Talk:Hans Bernd Gisevius

some people say his books are not entirely accurate

IIRC he tries to whitewash Nebe, but i haven't the energy to look up references and edit the article. I'm afraid i find this whole nazi business rather depressing and overwhelming. maybe some day i will get the strength back to look into this... Decora (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

--Bizaare--

I'm on a mobile phone or I'd have a go at it myself, but to call the Abwher a terrorist organization is ridiculous. That they happened to be the 'baddies' is not enough to qualify their entirely routine intelligence only actions as terrorism. The example it gives -organizating strikes - is not terrorism. The majority of the article reads like a naive high school students homework. 178.107.163.203 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the origin of the name Gisevius known? It certainly doesn't sound German; almost ancient Roman, in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.139.158 (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Reichstagsbrand

Gisevius made (provenly false) allegations about the Reichstagsbrand claiming that the National Socialist themselves set the fire. That should get into the article. --197.229.140.214 (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a prosecution witness?

The post WWII section begins:

"Gisevius served as a key witness for the prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials in the case against Hermann Göring, his former boss in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior. He also testified against Keitel and Kaltenbrunner. In the cases against Hjalmar Schacht and Wilhelm Frick, he served for the defence."

The first sentence seems to be wrong. Gisevius was a witness for the defense, called by Schacht and Frick. He wasn't a prosecution witness at all - though his testimony was helpful to some of the prosecution's case.

It's also incorrect to say that he testified against Keitel and Kaltenbrunner. Testimony isn't aimed at anyone - though it may be helpful or damaging.

So, I suggest changing that text thus:

"Gisevius served as a key witness for the defense at the Nuremberg Trials when he was called as a witness by defendants Hjalmar Schacht and Wilhelm Frick. His testimony was crucial in securing the acquittal of Schacht on all counts, but Frick was found guilty. His testimony was also very damaging to Göring, Keitel and Kaltenbrunner, who were all convicted."

Does anyone have any objections to this proposed edit? If not, I'll do it...

Gisevius's testimony can be found here, starting on page 156:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-24-46.asp

Gnu Ordure (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)