Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Old posts

Hitler supposedly had a weakness for the young and handsome Speer, whose designs were considered expressions of National Socialist principles.

What is implied by that? cprompt

I’ve changed it to “Hitler was always a strong supporter of Speer”. --GeneralPatton 22:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The original sentence did not suggest any homosexual affection whatsoever. It simply implied that Hitler saw in Speer as he would have liked to be himself. Ottens 20:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've augmented this, providing a bit of explanation why the two developed a strong relationship: "Hitler was always a strong supporter of Speer, in part because of Hitler's own frustrated artistic and architectural visions. A strong affinity developed between Hitler and the ambitious young architect early in their professional relationship. For Speer, serving as architect for the head of the German state and being given virtual carte blanche as to expenses, presented a tremendous opportunity. For Hitler, Speer personified a talented architect capable of translating Hitler's grandiose visions into tangible designs which expressed what Hitler felt were National Socialist principles." -- JonRoma 19:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate to Add Photograph?

I added mention of the Maushausen photo, as it is brought up in many accounts of the Nurenburg trials, sometimes referred to as the "photo that almost got Albert Speer hanged."

While I have located a copy of this photo online, I don't play with online art, because I don't pretend to understand the constantly-changing laws about "fair use," copyrights, etc.

Personally, I think it would be a great addition to this article, but I am not qualified to add photos to Wikipedia. The following is a link to a JPEG of the photo if anyone who knows more about copyright law wants to add it. --L. 29 June 2005 14:45 (UTC) Rüstungsminister Albert Speer mit Häftlingen des KZ Mauthausen

Holocaust

To my knowledge, Speer always admired Hitler. Please check someone this "assassination" story. Does not seem believable!?

Secondly, it was Eichmann who engineered the logistics of extermination. Speer worked on the logistics of armaments and labor. If his role in Holocaust was true and verifiable, he would have hung!

MM.

The assassination story is true, he wrote about himself in Inside the Third Reich. Adam Bishop 04:34, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Now that I look at the article again, I'm not sure that Speer had anything to do with Wannsee. All they got him for at Nuremburg was prolonging the war, and slave labour, I believe. Adam Bishop 04:45, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Speer started the "assassination" story back in 1945 debriefings. And yes, prolonging the war, and slave labor where what he was accused of (and he admitted it himself), had he been involved in the final solution, he would have ended up on the gallows. --GeneralPatton 22:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

QUESTION: Understand the following: In late 1990s/early 2000s, after Speer's death, examination of the RAF photos of Hitler's bunker directly contradicted the timeline Speer gave for the assassination attempt. Does this constitute "scant evidence" or "evidence indicates that he did not?"

Aha! Should not though his post-Nuremberg word be taken with caution? I could imagine Speer as a great admirer of Hitler who woke up by 1946 or 1947 and though ... "My God! How foolish was I to follow this blundering madman?". Perhaps "scorched earth" policy of March 19 made him furious and for a moment in anger he though "I would like to kill this Hilter bastard". Then a few years later he might cover up for his foolish trust in the "leader" by converting a momentary thought of anger into an imaginary plot. Sort of self-defense, perhaps partly based on self-delusion? No idea. Just speculating on little knowledge.

Of what I know Speer seems a technical mind, efficient, intelligent, well-organized, and blindly following the leadership (nearly up to the end). Thoughts of assassination just do not fit this model. He seemed too "mild" and too much focused on the creative side of building the "great" Reich

Yes, that is one of the problems with that segment of Inside the Third Reich. It is a little convenient that his plan was foiled, and that he was never punished like other conspirators were, or that no one else seems to have known about it...but it does seem to be true that he was actively working against Hitler's scorched earth policy. Perhaps he never did try to kill him though. I think it still warrants a mention in the article, though it might be amended to say he only claimed to have tried. Adam Bishop 14:47, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Speer did not claim that he tried to kill Hitler; his autobiography only states that he contemplated procuring poison gas and investigated introducing it into the ventilation system in the Führerbunker during the last months of the war. Speer states that he abandoned it as impractical; it may have been so, or this may have been skittishness about taking so drastic a step. Nevertheless, merely thinking about it doesn't constitute an attempt. -- JonRoma 18:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Speer admitted he actually was glad his assasination plan did not work out as he was uncomfortable with the whole idea.

And he did say in one of his books that he clandestinely resisted the scorched earth plan.

Also, this was just one of the many absurd plans Speer had floating in his head in the last days of the Third Reich, he also considered stealing a sea plane and flying to Greenland to wait out the end of the war.

An episode of a TV program on the History Channel a few years tried to debunk the assasination story by proving that the outside ventilation unit for the generator (through which Speer intended to introduce the gas into the Bunker) had been modified in a way to prevent this much earlier than Speer claimed in his book. Basically, a tube and protective shaft was installed to raise the opening from ground level to over 6 feet high (I forget the exact height) so that low-lying fumes from a gas attack would not enter the ventilation shaft. Well and good. But what this program never addressed was how and why Speer (by now in Allied custody) would have had such detailed knowledge about the ventilation system in the first place, right down to describing the exact specifications of the protective construction. He obviously had visited the site and considered it. His dates are far off, and that seems to suggest that he played up the episode at his trial and made it seem that he had pursued the assasination idea more than he really did; but his knowledge of the ventilation shaft can't be entirely written off. Even if the 'plot' went no further than his private musings, he had obviously thought about it. Texxasfinn (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

After the Wannsee conference, Speer was ordered to work out the logistics of the "final solution of the Jewish question," making him a key figure in the perpetration of the Holocaust. --
I deleted this because it just isn't true. Someone has confused him with Eichmann. Just to be sure I consulted two thick books on the holocaust and neither mentioned Speer in any such role. --Zero 13:13, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Scorched earch policy/to Roadrunner

Roadrunner, Speer's refusal to carry the scorched earth policy is a documented fact. He even made sure that some trusted employees had weapons to defend mines against destruction by the SS. Read e.g. Sereny's book. He also used the anti-defaitist arguments to convince people. He asked managers of plants whether they believed that their plant would be re-captured by the Wehrmacht. These managers had to say yes otherwise they would get prosecuted for defaitism. And then Speer answered that this was the reason that they shouldn't be destroyed. Of course, Speer knew that the German army was not able to re-capture the plants. Andries 17:46, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Albert Speer#First Architect of the Reich seems taken from http://www.robsacc.nl/ottens/albertspeer.html (copyright 2002-2004 The Ottens Lexicon)

Terms of usage: The content created for and copyright of the Ottens Lexicon is not public domain. However, it is free to be reproduced by anyone under the following common-sense terms:

1. You publish the material in the form of excerpts. I do not approve of reproduction of entire pages or of sites that use my layout graphics or otherwise imitate the look of the Ottens Lexicon.

2. You give appropriate credit to the Ottens Lexicon in the form of a hyperlink. I will agree to a mention on a global credit page if you use single content, but I insist on individual credits for more extensive excerpts.

3. For any content I am using by courtesy of a third party, you credit this original source. Note that in some cases of contributed material special terms of use may apply.

4. I will retract a preliminary approval if the material appears in an improper context. This may include, but is not restricted to: anti-Star Trek websites, sites which promote other forms of intolerance, sites on which my content is disfigured or distorted, sites which misquote my opinions, sites that sell intellectual property created by me.

I appreciate to be informed in advance, if you like to use my material under the above terms.

On the contrary, that page seems to have copied directly from Wikipedia without giving credit (I recognize my own words in there, for example). Adam Bishop 06:31, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I talked to the guy and the page now says Wikipedia is a source...I'm sure whatever licenses we have require something else, but that's acceptable to me. Adam Bishop 23:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Albert_Speer article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Albert_Speer}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Minister of Armaments

Changed the formulation "only sane man" for Stauffenberg, because his position cannot be seen as positive. The conspiracy of 20.Juli was not one of democratic minds. These people were militaristic-monarchistic or rightwing conservative at the most. TF 11 Jan 2005

Disambiguation page

To the anon who keeps making this a disambiguation page: how can you possibly suggest Albert Speer the younger is as famous as his father? It's crazy - please, leave the elder Speer here, where he belongs. Adam Bishop 00:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deportation of Jews

There is a glaring omission from this article. There should certainly be some sort of mention of Speer's co-ordination of the eviction and deportation of Jews from Berlin.

There is no evidence that he was involved (had a hand in) the eviction of the Jews from Berlin. See this Spiegel contribution by Gitta Sereny about recent the German TV documentary Speer und Er (in German). Jim_Lockhart 02:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Speer's first commission

The article states that "Speer's first commission as a Party member came in 1933 when Goebbels asked him to renovate the Propaganda ministry..." However, more accurately, after joining the Nazi party in 1931 Speer was asked to renovate the home of the Nazi official in Berlin (Karl Hanke), then given the more difficult task of rebuilding the party headquarters in Berlin. Upon completion of this work which inpressed the Nazi leadership, Speer was commissioned to renovate the Propaganda ministry.

Date of marriage

This is probably trivial, but I seem to read in Speer's autobiography that he married in 1927, not 1931. Can someone verify either date?

Nazi Party Membership

Supposedly Speer was not a member of the Nazi Party due to a clerical error which never added him to the membership roster.

-He was a member of the party, just not a member of the "Motorized SS." (Inside the 3rd Reich, page 27.)

Factual Inaccuracies?

Although Goebbels' performance offended Speer, he could not shake the impressions Hitler made on him. The next day he joined the Nazi Party. Are you sure? I think Speer joined the Nazi party on the 5th of December, 1930 the day after he heard Hitler (not Goebbels) speak for the first time. You could probably also add Speer's comment to Sereny: [he] found that [Hitler] bore a note of reasonable modesty.

Speer's first commission as a Party member came in 1933 when Goebbels asked him to renovate the Propaganda Ministry. I think Speer's first commission as a party member was redesigning the Berlin Party HQ Adolf Hitler House not the Propaganda Ministry.

I don't think Speer redesigned the Reich Chancellery itself, but, rather, the official residence in the Reich Chancellery for Hitler. (They may be one and the same, however).

capable of holding two hundred and forty thousand people. At the 1934 Party rally on the parade grounds, Speer surrounded the site with one hundred and fifty anti-aircraft searchlights.

I think there were 130 not 150 searchlights. Plus I think the Zeppelin Field could hold 340,000 not 240,000.

During his involvement in the rebuilding of Berlin, he was allegedly responsible for the forced deportation of Jews, evicting them from their houses to make room for his grand plans and for re-housing German citizens affected by this work. He was also listed as being present at the 1943 Posen Conference, although he supposedly left early. I think this needs more attention. Speer evicted 75,000 Berliner Jews during his tenure as Great Building Inspector for Tranformation of Reich Capital. This was recorded in the Wolter's Chronicle. While at the October 6, 1943 conference at Posen, Speer was already Armaments Minister, and so that incident should be mentioned in the next paragraph.

Regarding the death penalty - which the Soviets pushed for - according to Fest, if I remember correctly, most judges were pushing for the death penalty at the trial.

This conversation, it is said, brought Hitler to tears. In spite of this reaffirmation and Speer's trip to the Führerbunker toward the final days of the war - - I thought the conversation took place in the Bunker, after which Speer was arrested and therefore could not travel back to the bunker again...

After Speer's Mauthausen visit, it is on record that he asked that conditions be made worse for inmates. That should be mentioned. As should the fact that Speer visited other slave labour camps: Camp Dora which he called the worst place I'd ever seen and the Landsberg Aircraft Factory. In both instances he asked for improvements in conditions. I also think that the actual verdict for Speer should be included; the verdict mentions that Speer was the only one to have the courage to tell Hitler the war was lost and stop the senseless destruction associated with Hitler's scorched earth policy.

For example, through one of his friends, Karl Hanke, he learned of Auschwitz and the large number of deaths taking place there. Technically Hanke didn't inform him about Auschwitz, but, rather, a place that existed in Silesia which Speer concluded later must have been Auschwitz.

I'm no Speer expert or anything but I can chip in what I know (or think I know) or at least what some books tell me about a few of these things.

• In Inside the Third Reich, Speer says he saw Hitler speak first, was impressed, then "a few weeks after this speech" he was taken to see Goebbels's speech and, despite not being too impressed, he went "the following day and applied to for membership in the National Socialist Party and in Janurary 1931 became Member Number 474,481." So I suppose there was something of a delay in having his membership processed, but I think the date he applied is the date that should be cited as the date of his membership
• Regarding his first assignment: It says that he first did a some small renovations to the villa of Karl Hanke (I love that name), and Hanke in turn recommended Speer to Goebbels for the rebuilding of the "new district headquarters" that was named in honour of Hitler. Since Goebbels was the Gaulieter of Berlin (where this building was situated) this was Goebbels office. So the name "Adolf Hitler House" is kinda irrelevant
• You're right about there being 130, not 150, searchlights, I'll change that
• The Soviets pushed for death for pretty much all of the indicted, so that part isn't in question, but I specifically remember reading in the book "Long Knives and Short Memories" that all of the others were opposed. At first the American judge, I believe, was for it, but at the end all judges except the Soviet one were against the death sentence. I wish I could cite exact information but I don't have that book on me at the moment. I remember specifically coming to his page to change the information regarding the death penalty to what it is now after first reading it.
• You're right that it took place in the Bunker, I'll fix that as well. The arrest thing is news to me though. Do you mean arrested by the Allies? I think there was a considerable period in between Hitler's death and his capture by the Allies
• You should feel free to correct the information on the concentration camps bits, I don't know much about them --Clngre 13:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Since Goebbels was the Gaulieter of Berlin (where this building was situated) this was Goebbels office. So the name "Adolf Hitler House" is kinda irrelevant - Yes, but the article claims his first commission was the Propaganda Ministry and, as I understand it, that was a different building, redesigned at a different time.

Re: the death penalty - I'm quite sure most of them were for the death penalty at first - - and, as you pointed out, they changed their minds. Fest actually goes so far as to say that Jackson was hopelessly unprepared for Speer's trial, claiming that he could not fathom Hitler's apathetic style of rule and its polycratic nature. That could be mentioned, I suppose.

Do you mean arrested by the Allies? I think there was a considerable period in between Hitler's death and his capture by the Allies - If I remember correctly, a period did elapse in which Speer may have rejoined his family in the north (I think), however during that period - and given the difficulty it took him to re-enter Berlin the first time - it would have been most difficult to go back to the bunker again. When he was arrested exactly, I don't know.

I'm unwilling to make the changes before I become a member - - if that's alright. Plus, given the debate surrounding Speer I think it'd be wise to leave any possible changes open for discussion first. 60.225.77.105 23:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right about the first thing, I'll change that. Also, I hope you know that becoming a member is a quick, convenient process. I, for one, encourage you to sign up and help out. This place has like gangs of people roaming around offering glowingly welcomes to new members, it seems, but I'm not one of them so forgive my lack of eloquence. Let's be friends, you and I.... forever and ever. --Clngre 00:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to put him off?--shtove 09:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Joachim Fest

Even today, German historians such as Joachim Fest tend to have a high opinion of him, while non-German historians take a lower view

Thats definitely wrong. In an interview about the german-tv movie "Speer und Er" Fest said he was personally disappointed by Speer, "Er hat uns allen eine Nase gezogen"(He punked all of us), because evidence that surfaced after Speers dead proves that he at least partly participated in the holocaust. He personly ordered Auschwitz to be enlarged, he suggested that "Jew flats" should be given to the people who lost their home by the bombings, a.o.. He told nothing of that to Fest when they worked at "Inside the Third Reich".

Why did he join the Nazi Party?

I've read many times that joining the Nazi Party was a platform which Speer intended to use to further his career, however when he joined the Nazis weren't in power, therefore there would have been little incentive to join other than a sharing of ideological beliefs, no?

Imprisonment

Is it me or does this section have a problem with NPOV?

First Architect of the Reich

Image is broken.

Shouldn't there be more written about his achievements. Architectually wise it was a time of real excitement. 86.149.209.189 23:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to insert something. But many of his achievements were never built.--Wehwalt 23:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This article says Speer was 'known as the first architect of the 3rd Reich'. This was his title, First Architect. It did not mean that there was no others before him, it meant that he was the highest ranked Architect. Please fix. - 91.6.162.193 (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is understood that way, but if you think a change is needed, please feel free to improve this article. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Biography on Speer

I read a biography on Herr Speer in 1998, named Albert Speer: His Battle with the Truth [ISBN:0-330-34697], on his relationship with der Fuherer and how he grappled with the guilt he must have felt. She interviewed Speer a few years before he died. Sereny hints that Hitler and Speer had a 'homoerotic' relationship, which isn't surprising given the dynamics of their friendship. It's worth a read and offers terrific insight into Speer's troubled chracter. Geelin 14:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

His biggest mistake

I heard Speer saying in a TV documentary that his biggest mistake as minister of armament was the V-2_rocket project that needed too many resources and yielded too little. Does anyone have the name and date, editor etc. for this TV documentary? I want to add it to the article with the source. Thanks in advance. Andries 18:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds intriguing... I guess you've tried an internet search with keywords such as "Speer", "documentary", "television", "TV", "mistake", "regret", "V-2", "V2", etc...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Check Speer's books on the subject. I am reasonably sure he ways by the time the V2 came around, he knew the war was lost.--Wehwalt 03:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hitler's Henchmen, 6 VHS History Channel" has one VHS tape on Albert Speer and i saw in this documentary, a 3-min segment on the rockets in which it is stated that Speer considered the V-2 to be his biggest mistake.

Speer states in ITR that the V2 was a huge mistake. He also states this in one of the "World at War" episodes that appeared in, and in many interviews. The V2 was a technological marvel, but carried a puny payload. One alternative to the V2 program that the Germans were working on was a surface-to-air heat seeking missile called "Waterfall." Speer opined after the war that if this program had been given priority, hundreds could have been produced monthly by perhaps mid-1944 on. A SAM would have taken a heavy toll on Allied bombers and quite possibly forced a suspension of the strategic bombing campaign. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war by itself, but it could have prolonged it by giving German industry (especially synthetic fuel production) a huge break. Texxasfinn (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Texxasfinn

Death in London

What was Speer doing in London? Had he moved there or was he just visiting? As a Nazi war criminal I'm surprised he was allowed into the country at all. Also, he was the highest ranking Nazi to appear in the ITV documentary The World at War, perhaps we should put something in about this??--Edchilvers 12:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Albert Speer: His Battle With Truth, he was there to participate in a documentary. It was the second time he had been allowed into the UK. The first time, there was all sorts of fuss, as you suggest, with the authorities. The second time, there was no problem. He was still living in Germany.--Wehwalt 12:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, according to the same book by Gitta, he was with his mistress at the time. That BLEW ME AWAY, to find out that in the last year of his life, he had a mistress. Ladycplum (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mauthausen photo

I'm bothered by the ping pong of edits about the Mauthausen photo. I suggest we throw out everything in the paragraph after Speer's sentence. Frankly, a photo of Speer surrounded by prisoners doesn't prove he was aware of the Holocaust, gas chambers and all, and I doubt if the prosecution so alleged. While that was a key piece of evidence in convicting Speer on the counts he was convicted of (which really stemmed from importation of forced labor), the prosecution, as I recall, made little attempt to tie Speer to the Holocaust. If they had done so successfully, he would not have survived Nuremberg. Accordingly, either the prosecution, or the judges, did not view the photo as probative of Speer's knowledge of the Holocaust.--Wehwalt 02:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

Did Speer ever visit or live in PNG? In a collection lodged at the NLA there is an image with the caption Nicholas and his wife (Albert Speer's haus boi 'houseboy') Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1953. Albatross2147 08:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, he never left Europe. And he spent all of 1953 at Spandau.--Wehwalt 09:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent article on Speer's knowlege of the Holocaust

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329743131-111784,00.html This article was recently published in the Guardian, and sheds some new light on what Albert Speer did and didn't know about the Holocaust. Thought the new comments apparently from Speer himself may make relevant additions to this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.30.240 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Sounds like it should be mentioned in the article. Although he still makes it a bit unclear.--Wehwalt 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted this material from the article. Upon looking at the fuller description of the material at the Bonham site [1] it is pretty clear Speer is talking about a belief that the Goldhagen article proves his presence. I don't think it can be included in the article without an awful lot of explaining. The Guardian is being sensationalist.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Speer and Auschwitz

The article contains the claim:

"Newly released documents suggest that Speer knew a lot more about the atrocities than he was telling, but hard evidence for that remains very thin."

The link is to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/11/wspeer11.xml

The article, though making "sensational" claims, provides to credible evidence.

Moreover, the documents are not "newly released", that's a laughable claim. Osobyi arkhiv/RGVA ZBL documents have been available since the beginning of 1990s, especially when the copies arrived in USHMM.

1. "The documents uncovered by the Berlin historian Susanne Willems include a Third Reich report from May 1943 that refers to a "Prof Speer special programme" to expand the Auschwitz camp so that it could serve as a death camp."

While Speer did indeed took part in expansion of Auschwitz, there is no evidence that he knew about its role as extermination camp, and these "new" documents certainly don't provide such evidence. While the items on the expansion lists included crematoria, the gas chambers (which were to be inside these crematoria) were not explicitly mentioned. Thus, the mere fact that Speer took part in expansion of Auschwitz in no way proves or suggests that he knew about one of its evil purposes.

2. "The report, on which Speer made copious handwritten notes in the margins and over the text, refers to the fact that Auschwitz's role as a work camp had "recently been expanded to include the solution to the Jewish question"."

The phrase "solution of the Jewish question" again is not prima facie incriminating, if one did not know its true meaning beforehand, therefore this also does not prove that Speer knew that one of purposes of Auschwitz was mass murder.

3. "The gassing of Jews began at the latest in the spring of 1942. The report was compiled after Speer, who as the head of armaments for the Third Reich was responsible for overseeing the distribution of building materials, dispatched two of his advisers, Desch and Sander, to investigate a number of concentration camps around Germany and Poland, including Auschwitz.

They reported being shown "everything" at the camp by its leader, Rudölf Hoss, who gave them a "short report on the erection and purpose of the whole concentration camp site"."

The report by Desch and Sander doesn't even hint about murder in the camp, and just because they _thought_ that they were shown "everything" doesn't mean that they indeed were shown everything, including the gas chambers.

In fact, Speer himself wrote about the Desch and Sander trip in "Infiltrations":

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y194/Elisar40/speerpage43.jpg http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y194/Elisar40/speerpage44.jpg

So the Desch/Sander report also proves nothing. JFYI, here's how Hoess described "the erection and purpose of the whole concentration camp site":

“In the year 1940, the Auschwitz camp came into existence in the delta estuary between the Vistula river and the Sola river after the evacuation of Polish villages, through the reconstruction of an artillery-barracks site and much construction of extensions, reconstructions and new buildings, utilizing large quantities of material from buildings that had been demolished. Originally intended as a quarantine camp, this later became a Reich camp and thereby was destined for a new purpose. As the situation grew ever more critical, its position on the border of the Reich and G.G. proved especially opportune, since the filling of the camp with workers was guaranteed. Recently and in addition to that came the solution of the Jewish question, which required creating the means to accommodate 60,000 prisoners at first, which increases to 100,000 within a short time. The inmates of the camp are predominantly intended for the industries which are locating in the vicinity. The camp contains within its sphere of interest various armament firms, for which the workers are regularly provided."

Note that there is no hint about extermination. On the contrary, solution of the Jewish question is tied to accomodation of prisoners. Why no hint? Perhaps exactly because Desch and Sander were in attendance, and they were not supposed to learn the truth behind the "solution to the Jewish question" in Auschwitz?

4. "Further research by Miss Willems has shown that on the day of Desch and Sander's visit, 900 Polish Jews were murdered in the gas chambers."

That is a rather silly claim in the article, since no research by Willems was involved here, gassing of 900 Jews is referred to in the Kalendarium, the standard work ( http://www.deportati.it/static/pdf/libri/kalendarium/1943_2.pdf ). This shows the rather low scholarly level of the news item.

Thus, the claim that these "newly released" documents "suggest" that Speer knew more than he claimed about Auschwitz is false.

Now, there seems to be indeed a newly released document that suggests that Speer was present at Posen speech:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,,2032490,00.html

I suggest the link to be inserted instead of the old one.

--Sergey Romanov 08:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement. Claims of "must have known" do not equal "knew". Speer admits in his books to not asking the questions which would have resulted in answers. As for Posen, in ITTR, he does say he was at the Posen conference, but left early to fly and meet Hitler. However, there the record of Hitler's dinner guests that evening does not include Speer, and there is dispute as to the significance of that. We need to be careful to avoid having this article be a platform for those who seek to prove Speer's guilt or innocence on the question of actual knowledge of the Holocaust.--Wehwalt 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's start moving towards GA

I think this article has the core of a GA, at least, possibly a featured article in it. Lots of good material, too little of it sourced. Let's start getting the material cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've wrapped up Jena Six, I'm going to start work on this article soon. I've got most of the books on Speer and his two major books. I'm going to get this article, I hope, to GA and then to FA. It ought to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Work is underway on this article. I'm concentrating on getting the facts in there, then will add the citations. My goal is to get this to GA by the end of the year, to FA by the spring, and get this on the front page for the anniversary of Speer's death on 1 September 2009. There were some howling factual errors. Speer's "rifle club" statement did not have to do with Nuremberg, but an earlier Berlin rally. I've cleared it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speer pronunciation

The average English reader will not know what the proper pronunciation of his name is unless some sort of pronunciation is given. I have twice tried to add an English IPA pronunciation, which is pretty much the standard on English Wikipedia, but have been reverted. If someone has a better way of demonstrating the proper pronunciation then feel free to add it, but it definitely needs some sort of pronunciation guidance. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is standard practice to allow it without a cite, fine, it's cool.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never known a cite to be required for a pronunciation of a person's name on Wikipedia, even for featured articles. See Barack Obama. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a horrible link. I can't make much sense out of it without putting in a lot of effort. It would be more useful ot have an audio link, which many articles have, so the reader can hear the name. I have never seen the one on the current article before. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No need for a citation since this is the standard pronunciation of the word "speer" in German. (and so it falls in the category of readily verifiable facts or whatever is the standard formulation) An audio link is, I think, an overkill. The (very few) people that are seriously interested in the pronunciation will sift through the IPA link which is a bit complicated because, well, IPA is a bit complicated. Pichpich (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is "a bit complicated". It is off-putting. I am an over-educated native speaker of English and I always appreciate the audio links. In my head I use a certain pronunciation of Speer's name. Probably incorrect, if you feel the need to add pronunciation, but it will have to do for me. I like to be correct in pronunciation but I am unwilling to wade through the IPA. (As far as I know, no one is requesting a citation.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I had, in an edit summary. I'll accept whatever people decide on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it because it junks up the nice clean beginning of the article with something that, in my opinion, fits Tony's definition of a low value link, as I know I will never click on it again if I see it in other articles. Perhaps a better way would have a footnote going to it, although that would just junk things up also. Nothing to be done I guess. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)If you look back through the history, there used to be an audio link. I got rid of it in working through the article on the runup to FAC. If people want it, just reinsert. I don't have strong views on this now either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, nothing is fine with me, but if it has to be something the audio seems preferable. I just tried out the audio file provided by auburnpilot below. It was helpful to me and gave the flavor of German. I didn't have to break my brain to know how his name is pronounced (actually, not that different then what I thought anyway). —Mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Image:De-Albert Speer.ogg. - auburnpilot talk 00:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• You know that an article is ready for FA status when the most contentious debate left to resolve centres around an audio file and a link to IPA! Pichpich (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the article is only half way down the FAC list! What are we going to do for another two weeks? Hope some drive by Opposes don't turn up as it get toward the end. That type of thing frequently happens. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My last FAC, Jena Six, Sandy promoted when it was only 3/4 of the way down the list. I'm hoping, hoping.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree that IPA can be rather complicated to use, but the reason it is the English Wikipedia standard is that it works with most any dialect of English. I'm perfectly fine with just having an audio file to help with the pronunciation if that is what everyone else thinks would be best, but I definitely think some sort of pronunciation aid is needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It is so good to see serious discussion on what had been an uninformed and underused talk page! So what do you guys think? Add the audio file? Like I said, it used to be in there, but I deleted it in an effort to cut out everything I could before the FAC. I don't have a problem with it being added back. And if it is, do we keep the IPA or should it go as duplicative of the audio file?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never found English IPA to be remotely helpful, even as a native speaker of English, but that could just be me. From that standpoint, I prefer the audio recording, but it also has its drawbacks (I don't think everyone can play .ogg files). Either way, really. - auburnpilot talk 21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok it seems some people don't like the English IPA (/ˈʃpær/) so how about the pronunciation respelling for English (shpær)? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, just as bad. As a native speaker of English, I hate those things. Just my view. It requires too much effort and and I don't care about the differentiation between Australian, Scottish, etc. English. You must be a linguist or something to feel these sorts of things are useful! In my little world, sound dominates when it comes to differentiating pronunciation. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a linguist, I just like to know how to properly pronounce things, in case after reading an article I bring up a subject with someone in conversation, and I don't want to sound like an idiot mispronouncing a person's name. I can understand you not finding pronunciation keys helpful, as they can be cumbersome to use, but some people will find it helpful. As for the audio file, after it crashed my firefox I took a listen to it in internet explorer and it sounds good. I think adding the audio link would be fine idea. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Crashed your Firefox! I used Firefox 3.0.3 on the audio file with no problem. Don't blame poor ol' Firefox. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You can get the Microsoft media player plugin for Firefox. Maybe that's the problem. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha yeah it's probably just a plug-in I need to get. I've just never tried playing that kind of audio file before. I wasn't trying to blame firefox or the file, just relaying my experience. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

may I add my 2 bits? If you pronounce the english word "spear", then say it as if there is an "H" after the "S", "Sphear", that is very close to the correct pronunciation. I lived in Germany for several years back in the 1980s.

That is what I thought, because a couple of times in the bios, there is mention of people punning on "spear", which is the same word in German as in English, and which I know how it is pronounced due to its use in opera. As you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OOPS! I meant to spell it Shpear, not Sphear. I just noticed my mistake. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!Johnhenney (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah so. I read what you intended to write, not what you actually wrote!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Invalid external link

Hi, and kudos to all of you who've worked hard to create this article. I noticed that the following external link is incorrect. While it may have been correct at one time, it appears that the domain registration for us-israel.org expired, and was purchased by click2link/kolmic.com domain tasters:

• Affidavit of Albert Speer at us-israel.org

I took the liberty of removing the link from the list of external links. If it can be found somewhere else, it seems it would be a worthy re-addition (I'd like to read it).

Best regards, --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Must have been very recent! For everyone's info, it was an affidavit Speer was asked to prepare by a South African Jewish organization for use in their lawsuit against some Holocaust deniers, as I recall. It is discussed in the Sereny book, but the text is not there. Try googling what I said and maybe you can find a cached version. Its presence in the article predated my own involvement and it seemed useful enough to keep.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've found another source for this same affidavit (although I can't access the originally referenced source for comparison):

• Affidavit of Albert Speer, affidavit, sworn and signed at Munich on 15th June 1977, translated from the original German at jewishvirtuallibrary.org

I'll add the above to the list of External references. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No references to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich ?

I'm a little surprised to see no reference to William L. Shirer's work in this article. Looking at page 1242 (of the latest paperback edition), I see 9 indexed references to Speer, Albert (comprising many more than 9 pages). This include Shirer's own observations of Speer, as well as from other sources (including captured documents). Pardon me for coming late to this process, as I know you are getting reading for a FA review. I just wanted to offer this comment, and wonder if some additional text with reference to Shirer's work (which I, at least, consider to be one of the most important books about the period) wouldn't add to the article. Best regards, --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought. While Shirer's books are landmarks, I tried to concentrate on recent biographies about Speer, whose authors also have had the advantage of reading (I hope!) Shirer's books, as well as the advantage of thirty five years or so more historical development since then, and have taken them into account in writing the books, so I was reluctant to use them. Where I think we could do well is a description of Speer as seen by Spirer, or some contemporary commentary as to how he was perceived. If you'd like to propose language, the editors who are frequenting this page could talk it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, congratulations on the Featured article achievement! Also thank you for your quick reply. I understand your decision with regard to the direct use of Shirer's work, and also agree that "a description of Speer as seen by [Shirer]" would add value.

I propose the following addition (shown following the first blockquote, below) to the Nuremberg trial section. If you and your fellow editors concur, I would appreciate very much the honor of doing the edit to the article:

...

Speer's attorney, Dr. Hans Flächsner, presented Speer as an artist thrust into political life, who had always remained a non-ideologue and who had been promised by Hitler that he could return to architecture after the war. During his testimony, Speer accepted responsibility for the Nazi regime's actions:

In political life, there is a responsibility for a man's own sector. For that he is of course fully responsible. But beyond that there is a collective responsibility when he has been one of the leaders. Who else is to be held responsible for the course of events, if not the closest associates around the Chief of State?

An observer at the trial, William L. Shirer, observed that, compared to his codefendants:

Speer ... made the most straightforward impression of all and who during the long trial spoke honestly and with no attempt to shirk his responsibility and his guilt.

Thank you, --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say, Speer grows more and more interesting! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, unless there is a mention of the way Speer looked/acted in the 1930s.

I was unable to find any mention of “the way Speer looked/acted in the 1930s” in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I'll look in William L. Shirer's other books to see if there is such a mention, for a future addition to the article.

I'd rather not do back to back blockquotes, but keep it as part of the paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll insert the quote inline, as you recommend:

Speer's attorney, Dr. Hans Flächsner, presented Speer as an artist thrust into political life, who had always remained a non-ideologue and who had been promised by Hitler that he could return to architecture after the war. During his testimony, Speer accepted responsibility for the Nazi regime's actions:

In political life, there is a responsibility for a man's own sector. For that he is of course fully responsible. But beyond that there is a collective responsibility when he has been one of the leaders. Who else is to be held responsible for the course of events, if not the closest associates around the Chief of State?

An observer at the trial, William L. Shirer, observed that, compared to his codefendants: “Speer ... made the most straightforward impression of all and who during the long trial spoke honestly and with no attempt to shirk his responsibility and his guilt.”

Thank you, --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. I was thinking there might be something in Berlin Diary.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My copy must have been "borrowed" by one of those reprobates who never return books, but I welcome this addition to the article. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FA!

We seem to be promoted to FA, though the bot may take a bit of time to add the bronze star and update article history and so forth. Thanks to everyone for their work.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well deserved. Your focused work on the article and patient replies to comments paid off. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, congratulations from me too. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't have happened without all the help you guys gave me.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Wehwalt. Another very well written article. - auburnpilot talk 23:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on a job well done, Wehwalt. Pichpich (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, joint effort. Everyone did well.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The article says that no buildings designed by Speer survive in Berlin. I believe the four gatehouses at Grosse Stern are his. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is what the reference says. I hedged a bit by putting in "in the Nazi era" because in Spandau, there is mention of him designing a house for one of the guards, and I have no idea if the house still stands. If you have a reference saying Speer designed those places, put it in.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Main page help needed.

Hey, we're going to be main page here next Saturday (in the US from 7 PM EST on). Any help on the vandalism/unhelpful edit watch during that 24 hours would be appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is on my talk page. I'll vigilantly monitor it (I'm in the Mountain Time Zone (UTC-7) these days).

Cheers, --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I actually have been monitoring it ever since my very small contribution, but it seems almost all of the changes have been by you, polishing the apple, as they say. Well done!

Gilbert photo

I've deleted (by rollback, I'm sorry, it is hard to edit from my blackberry) the photograph showing Speer and other Nuremberg defendants conferring with Army psychologist Gilbert. This photo was deleted during the FAC for copyright and other issues, and, I'm sorry, but I don't think it adds anything to the article. Additionally, we already have a photo of Speer at Nuremberg, it is the main photo in the article. What we could use is a photo of Speer in his later years, if we could find one free of copyright or else justify the fair use, and NO, I DON'T want the one with David Irving. Please. Speer looks very unhappy in the photo, and who can blame him?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, now that the Bundesarchiv has contributed a number of very good photos to the Commons, I've found a picture of all the defendants and inserted it. There is one of Spandau Prison on the Bundesarchiv site, but I can't tell if it was contributed or not, all the pix have not been sorted yet, and there are 12,000 which show as location Berlin. My eyes would give out long before then. I've added some really nice photos and am especially happy with the one showing Speer sitting in his uniform on a doorstoop in the snow. I'll keep polishing a bit, but I think we're ready for TFA. I'm going to a hockey game tonight but should be back by 4 a.m. universal time and will monitor what's going on with my blackberry during the game.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead too favorable to Speer, neglects other sources

The wording in the lede is too favorable to Speer.

As "the Nazi who said sorry",^[1] he accepted responsibility at the Nuremberg trials and in his memoirs for the crimes of the Nazi regime. His level of involvement in the persecution of the Jews and his level of knowledge of the Holocaust remain matters of dispute.

The first of these two sentences seems to certify that Speer "took responsibility"; however, it is pretty much the consensus among historians that Speer was very careful in choosing what to admit to and what not to admit to, and that he was very crafty at doing so. The second sentence, while not wrong on the face of it, leaves open the possibility that he might have had little involvement in "persecution of the Jews"; this too runs counter to the consensus of historians.

Sources not cited in the Article include

• historian Wolfgang Benz, criticizing Joachim C. Fest and his publisher Wolf Jobst Siedler for contributing to the myth of Speer as the apolitical technocrat,
• historian Norbert Frei, criticizing that Fest's 1999 biography ignored much of the then-recent scholarhip on Fest,
• historian Heinrich Schwendemann, criticizing the ghostwritten (by Joachim Fest) memoirs of Speer for whitewashing,
• historian Götz Aly noting, "The notes and aide-memoires that Joachim Fest prepared on the conversations he had with Speer upon his release from prison and that he is now publishing without comment 35 years later show only one thing: in the old Federal Republic of Germany, a Nazi criminal had no trouble until the year 1980 to morph into a much sought-after 'witness of history.' Without fear of contradiction by any of the then leading historians of West Germany, Speer assembled a string of memory lapses, outright lies, semi-truths and non-truths."

The sources above all come from this 2005 article; thorough research likely would turn up others.

Update: This paragraph from the same article is also apposite:

In the past decades, historians have thoroughly corrected this picture: Speer is considered an unscrupulous opportunist, among other reasons for having been responsible for the deportation of Berlin's Jews to the camps, for having co-organized the system of forced labor impressing workers from all over Europe, and for having collaborated in the system of destruction [of human beings] through labor. Fest is adamant that "at a minimum, he knew of the mass murders."

The Article also fails to note the outrage expressed by Fest at having been lied to and hoodwinked by Speer.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• This article is a Feature article and as such, it had to pass the WP:Featured article criteria. The sources were examined for neutrality of viewpoint and the article passed as neutral in point of view. In fact, it was even featured on the main page, very unusual for an article on a controversial subject. However, the editor who wrote the article ensured its neutrality, and the FA editors prevented emotionally charged material from being included.

I hope you will respect this, as many editors have tried to compromise the article. Language such as "lied to and hoodwinked" is not neutral, and "pretty much the consensus among historians" is considered vague, weasel wording and not encyclopedic language. G

If you can provide reliable sources in English supporting that what you are saying is the view of the majority of historians, per Wikipedia policies of WP:V and WP:RS, and post them on this talk page, (including book title, author(s), date of publication, publisher, and page numbers citing the material) then the material can be introduced in the article, using encyclopedic, neutral language. Views expressed one article is not enough to support your claims. (Ghost-written material is not acceptable.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on Wikipedia rules for editing. You are wrong to require English-language sources. Sources in other languages, especially on a subject in a non-Anglophone country, and especially in a language understood by many thousands of Wikipedians, are perfectly acceptable. Your comment about ghost-written material makes no sense, and you can keep your insulting comments about citation requirements, as if I needed to be told. I don't need your permission to introduce missing sources into the article. Don't need to post them here on the Talk page first, in any case. You don't need to thank me for adding constructive criticism. However, next time, try to adopt a less arrogant and dismissive tone, it makes you look bad.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Please note that the article throughout concentrates on what Speer indisputably did or said. It nowhere even hints about whether he was sincere or not. It mentions the times that Speer-written material has been contradicted by other material. But it leaves the reader to make up his or her own mind as to whether Speer was telling the truth.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that at least three, and possibly all four of the cited articles are book reviews, rather than scholarly studies. Why should they be given space when we would probably not give space to a book review that said, "Fest is wonderful, so is Speer"?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt, let me try again. Benz, Frei, Schwendemann and Aly all have published more on Speer than just "book reviews". The Albert Speer article would benefit from inclusion of their writings, do you not agree? Have you seen this 2004 article, Albert Speer, Architekt des Todes (in German) in Die Zeit by Schwendemann? Did you read his scholarly 2003 article in Journal of Contemporary History? Why do you and your fellow editors include only a single reference from M. Schmidt in the article? Have you read any of the other sources referenced at de:Albert Speer? Do you agree with the snotty put-down of my constructive criticism issued by Matisse, above?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain. This article is intended as a place for people to start their readings on Speer, like any Wikipedia article, it does not pretend to be the be all and end all. I would have no objection to using one or more of the readings you mention for external links. This article cannot be a place to debate Speer back and forth, to say he was lying about this or not lying about the other thing, that would take far more than the 60K or so that an article should not exceed. I've looked at the German article; they've tsken rather a different route, which is their privilege. Notably, it is not a FA on the German Wikipedia, or, by my poor reading of German, even close (they've plainly borrowed from this article, by the way). We set forth Speer's life in a comprehensive and engaging fashion, draw no conclusions, leave the reader to make up his mind and show him a few resources where he can go if he wants to learn more beyond the summary style we are forced to use. To get into "well, this historian says one thing, another says something else" would diminish this article, not add to it. As for Schmidt, I don't want to overuse him, for facts I'd rather use more current Speer bios, for discussion of what he says about Speer and the Jews, it is better to go to a third party.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Questionable edit

Editor Naur has removed a sentence from the article [2] because he says what Speer said in the first draft of his memoirs is irrelevant. It strikes me that this is just whitewashing, and that a sourced contradiction is of obvious value to the reader in making up his mind what to think about Speer. I suggest that the material be restored.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not "whitewashing", and am puzzled and quite shocked that the above user made such an accusation based on one single edit. Civility and assuming good faith is the basis of the Wikipedia community, and I would have supposed that an experienced user like Wehmalt would not label another user as a Nazi propagandist carelessly. My objection to the material is solely based on is triviality - it is not a notable part of Speer's biography or life. It is the sort of curiosity - perhaps (but perhaps not) indicating that Speer had lied about his relationship with Hitler - that would probably warrant a mentioning in the article about the book. But it would in my opinion be too trivial to be mentioned in the biographic section of Speer, and since its implication is not made clear, it is also largely irrelevant to the section. Naur (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I made no such label or implication, and I am sorry if you took the term "whitewashing" that way. I guess it is inevitable for the subject matter that Godwin's law comes into play pretty quick. However, I assumed your good faith throughout.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't make the implication clear, as you say, because we do not know if Speer lied or not. We simply put facts out for the reader to draw their own conclusions. We cannot very well tell the story (and we pretty much have to of Speer's conversation with Hitler in the bunker as published, without mentioning that he told another story too. After all, Speer is our sole source for this info. We need both. I've also, by the way, changed back your use of the word "sympathizers" to "supporters", and it should not count against me for 3RR purposes. They don't mean the same thing, and it can't be supported by the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The biography section of an encyclopedic article on a person should first and foremost introduce the person with as little controversy as possible, instead of providing different points of views to every action of the person, which could be left to latter sections (such as "legacy and controversy" in this article) or not mentioned at all. Moreover, when you say we can't make the implication clear, you probably mean that we're not so sure if there was such an implication at all. Then putting the sentence in the article would be original research, because we suggest - by our own reckoning - that there may be an implication. My main objection to the sentence, however, is that it is very trivial compared to any other sentence in the highly-condensed biography section of Speer.

I have no intention to use any of Wikipedia's "rules" against you as long as you show good faith and participate in discussion. In my understanding of English, the correct usage of the word should simply be "sympathizers", not supporters. Saying that Gaulle or George Ball were supporters would seem to indicate that they supported his policies or actions - which they obviously don't. There is no source that uses the word "supporters", either, so this is simply an etymological change. Naur (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we find a compromise? How about "Those who supported commutation of Speer's sentence maintained a continuous call for his release."--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's quite tedious. I rewrote the paragraph, removing the first sentence and re-arranging the second and third. Hopefully it's fine now. Naur (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is fine. The section has to end (at least in my view) with Speer's release on the stroke of midnight because it is a good segue into the next section. As it is, there is a discontinuity, and it will look odd to the reader. I'd also keep all the Brandt stuff in the same sentence. As it is, you kinda imply that the end to the denazification proceedings happened around Sept 30, which is actually not true.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR comment was not directed at you, really, the TFA always gets a lot of attention, and I want to make what I do very clear. And I'm sorry if you took the "whitewashing" term the wrong way. But we can't tell one story of Speer's without stating that he told another version. Speer is our sole source for the conversation with Hitler. If we neglect to mention that he told another story, well then, we are whitewashing. Without any evil intent, but that is what we are doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

He told another story only in the first draft of a work he published. That's really far too trivial to be mentioned (it should, however, be mentioned in the article about the book). There are plenty of things we aren't including in this article because they're trivial, and it's not whitewashing. Naur (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, it isn't me or you who finds the fact significant, it is Sereny. We're a tertiary souce, we're reporting what others say. Should we also take out the fact that the draft (and in fact the first German edition) did not mention Kristallnacht?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Some scholars or journalists may write very specifically about some parts of Speer's life, or about a certain topic of Speer, such as whether he lied in his first draft or not. We are, however, writing an encyclopedic article of him here, so what is significant to Sereny may not be significant to us. It all comes down to how significant we think it is. My belief is that the part about the draft not mentioning Kristallnacht is significant enough, while this part isn't. We are a tertiary source, but we have to rely on our own instincts on whether some facts are notable enough (this resulting in many of the disputes on Wikipedia). Naur (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, I think we are deceiving the reader if we tell them that Speer told one story, and neglect to mention that he told an entirely different story on another occasion. If they were minor variations, that's one thing, but they are completely different. We have to tell the story of Speer visiting the bunker and confronting Hitler. If there are two versions of the story, we really need to let the reader know that. It is far more than trivial. Anyone else want to weigh in?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt on this one. --John (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

From Gitta Sereny's book, showing it is not me who thinks this is significant, but one of Speer's biographers and a woman who knew him well:

(p 528-29) This impulsive and last-minute confession to Hitler was mentioned by many reviewers and most historians writing since . . .

(p. 529) Psychologically, it is possible that this is the way he remembered the occaison, because it was how he would have liked to behave, and the way he would have liked Hitler to react. But the fact is that none of it happened; our witness to this is Speer himself.

(p. 530) (1953 letter from Speer to Wolters) There can be no question of a touching scene or, even more than that, of a confession such as the Frenchman reported. Even if either of us had wanted it, I doubt it could have happened: we were far more apart by then than anyone seeing it from outside could imagine.

(p 531) I showed the discrepancy between Inside the Third Reich and the "Spandau draft" to Speer's daughter Hilde and to Annemarie (Kempf, Speer's longtime secretary). Neither of the two people perhaps closest to Speer appeared shaken by it. "It looks as if he lied in the book," Hilde said. "If he lied, you have to say so."--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The key part of this article is the 12 year relationship between Hitler and Speer, it is what the bulk of the article is devoted to, it is what people care about IMO. That Speer apparently lied about a crucial moment at the end of that relationship is of major importance to this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Perhaps the significance of it may be deeper than apparent at first glance. We should make sure the article actually tells readers the significance of it, instead of letting users ponder over why it may be notable. Naur (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm going to put the langauge back, together with the quote from p.529 of Sereny, OK? I'd also like to rephrase the last paragraph of the Imprisonment section so that it ends with Speer's release, if you have no objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraph

I am suprised at the ending of this article. "he became a symbol for people who were involved with the Nazi regime yet did not have (or claimed not to have had) any part in the regime's atrocities. " Did Speer realy claim this? He admitted significant responsibility (albeit probably insufficiently), both at Nurmberg and in his books. He was also a convicted war criminal and served 20 years in prison. I doubt many people would want to follow his fate and take a similar responsibility. In my view this paragraph is highly subjective. Are there any serious (scholarly) references to back up this statement? BorisG (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What we have is the source there which qualifies under WP:RS. I'm not sure what you mean by "Did Speer really claim this?" as Speer is not the source of the information you've put in quotations there. I would not advise eliminating the quote that ends the article, it is a good way of ending the article and adequately sourced, but if you feel the language doesn't accurately track the source, please feel free to modify it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: Did Speer really claim not to have had ANY part in the regime's atrocities?BorisG (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but the impression he gave worldwide is that he is largely innocent and honest about his participation. That's the impression he gave, which made him such a symbol. What actually happened then is not that relevant when we talk about his legacy. Indeed, he did take responsibility during the trials for some of the atrocities, and it is quite puzzling how some eventually saw him as totally innocent. Naur (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. However "innocent" and "honest" are two different things. Yes, he claimed to have been honest, but I don't think he claimed or could have been percieved to be innocent. On the contrary, he admitted guilt. BorisG (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That should be the fact, yes, but according to the cited source "Wartime reports debunk Speer as the Good Nazi", the impression he gave is that he's mostly innocent and that he also claimed to be so. That's the legacy of Speer - according to the author of that article. Perhaps the author may not have paid attention in his history classes, but sadly, Wikipedia is based on so-called "reliable sources". I'm not objecting if you want to remove it, because it really seems to be pretty contradicting. Naur (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Speer was seen as innocent by some because his responsibility claims boil down to two things: Command responsibility, as an officer of the government, and: Wilful blindness. The point being made in the final paragraph is that that was still seen as actual evidenceinnocence, for after all, he didn't actually KNOW anything. At least according to some ...--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added 'active' to clarify the level of participation. Maybe 'direct' would be better?BorisG (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make it clear in the article that his legacy and symbolization was very different than actual facts ("the facts" being that he did admit guilt and such, not the question of whether he was actually guilty). The source cited, for example, seems poorly-researched. It said, for example, that Speer "[spent] his last years in London" when actually he died while visiting London. Naur (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that what you propose might be a WP:SYNTH problem. Do you want to propose language? We have to end the article in an appropriate manner, and I don't think anyone disputes that quotation.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is OK for me as it is now. BorisG (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, why this causes any problem with assessment of Speer's role? I proposed: "The controversy over Speer's knowledge of, or complicity in, the Holocaust made him somewhat of a symbol..." , but was reverted, and accused of weasel words. I think you should propose better wording rather than revert reasonable changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisG (talk • contribs) 16:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it back but used 'debate' instead of 'controversy' and deleted 'somewhat of'. I still believe 'controversy' is better (and is used two paragrapgs above anyway!), and 'somewhat of' would be quite reasonable, given that 'symbol' is poorly defined, but if editors prefer the letter of Wiki rules over the spirit, there you have it.BorisG (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care. That language is left over from before I took on the article. As long as it finishes the article on an appropriate note, and is faithful to the source, I don't particularly care how it is phrased. Fest says much the same thing, by the way, at p.327 in "Speer: The Final Verdict": "Many of the older generation had followed the regime with blind enthusiasm and had remained stubbornly loyal to it to the end, and perhaps even beyond. For nearly twenty-five years, they had been cheated of everything they had believed in, and their dedication had sunk in a murky pool of accusations. The book (ItTR) not only led them to console themselves that it was possible to have believed in Hitler and yet remained a 'decent person', they drew from it deeper reassurance still. If Hitler's favorite minister, who had even been his chosen successor for a while, had known nothing about the mass crimes, then it was surely absurd to blame the 'man on the street.'"--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

persecution of undesirables versus persecution of jews

As I first read this article I stumbled over the forth sentence in the first paragraph. It read:

"His level of involvement in the persecution of those the Nazi regime considered undesirable, including Jews, and his level of knowledge of the Holocaust remain matters of dispute."

At first I thought he was persecuting Nazis undesirably, and upon reconsideration, that he had something personal against jews. From the remainder of the text I garnered that neither of these are true. I then changed the sentence to:

"His level of involvement in the persecution of those the Nazi regime considered undesirable, and his level of knowledge of the Holocaust remain matters of dispute."

because I felt it was clearer and without cultural bias. I say cultural bias because any article on the subject of nazi persecution of undesirables or the holocaust includes jews. Immediatly the sentence was changed to:

"His level of involvement in the persecution of the Jews, and his level of knowledge of the Holocaust remain matters of dispute. "

I belive this change obsfucates his involvment in nazi activities and nazi activities themselves, with a bias towards jews and away from the persecution of other ethnic, cultural, and politcal groups. Rather than change it back I would like to start a discussion so we could see a more permanent resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke sandpaper (talk • contribs) 11:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I note several edits in the overnight hours which modified the mention of the dispute regarding Speer's involvement in the persecution of the Jews in the lede to various formulations such as "those deemed undesirable, including Jews". I am not aware, in any reference I have, and I have most, of any controversy regarding whether Speer was involved in the persecution of homosexuals or gypsies. Without that, and since the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, there is really no point in the mention. I should note that looking at the index of Sereny's book, there are two mentions of gypsies and one of homosexuals, and none of the three mentions have anything to do with Speer (the mention of homosexuals is in Sereny's own thoughts while interviewing Speer's ex-secretary for example). I can give you the quotes verbatim if you like, though one is somewhat lengthy. Happy to discuss, but I don't think we diminish the hideous crimes committed against others by only mentioning the Jews, because there is no controversy to report.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What about "His level of involvement in Nazi persecutions, and his level of knowledge of the Holocaust remain matters of dispute"?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Wehwalt, I don't think your latest suggestion "Nazi persecutions" is very good. Maybe: "His level of involvement in, and knowledge of, the Holocaust remain matters of dispute"? Or "remains a matter of dispute"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisG (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt his involvment in persecution, because I don't doubt his position in the nazi party. I don't know much about this guy, but the article suggests that he was not that concerned with abuses, or with who was being abused. I don't really care about diminishing crimes, my concern is historical accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke sandpaper (talk • contribs) 13:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the only historical evidence I know of about his direct involvment in Nazi persecutions is that which is set forth in the article, turning the Jews out of their homes in Berlin while Generalbauinspektor. I know of nothing that says he ever affected other persecuted minorities. How can we put into the lede that which there is no historical evidence for?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Speer's skill and strategic bombing

The article credits Speer's improvisational skill with increasing production even as the Allies closed in on Germany. Certainly he had some. But I thought that, and note 28 at Strategic bombing during World War II backs this up, that this couldn't have happened had the strategic bombing not displaced thousands of workers from non-war-related jobs, particularly household servants (which many Germans continued to have despite the Nazis' having banned that practice), who were then put to work in hastily relocated factories to make tanks and airplanes.

I would give a source for this other than the footnote in the other article, but I know that this was something the U.S. Army figured out when it went over all the German records after the war. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll review my various sources on Speer to see if there is any discussion. As this is something than can be gotten from a glance at the index, it may take me a couple of days. I'll look at Sereny tonight and the rest over the next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in Sereny on this. I'll go back and reread that part of ItTR tomorrow, maybe Speer says something. I wonder though if this was really a major factor in things. It would still be a significant accomplishment for Speer; you can't teach Jeeves and Mrs. Bridges to make guns and tanks overnight, especially when they're refugees.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You might find http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0141003480/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248252471&sr=1-1 helpful.Keith-264 (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Illness

The acticle says that "In january 1944 Speer fell ill and was away from the office for three months". Given Speer's working habits, that must have been quite a serious illness! Any idea what it was? In my view, the nature of his illness deserves to be mentioned in the article. BorisG (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My recollection is he was suffering from extreme exhaustion. I will check up my sources and try to come back. --John (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was diagnosed. Something was wrong with his knee too.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Sereny at pp. 417, it was an old knee injury aggravated by sleeping out in the cold during a visit to Lapland that Speer paid shortly before falling ill. This inflamed the knee, and she states that "this basically simple medical problem was almost fatally aggravated by his state of mind." Sereny says that was unhappiness and depression at gradually realizing what was going on around him.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. More info here. --John (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to use the play as a source. If you think we need more info in there, I'd suggest something like "complications from an inflamed knee". That can be justified from page 417 of Sereny, as I indicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't read the full context and assumed that this was a real transcript rather than a dramatization. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think we came out of TFA more or less unscathed. I'd be grateful if everyone checks for things like overlinking and other problems that may have crept into the article on TFA day. Perhaps tonight I will implement the consensus that was reached on the bunker conversation edits, though if anyone else wants to take a shot at that, please feel free. Well done all! I think we had more than our share of vandalism, and it all was quickly reverted.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, according to this tool, the article went from having about 1,500 views a day to yesterday having 71,200. Wow.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Berthold and all that

Do we have any RS that says that Berthold is Albert Speer's first name and he has all those middle names? I know it used to be in the article, but the indictment simply reads "Albert Speer". As does his grave (findagrave.com).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A Google Books search turns up a few sources. - auburnpilot's sock 21:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Including Van der Vat, I see, so I have sourced it to him. I think to list him under the mouthful name would be pedantic, since he apparently never used the three first names as an adult, so I just listed it as his birth name. If it clutters the first sentence too much, we could move it to first sentence of "Early Life".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

footnotes

Wikipedia preference for in-line reference to the contrary, 153 footnotes is at least 100 too many for an article of this length, particularly when 147 of them are repetitions of previous citations with different page numbers! This is not to deprecate the article, which is otherwise exemplary, on any other grounds, but doesn't somebody who has previous editing experience take a final glance at FAs before they're released? — Robert Greer (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought. For questions of FA procedure, I refer you to the Featured Article Director, Raul654, or his designate, SandyGeorgia, or you might want to read the recorded FAC which can be accessed through the talk page. Thank you for your praise of the article. If there is something wrong with the article, we will gladly fix it if you don't care to do it yourself, if you give us some reference to the MoS.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Penultimate paragraph

The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph jars. It states: “Speer’s biographer Gitta Sereny denied that Spear would have been personally aware of such activities."

In the firs place, the reference given, [#153], contains no denial and is therefore inappropriate. In second place, if there are annotations by Speer on the relevant documents, Sereny's 'denial' of knowledge is absurd.

Sereny's view on the subject of 'knowledge' is summed up neatly in her Speer biography thus: "... his generalized acknowledgement of a moral mandate had only been an elegant ploy; behind it lay a nightmare of unavowed knowledge ..." (Macmillan, London, 1995, page 465. ISBN 0333 645197).

I suggest the sentence in question be deleted --3ig-350125 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What the article said is:

She added that Speer had had "no time" to concern himself with the workings of the Holocaust machine.

"Speer had no time, he had an unbelievable amount to do, what one would nowadays call a workaholic. The most important thing for him was Hitler - Hitler filled and fulfilled his life."

I think what I wrote is a fair summary of what Sereny said. Incidently, the visit to Auschwitz is mentioned in "Infiltrations".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The word deny sits very awkwardly here. Sereny can’t deny that "Speer would have been personally aware". She might suggest, opine, etc. but not deny it. In any case, is it really necessary to come to the defence of Speer by quoting (misquoting, I should say) Sereny? And if quoting Sereny’s opinion, which, in the circumstances, is just a PV, why not, for the sake of balance, quote also another biographer, one who does not subscribe to Speer’s ‘unawareness’? There are plenty of those about. And how can Sereny doubt his ‘awareness’, let alone deny it, when the subject we are talking about are papers on which he had made notations? Is she, do you think, suggesting that Speer made notations on papers without being aware of what the papers were because he was a workaholic? --3ig-350125 (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've amended it to track more closely what Sereny said, though I think it is a bit awkward. I can't help that they went and got a quote from Sereny, who certainly concludes in her book that Speer knew more than he was telling. That one is on the Telegraph, I'm afraid; had they gotten a quote from Van der Vat, for sure I'd have quoted him.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, if you think that because two of Speer's assistants went to tour Auschwitz, (which, by the way, is mentioned in "Infiltrations", as I've said), that they were allowed to see the murders going on, then you are likely to be mistaken. Auschwitz was, and is, not a small place, and the death area only a small part of it. The murders were not widely known, at least so it is said.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Grave

I find it amazing that in the german AND english wiki page about speer the fact that his grave is at the Heidelberg Bergfriedhof is conveniently ommited! Berfriedhof= engl: mountain cemetery. The Bergfriedhof cemetery was founded by the jewish community of Heidelberg! i find it very sad and strange the fact is omitted and every time someone tries to add the fact it's deleted from the german and english page (as well as this comment will be deleted, i bet)

If you have a reliable source as to his burial, I have no objection to it being added, if only to the infobox. I don't think the fact that Jews founded it is terribly relevant though.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is Tessenow?

Tessenow is mentioned 7 times in the article with no indication who he is, other than an employer of the subject. Rwflammang (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly states that Speer studied under him and then became his assistant. What's unclear?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This was something that baffled me as well but after a lot of looking i found the source on him in the text: "much more reputable" Technical University of Munich.[9] In 1925 he transferred again, this time to the Technical University of Berlin where he studied under Heinrich Tessenow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Tessenow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degaardt (talk • contribs) 12:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Architectural Heritage

I personally doubt wether Speer really is to be seen as an important architect - his role in managing and organizing the Nazi war effort seems much more crucial, a main architectural legacy for post war germanies reconstruction is based on the Wiederaufbaustab. The mentioned source is based on the works of two architects Nils Gutschow was son of Konstanty Gutschow, an important player in Speers staff, Werner Durth is an important professor for planning, architecture and the history of the topic and has worked e.g. about "Deutsche Architekten. Biographische Verflechtungen" 1900 - 1970, (biographical connections of german Architects). I added some of the biographical elements of Speer as well. --Polentario (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the group, please see my article Rudolf Wolters for further information. I will probably cut back and copyedit what you wrote. Speer did not lead the Wiederaufbaustab himself, he was too busy and delegated it to Wolters, but he set forth guiding principles, such as making German cities more livable in the age of the automobile. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, youre welcome to do so and Durth Gutschow is an excellent read. I am however more into architecture than into Speer, even though you wrote an interesting lemma about Wolters. More livable for the auto became sort of controversial in the meantime, in war times the Stab planned to lower the density to make german cities "luftkriegstauglich", less prone to air raids. I think the point about the +- libeling of the traditional heimatstil as nazi architecture in favour of the plannings of former stab members can be attributed as a classical legacy of Speer. --Polentario (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, though without a considerable amount of background, the reader isn't going to understand why that is important. Can I suggest you instead add it to the article Nazi architecture, to which the reader is referred for more information in this article?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thats understood. I have done some work on the German lemma of Nazi architecture, so I might tend to oversize the readers here. Gimme some time, its on my list. Best regards --Polentario (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why can I find so little about Matthias Schmidt and the lies speer told

Why can't I read anywhere in this entry that Joachim Fest admitted that he wasn't honest. I think the dutch version of speer is much beter.

Following is the translation of a part of it (translated by google):

The end of the myth

Shortly after Speer's death there were already cracks in his self-designed image of "decent Nazi". In fact, the improvements of sleep and living conditions of forced labor already planned before Speer had visited the factories where they worked.

Speer was the deception on end thanks to his excellent memory account, which he never spoke against. The judges in Nuremberg believed him. Speer also tried for years to the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz documents have to get from him, despite his assertions to the contrary.

Historical research has shown that Speer was indeed aware of the abuses in the Third Reich (something true for someone so high in the leadership of Nazi Germany was also difficult to deny would be). Not earlier than after his death by his ministry ordered the evacuation of Jewish houses and signed by Speer recommend this known. So his staff suggested lists of Berlin Jews from their homes to be put, so that houses could be given to Germans whose homes were expropriated to make way for the "Neugestaltung" of Berlin.

Later also revealed that he had cooperated with the expansion of Auschwitz. The documents were signed personally by Speer costs for room and crematoria been specified (see Matthias Schmidt and revelations of the three-part docu-series Hitler und Speer)

The deployment of strong, healthy and capable inmates from the concentration camps Speer needed to keep running the arms factories were ordered by him.

The well-respected German historian Joachim Fest, through its publications (see below) have contributed to Speer as long as the role of penitent, but misguided officer could play. When Matthias Schmidt in 1982 with Albert Speer, das Ende eines Mythos revelations are made, Fest had no trouble admitting the deception. Fest in 1966 was asked to join as publisher Wolf Jobst Siedler Speers ghost writer to act. Fest Siedler and plotted the Spandauer Speer notes together into a successful story: Erinnerungen. Additional interviews with Speer filled gaps. Cooperation between Speer and festival was mutual interest. Fests krikte the cooperation of Speer's memoirs on credibility. Speer was the ideal course for festival information source for his biography of Hitler. In 2005 published Die Fragen unbeantwortbaren is a diary-like report of conversations with Speer Fest Siedler and argued for Erinnerungen.

During discussions with the architect Speer recalled that he at November 9, 1938 (Kristallnacht) along the burning synagogue in Berlin Fasanenstrasse drive. His emotions expressed while limited to the statement: "I went to work like any other day". That feeling poverty, that absence of normal human responses, is the principal unanswerable question that has kept Fest spent. The question is closely related to one another: how could someone with Speer's background and culture to engage with such a barbaric regime? Environment and morality are closely linked to a man like that from a grossbürgerlich Fest, was anti-Nazi family. Why Speer, who also came from the high bourgeoisie, his talent in the service of Hitler claimed delusions, festival could not even fathom. Thus, the picture of Speer as a cold technocrat and bureaucrat little interested in what the ultimate fate of his own workers and others was, as the work he envisioned but was executed.

Speer was also involved in the construction of the German nuclear weapons than he suggested in his memoirs. He was, along with Heinrich Himmler in March 1945 the spot when a nuclear weapon was tested at Ohrdruf in Thuringia. In that experiment were forced laborers died. Perhaps they were aware that subjects were sacrificed (see below Hitler's bomb). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.32.191 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the thoughts. Schmidt is not widely used in this article because his book really isn't a biography and because it is almost 30 years old and there is more recent scholarship on Speer. Schmidt is mentioned in the article, as is the whole question of Speer's knowledge of the persecution of the Jews. It is made clear in the article that Speer lied in a number of areas; for summary style, that is sufficient. The interested reader can follow up by reading the books in question.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Did Speer have any children?

I was looking at Munich's bid for the 2018 Winter Olympics and noticed that one of the architects and urban planners involved is Albert Speer & Partners, based in Frankfurt. Is this Albert Speer related to the Nazi? Just curious. Chris (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

His son; he was also involved in the 2008 Beijing Olympic area design. See Albert Speer, Jr.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)