun's scientific credibility

A few weeks ago, a recent article in Der Spiegel asserted that von Braun was a better marketer of himself rather than any scientist or engineer to begin with. The reason his thesis was classified at least up until 1945, the article says, was that it was so bad, and only consisted of a few pages typed up in a matter of two days or so. As much as I remember the article to make it out, said "thesis" consisted mainly of an application for research money in order to fund rocketry building and testing, and the superior who had requested it said he could better justify giving him the staff and funds to his higher-ups if von Braun had a Ph.D., so he just called said application a "thesis" and gave von Braun a Ph.D. for it.

The article was based mainly on the recently published auto-biography of a member of von Braun's team both at Peenememünde and in the US and who by other members was described as the man doing the real work for poser von Braun, but also added some quote from an authentic late-30s or early-40s letter by one of von Braun's superiors where he commented on von Braun's continuing utter incompetence in the field of engineering and even just its theoretical and pratical 101's, "but at the end of the day, the child [von Braun] talked me into letting him play with his toys for another day". --79.193.41.113 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, fascinating, but how hard would it have been for you to provide a link to the article in question? Or at least title and date of publication in print? Sheesh. Azx2 05:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The above is a bit odd compared to the information given in Michael Neufeld's book Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War, Random House LLC, 2007. Neufled description of von Braun's academic achievements are not detailed , he does not give an evaluation of von Braun's dissertation. He does describe von Braun's oral exam for his doctorate, von Braun did well on physics and physical chemistry, he was only average on subjects like philosophy, not usual considering many physical scientists don't become experts in the humanities.

I can relate a direct experience about von Braun's technical abilities. I had the pleasure in the late 1990's of having a conversation with Dr. Joachim Muehlner, in Houston. Muehlner was an electrical engineer and managed a group at Peenemuende who were doing Doppler tracking of the V2 during testing. He said that all the technical groups had a meeting with von Braun every working day. Muehlner was having a problem which he described at the meeting, and von Braun (not an electrical engineer) made a qualitative suggestion that led to a solution of the problem. Muelner said he was impressed with von Braun's grasp on technical problems even though he thought von Braun didn't have detailed 'in the trench' knowledge of a subject. He said he was the most amazing technical manager he ever saw.aajacksoniv (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Aside from his technical ability, I have just an anecdote on von Braun's interpersonal skills, for what it's worth: Many, many years ago I knew a young woman (not a scientist or technical person) who had worked under von Braun at a NASA facility (in Alabama, I believe). She said that he was a charming individual, a very good person to have as a boss. Famspear (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Speer went out of his way to convince Hitler to release von Braun because von Braun was essential to the German war effort (as noted in the article) also says something about von Braun's abilities, technical or otherwise. Famspear (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I find to be an interesting passage from an English translation of Albert Speer's memoir, Inside the Third Reich:

On the morning of July 7, 1943, I invited Dornberger [Col. Walter Dornberger, the head of the Peenemünde rocket test facility] and von Braun to headquarters at Hitler's request. The Fuehrer wanted to be informed on the details of the V-2 project. After Hitler had finished with one of his conferences, we went together over to the movie hall, where some of Wernher von Braun's assistants were ready. After a brief introduction, the room was darkened and a color film shown. For the first time Hitler saw the majestic spectacle of a great rocket rising from its pad and disappearing into the stratosphere. Without a trace of timidity and with a boyish enthusiasm, von Braun explained his theory. There could be no question about it: From that moment on, Hitler had been finally won over. Dornberger explained a number of organizational questions, while I proposed to Hitler that von Braun be appointed a professor. "Yes, arrange that at once with Meissner," Hitler said impulsively. "I'll even sign the document in person."

Hitler bade the Peenemünde men an exceedingly cordial good-by. He was greatly impressed, and his imagination had been kindled. Back in his bunker he became quite ecstatic about the possibilities of this project. "The A-4 [i.e., the V-2 rocket project] is a measure that can decide the war. [. . . .] Speer, you must push the A-4 as hard as you can!

[ . . .]

There was only one point on which he [Hitler] pressed me, when we were alone again. "Weren't you mistaken? You say this young man is thirty-one? I would have thought him even younger!" He thought it astonishing that so young a man could already have helped to bring about a technical breakthrough which would change the face of the future.....

--from Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, p. 368, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks (copyright 1970 by Simon & Schuster, Inc., excerpted under the Fair Use Doctrine) (translated from the German by Richard and Clara Winston). Famspear (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Slave Labor

The accounts given in the article are a bit over the top. Even M. Neufeld views these accounts as a case of mistaken identity. I think they should be taken out. Neufeld quotes below:

35 Testimony of Adam Cabala quoted in Julius Mader, Geheimnis von Huntsville: Die wahre Karriere des Raketenbarons Wernher von Braun, 3rd ed. (Berlin-East, 1967), 323; testimony of Robert Cazabonne (Buchenwald/Dora no. 21124), Dijon, 3 Feb. 1997, English translation kindly provided by Guido Zembsch-Schreve. Cazabonne reports that a fellow prisoner witnessing a hanging in the tunnel pointed out one of the German onlookers and said "That's VON BRAUN." We know with near certainty that Wernher von Braun was not there; however, it might have been his brother Magnus, as civilian employees were expected to attend.

The second story comes from Guy Morand in a notarized testimonial given in Cannes in 1995. While working, coincidentally enough, on the testing of the servomotors for the Kommando assigned to the Askania company, a subcontractor evacuatedt o the tunnels,h e found one day thath is "chronometer"w as missing and hidden under some equipment by someone on the night shift in a "stupid form of sabotage." In order to cover for him, Morand told the foreman that it was an accident. Like the good Nazi he was, he immediately started shouting that it was sabotage, when just at that point VON BRAUN arrived accompanied by his usual group of people. Without even listening to my explanations, he ordered the Meister to have me given 25 strokes in his presence by an SS [man] who was there. Then judging the strokes weren't sufficiently hard, he ordered that I be flogged more vigorously, and this order was then diligently carried out, which caused much hilarity in the group, and following this flogging, VON BRAUN made me translate that I deserved much more, that in fact I deserved to be hanged, which certainly would be the fate of the "Mensch" (good-for nothing) I was. Morand goes on to state that he was known as "one of the inventors of the "V2" and made frequent "rapid inspections" of the hall.39 The administration of corporal punishment in the tunnels, as opposed to the camp, would have been quite unusual, but we have no reason to doubt the story altogether. Yet it may rest on a case of mistaken identity. In September 1944 Wernher von Braun assigned his younger brother Magnus, a twenty-five-year-old chemical engineer and Luftwaffe pilot, as his special liaison to the Mittelwerk, particularlyf or servomotorp roduction,w hich was afflicted with serious technical problems. Although still an employee of Peenemunde, Magnus von Braun stayed in the Nordhausen area full-time until the evacuation of April 1945. In contrast, his elder brother visited the Mittelwerk, by his estimates, twelve or fifteen times in total.40M orandg ives the time of the incident as the "second half of 1944," which corresponds to Magnus von Braun's assignment to the factory, and the testimonial never actually gives "von Braun" a first name.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1433245?uid=3739936&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103268232313 98.166.246.220 (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Propose merge of Bibliography and Further Reading

I can't see the need for separating the book lists. OK to merge?--Graham Proud (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wernher von Braun and Waffen-SS

There is a contradictory statement concerning the SS membership of von Braun in Bornemann "Geheimprojekt Mittelbau". It states: "Am 21. Februar 1944 schlug Reichsführer SS Himmler Professor v. Braun vor, vom Heer zur SS überzutreten. Sein Plan: Dornberger isolieren, von Braun danach kaltstellen und Kammler einschalten. Doch Wernher von Braun gab dem Reichsführer SS einen Korb." (In February 1944 Reichsführer SS Himmler suggested that Professor v. Braun may quit the military membership and join the SS. His plan: isolating Dornberger, ignoring Braun later and pushing Kammler. But von Braun refused the offer.) After the "Hitler Attentat" the power struggle between the military and the SS was decided and the military got converted to SS in 1944. Bornemann: "Damit war Anfang August 1944 Peenemünde in die Hände der SS gefallen und der Machtkampf um die Rakete entschieden." (So at the beginning of August 1944 the SS were in control of Peenemünde and the rocket.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.156.22 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I know this is an old comment, but WvB was never part of the Waffen-SS (which is a subset of the SS, of which he was a member). Nczempin (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything I have read about von Braun is that his SS membership was "honorary". I realize Neufeld prefers not to state it that way but most other references do including his FBI file along with most other authors. The major question is what he did to get this? The SS, even the Allgemeine SS, required a qualifying and training process. I don't see any evidence von Braun was required to do this. If this were just given to him because of his rocket work or because they wanted influence in the program it has to be honorary.QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It is widely accepted among historians that Wernher von Braun played a much bigger role in the Third Reich than he admitted his signature was found under many documents ordering the deportation of jewish inmates to Mittelbau Dora and yet he hasn't been brought to justice . The only thing that prevented him being sentenced at the Entnazifiezirungs Prozesse was that the US wanted him and his knowledge so badly for their rocket programm. I always feel like throwing up when I read articles that give him reward for his great contribution to science because you cant spite the fact that he had played a crucial role in the Third Reich . So he was saying that he only did all this because otherwise he would have been harmed than I cant prove him wrong but still even than he could have stood up against what was going on as people like Sophie Scholl did , those people deserve reward not him . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.19.16 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death

According to the English Wikipedia, von Braun died of pancreatic cancer. According to the French version, it was liver cancer, the German version says colorectal cancer and the Dutch one kidney cancer. Which version is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.166.188 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Probable cause of Death: homeophatic radiation poisoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.67.211 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Surrender: Period between May 2 and June 19, 1945

Do we know what he and his unit were up to here?

The article indicates that the SS had orders to execute the scientists in the event of their imminent capture, although WvB had managed to arrange for their dispersed disposition in order to make such orders more difficult to carry out.

His brother apparently found US forces to whom he offered the proposed surrender on May 2, but the article doesn't explain what happened immediately after. It seems like the dispersed arrangement of the scientists could have made it more difficult for the US to round them all up without SS units carrying out their orders to execute the scientists. (It's not really clear that this didn't occur in at least some instances.)

Or, really, any number of other things might have transpired.

If this information is available, it seems of interest and worthy of inclusion.

Drolz⁰⁹ 10:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mars Project

I have read several articles about Wernher Von Braun, and the book: "Project Mars", by Willy Ley and Wernher Von Braun, which I owned for about twenty years, has been removed from them, as though it did not exist. Whether this is pure ignorance on the article writers' parts or there is some other reason I do not pretend to know, but to me it was the most important book ever written on space travel and Mars exploration in particular, in which Von Braun maintained,(supplying the blueprints and technical travel plans, as well as the physical, engineering and chemical fuel details)that a manned trip to Mars was possible in 1955-60. All that was needed was the will to go. I am inquiring if anyone knows why the existence of this book is being denied? I know that it existed; I had my own copy. It was in my library for students' use at Wellington College, Wellington, New Zealand, when I taught there in the !970's. One of the students borrowed it and forgot to return it. A small (Viking?) paperback, I was not concerned until I realised I could not find a replacement. Now people seem to be saying there never was such a book. It is a mystery I hope somebody can solve for me... [personal information redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.213.45 (talk • contribs)

The book is mentioned in the article. It also has its own article: The Mars Project. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr.K., for your devastating response to this IP's carelessness. You promptly and unquestionably shut this issue right down. You slammed the door on him/her. Total pwnage. I salute you. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong date

Clearly he wasn't living in El Paso, Texas in 1944... anyone know the correct date for this quote in the Religious Conversion section? 210.246.32.235 (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Religious conversion year

article states that he reached USA in 1945, so how could he convert in El Paso in 1944, during the war?--Arado (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Awkward picture in article

There is a picture of von Braun during the launch of Apollo 11 where von Braun has an awkward face on. It seems unfitting for the article. Also, this may be why the article isn't a "good article". WikiGuiGuy (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it is because the article contains large chunks of text without references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Kidney Cancer or Pancreatic?

Article mentions that he was diagnosed with kidney cancer, and the cite note mentions renal (kidney) cancer but in the death section his death is ascribed to pancreatic cancer. Additional research and/or a discussion on why sources disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.66.236.163 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference to him being a "ladies' man"

I think the reference to Wernher being a "ladies' man" might benefit from some examination. Even if for the simple fact that the term doesn't have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.211.139 (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Still the term is not uncommon, and I don't think there is a principle that only words with their own Wikipedia entries may be used in Wikipedia articles. I concede that the term is somewhat vague and not entirely strictly defined, but there's still a sort of general understanding of what it means. In my view it enhances the article by adding a character trait which readers might find useful to know about the person in question. What do we gain by deleting it? SchnitteUK (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

"Lush" is the term the ladies in question used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

correct last name

This article shortens the man's name as variously "Braun", "von Braun", and "Von Braun." Which is correct? 2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

In German it is customary to use the full name only when it's first mentioned, and to drop the 'von' afterwards. It may be reintroduced in a new section or paragraph, but repeating it all the time sounds odd, a bit like repeating the title professor all the time in English. I don't think this usage is common in English however. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm German, and I've never heard of such a custom. I think the more customary approach would be to use "von Braun" throughout, because that's what his family name was; it wasn't just "Braun". SchnitteUK (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Really. And just a glance at de:Wernher von Braun shows "von Braun" used exclusively. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

And should English wikipedia render it " von Braun" or " Von Braun"? They both are used in the article, causing an inconsistency. 119.92.93.84 (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've corrected the ones that don't start sentences or captions. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Properly, his surname (at least, his original German surname) is "Freiherr von Braun". I'd guess, without looking for evidence, that his registered name as an American citizen was simply "von Braun". Despite what the article implies, he did not inherit the noble title of Freiherr since it was abolished, along with all titles of German nobility, in 1919 when the Weimar Constitution came into effect, at which time his father was still alive. (Maximilian, his paternal grandfather, died in 1918, so Magnus Sr. was properly Freiherr for a brief period.) The title was converted into a surname – rather than "Freiherr Magnus von Braun" he was "Magnus Freiherr von Braun" – and his son Werner inherited this surname. Hairy Dude (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"Shot on the spot" quote

When asked if von Braun could have protested against the brutal treatment of the slave laborers, von Braun team member Konrad Dannenberg (a member of the Nazi party since 1932) told The Huntsville Times, "If he had done it, in my opinion, he would have been shot on the spot."[48]

Should this really be given the literal "last word on the subject?" The source is reliable and I suppose it's notable that Dannenberg did say this, but the underlying claim is wildly misleading, to the point where it seems like editorial misconduct to present it as credible. There are absolutely zero examples of anything at all like this happening in the history of Nazi Germany. People far less important than von Braun did far more than verbally protest against atrocities and were never "shot on the spot," indeed they most often faced no or only trivial punishment. The same applies to von Braun's ridiculous fabricated story in Crusader for Space about being threatened by an SS guard, and so on. I'm not sure if this stuff should just be scrubbed outright but it shouldn't be presented as truth, or as if it even might be true. It's crude apologia. TiC ^(talk) 00:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Wernher von Braun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817172206/http://astronautix.com/astros/vonbraun.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/vonbraun.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120527011940/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,220201,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,220201,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?%2Fxml%2Fstory.ssf%2Fhtml_standard.xsl%3F%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F1033754724262943.xml
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5o4n4VGwL?url=http://www.v2rocket.com/start/chapters/paperclip.gif with https://www.webcitation.org/5o4n4VGwL?url=http://www.v2rocket.com/start/chapters/paperclip.gif on http://www.v2rocket.com/start/chapters/paperclip.gif
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5o4nSQ9VI?url=http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/lunarlan.html with https://www.webcitation.org/5o4nSQ9VI?url=http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/lunarlan.html on http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/lunarlan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080628074648/http://www.dw-world.de/dw/episode/0,2144,2617731,00.html to http://www.dw-world.de/dw/episode/0,2144,2617731,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080628074648/http://www.dw-world.de/dw/episode/0,2144,2617731,00.html to http://www.dw-world.de/dw/episode/0,2144,2617731,00.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Addition of quote from Galaxy Science Fiction.

Can others weigh in on this edit by User:Ylee? It was reverted by User:Attic Salt. Reinstated by Ylee and then reverted by myself. I do not believe an opinion piece ("Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces") in a science fiction magazine is a reliable source for statements of what most "many Americans" thought about such an issue, and as a standalone quote I believe it is undue weight to quote a science fiction editor in a context such as this. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wernher von Braun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150428051040/http://efour4ever.com/44thdivision/vonbrauncapture.html to http://efour4ever.com/44thdivision/vonbrauncapture.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150428051040/http://efour4ever.com/44thdivision/vonbrauncapture.html to http://efour4ever.com/44thdivision/vonbrauncapture.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wernher von Braun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402160146/http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-20th-century-faust to http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-20th-century-faust
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621130244/http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/announcement_4.pdf to http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/announcement_4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080628100312/http://www.dw-world.de/dw/episode/0,2144,2617732,00.html to http://www.dw-world.de/dw/episode/0,2144,2617732,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080628170558/http://www.dw-world.de/dw/episode/0,2144,2617733,00.html to http://www.dw-world.de/dw/episode/0,2144,2617733,00.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wernher Osenberg

After WWII, the army issued a letter to a soldier named George Aumann, thanking him for his service interviewing former Nazi scientists. Prominently mentioned is a Werner Osenberg (the s is faded and might be a different letter), "Director of the 'Reichsforschungs Plan' and inventor of "V-2".

Can anybody explain this last name discrepancy?

Mr. Aumann said there was a name change at some point but this doesn't fit this article.

Steve

Apologies for parallel posting in V-2 rocket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweisberg (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Commented at Talk:V-2 rocket#Wernher Osenberg. Favonian (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

English variant

This article has a strong national tie to the US, and probably was first written in American English. The variant apparently got muddled when some editor added a wikilink to Forced labour under German rule during World War II, and put the phrase "utilized slave labour", into a photo caption. Von Braun defected to the American soldiers and became a pillar of the US space program, not to England, who did not put a man on the Moon.

Because of the forementioned photo caption, I mis-identified the variant as British. Non-American English speaking editors, please take care to keep the article in American English. Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"Volksverhetzung era"

"It was also confirmed that he was responsible for an estimated 20 patentable innovations related to rocketry during the Volksverhetzung era"

Wth is that supposed to mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.64.7 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Allegiance to the United States

Why did that end in 1960? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B894:83E0:B81A:12C:11A3:A70C (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps: The allegiance parameter is for "the country or other power the person served". He stopped serving in the US Army at that time, and joined NASA, which is civilian. (Hohum ^@) 18:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The infobox is not saying his allegience to the US ended; it is talking about his military service. There is a Service years field which might make this clearer, though it's complicated by the fact he served in two armies. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The actual truth

Why is this article so Disneyfied? You guys do realize that this guy was a literal Nazi and having an article that paints him as a "True American Hero" is tantamount to making racist propaganda? I'd like to see this article edited so it reflects the true nature of this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.107.83 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Or at least edit the content that talks about he was “ambivalent” about being a Nazi. His lies about how he thought Hitler was a clown. How is that relevant? I’m sure every Nazi at Nuremberg said that too. So what? Soul schizm (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If you have any verification for this 'real truth' in the form of citations, legitimate ones, then by all means, provide them.2001:44B8:2170:D900:D80D:5067:87E3:64CC (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I had the same concern the article is weasely in trying to justify the crimes of a monster. This is someone who helped perpetrate the holocaust and murdered tens of thousands in his slave camps and innocent civilians in London and other British cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.13.28 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so feel free to improve the article, ensuring you use reliable sources for any new material. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Bunch of BS

The man was a Nazi, as surely and totally as all the rest of them. Why can’t we just admit this?

OK, he was an amazing engineer and helped the U.S. immensely with its space program. All of that content is fair and well-written.

But this horsepucky about how he didn’t really want to join up but had to, and oh there are a couple photos but they didn’t mean much...

Stop. Please. Soul schizm (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not implausible that he joined the Party as a matter of expediency, that is to say, he wanted to remain among the living. As a party member he was by definition a Nazi; but does that constrain logic so narrowly that only a single inference can be soundly arrived at, that he was a passionate subscriber to Nazism as a philosophy? In my estimation the question is not irrefutably answered. Even the issue of slave labor in the rocket factory is not, to me, obviously a case of complicity. At that late date -any- open dissent was enough to ensure facing a firing squad, because the SS had no compunction about murder. Might he have sneaked away and trekked to the Allied forces? That would likely have generated repercussions against his staff at Peenemunde. Might he and all of his staff have sneaked away to the Allies? That's a lot of people. It makes the problem of getting them all to safety much worse and unlikely to succeed. There came a point at which conscientious objection was impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.220.11 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The article content reflects what reliable sources say, which is what wikipedia is all about. (Hohum ^@) 17:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The article tries to paint the man in a positive light, and thus doesn't reflect the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.13.28 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so feel free to improve the article, ensuring you use reliable sources for any new material. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Date format

@JustinTime55: My reasoning for changing the date format to dmy has nothing to do with whether or not Germany is an English speaking nation, it’s simply due to the fact that Germany use the dmy format. As the MOS you quoted states:

• If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

• The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

I think the fact that von Braun is the topic of the article and he is of German nationality more than qualifies as having "strong national ties". – ².O.^Boxing 01:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The MOS you are quoting only applies to date formats used in English-speaking countries. And it also states that once a format has been established, it should not be changed without consensus. I disagree that von Braun's "national ties" to a date format are as strong as you say they are. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The MOS clearly says "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. " (My bold). Germany is not English speaking, so it doesn't apply. The article should retain its established format. (Hohum ^@) 14:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I stupidly misunderstood the strong national ties aspect, clever me lol So that particular MOS, which doesn’t specify BLPs, overrides the date format used in a person's homeland where they spent the first part (and majority) of their life? So if von Braun never went to America, it would then surely use the German format? That seems rather silly. I can understand the MOS relating to say, a Chinese product or event (struggling to think of an example) which has strong ties to England would use dmy over the Chinese mdy, but I'm somewhat dubious as to whether this applies to BLPs. It seems like common sense to use the date format relating to a person's nationality in a BLP, regardless whether they have a strong tie to an English speaking country which uses a different format. I think the fact it says, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation”, means there's obvious exceptions. Surely a BLP would be one of those? – ².O.^Boxing 18:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

What does BLP have to do with anything? That stands for Biographies of Living Persons. von Braun has been dead for 42 years. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Put down the bat, this horse is dead. (Hohum ^@) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove the 'BL' and keep the 'P'. The subject of the article is still of a person, not his career or where he spent the remainder of his life, so my questions still remain (unanswered). And no, the horse is not dead seeing as you both decided to ignore every reasonable query and only focus on a mistake, which was quite clearly a mistake. Replace BLP with biography and try again please, thanks. – ².O.^Boxing 20:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is English wikipedia. Only English varieties of dates will be used. There is no such thing as a German version of an English date format. Germany is not an English speaking country. The article correctly retains the established variety of date format. Whether the article is a biography or not isn't relevant. You have been patiently answered multiple times, assertions otherwise appear to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and make continued assumption of WP:AGF a stretch. (Hohum ^@) 20:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

So making genuine queries on an MOS is considered disruption and bad faith? Ok, pal. As far as I’m concerned you've just removed yourself from this conversation. Thanks for your input. – ².O.^Boxing 20:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of any of that, Hohum is correct, and you are misunderstanding the manual of style. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Add to "Category:Nazi_party_members"

Hey folks -- I think it would be appropriate to add von Braun to the category "Nazi party members." I don't think this should be a particularly controversial change, but thought I'd add a section here for comments in any case. LMK what y'all think Waidawut (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)