Talk:Ernst vom Rath

References

This article is still very defective. How many times will it be rewritten using very little in the way of a bibliography and who..will be deciding what it should contain? Why say that Ernst vom Rath's brother was convicted of 'homosexual offenses' without explaining that this was on the Russian front at a time when the Grynszpan trial was being planned? Why in fact is anyone's homosexuality presented here as if this were a crime? In fact it must be said that Doescher's use of alleged sources may well be a legacy of Martin Bormann and the Third Reich. Doescher should have been sued from the start. oldcitycat (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)oldcitycat (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is desperately in need of some references...! David L Rattigan 09:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How come there is so little information on Ernst vom Rath in contrast to too much information when it comes to Herschel Grynszpan? Mistakes in the tiny entry (source unnamed) on vom Rath go unchanged..One correction submitted last month has been removed. (oldcitycat)

I would like to know who is in charge of changes in this article. I note that Adam Carr is allegedly no longer with Wikipedia. If so..who is in charge now? oldcitycat (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you know more, write more. Adam 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oldcitycat, you are going to have to learn how to edit Wikipedia articles if you don't want your edits removed, as I have just done.

• You can't put your opinions, explanations and comments in the article. You can't use the word "I" at all.
• You need to write a narrative of events, with sources if you have them included as footnotes (or just put them in brackets and let someone else footnote them).
• You need to wikify names (like this: Adolf Hitler) as you go. You need to use punctuation and paragraphs.

It might be better if you put the new information you have here on the Talk page and let someone else add it to the article. Adam 04:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of putting it here if you won't accept it? Big deal correction..that he wasn't the son of a diplomat. What I would like to know is how come that frame that keeps coming back was the best someone could do for a non-wikified page! I wonder why the vom Rath family (I hope there are some left.) doesn't just put one in. (And let you wikify it..)oldcitycat 04:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Or did the vom Rath family hate Ernst so much that they can't be bothered?oldcitycat 04:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you write in Ernst vom Rath for Google you will get several versions of the first pre-article (or whatever it is) one of which refers the searcher to wikipedia. (Another one refers the searcher to Answer.com which also..refers back to wikipedia.) It's pretty strange. oldcitycat 19:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the German Wikipedia has a first link with better information on Ernst vom Rath than this Wikipedia link does. Why not put that link in here? Or have someone translate it? It's wikified..but not officially listed.oldcitycat 05:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

At least this correction should be acceptable. Look at e.g. Gerald Schwab's "The Day the Holocaust Began". Look it up in the index.oldcitycat 04:01, 15 April 2006

Inaccurate information on Ernst vom Rath is in the Herschel Grynszpan article in the English Wikipedia. The reference to a page in Gerald Szhwab's book is not correct for the information given in that article. Obviously anyone criticizing Adam Carr's 'writings' gets blocked and ignored. Not a plus for Wikipedia. oldcitycat 08:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The following set of statements appears in the Grynszpan article:"It seems clear that vom Rath, a 28-year-old bachelor who had used family connections to get himself posted to the pleasant surroundings of Paris, was homosexual. According to the rumours collected by Döscher, he was known as "Madame Ambassadeur" and "Notre Dame de Paris" among Parisian gay men. These rumours were collected by investigators hired by Moro-Giafferi, and used as the basis for a defense. After the war, it was revealed that vom Rath had been treated for rectal gonorrhoea at the Berlin Institute of Radiology. [7]" (the 7 is a reference to Schwab p.186-7.) What Schwab has there is this: "Those arguing that there existed a homosexual relationship between assassin and victim naturally also rely to a considerable extent on the statements of Herschel Grynszpan. Occasionally also cited is a notarized sworn deposition of August 25, 1963, by Dr. Sarella Pomeranz, who stated that she was a doctor in the Institute of Radiology of Drs. Halberstaedter and Tugendreich in Berlin from 1929 until it closed in 1939. According to Dr. Pomeranz, Ernst vom Rath was treated at the Institute for rectal gonorrhea which, according to the referring physician, had been contracted as a result of homosexual relations. According to Dr. Pomeranz, she carried out the shortwave radiation therapy which, at the time, was considered the most effective treatment for the illness. Dr. Pomeranz stated that she remembers Ernst vom Rath because of who he was -- not surprising when one considers that the Institute was operated by Jewish physicians, all of whom eventually emigrated. Grimm reported in his memorandum of April 23, 1942, that among the files confiscated in Paris was a letter from Tel Aviv dated august 27, 1939, from Dr. Schoroschowsky, a radiologist formerly from Berlin, who reported having heard essentially THE SAME RUMOR. Dr. Schoroschowsky did not identify his source, but THE INFORMATION APPARENTLY WAS BASED ON HEARSAY. Questions have been raised about the veracity of Dr. Pomeranz's deposition. Actually, it is largely irrelevant. The question here is not what vom Rath's sexual preferences were, but rather whether there existed a homoseuxal relationship between vom Rath and Grynszpan. This writer contends that the question can be answered with an emphatic "no"." (ends on p. 187 Schwab.) oldcitycat 08:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not the question. The question is whether the rumours are relevant. They are of course, because they were central to the events that led to the indefinite postponment of the trial. We do not report on the 'truth', we report on relevant information, and we present in the proper context. If you hsve any problems with the way the information is presented here then you need to explain what they are. If you are objecting to the phrasing in the Grynszpan article, then you should do so at the talk page there. Paul B (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have neglected reading carefully. Schwab is the source given for the article. Didn't you see the words "What Schwab has there is this: " ? If you don't use Schwab for your article..don't use him as a source. oldcitycat (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have neglected making sense. Is "If you don't use Schwab for your article..don't use him as a sou[r]ce" supposed to mean something? Paul B (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Schwab is mentioned as a bibliographical source or was originally. I see that the vom Rath murder has fallen into the wrong Wiki hands again. Not really surprising. oldcitycat (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not mentioned is the question of whether vom Rath actually died of his wounds or whether, under pretense of treating him, the physician sent by the Nazi regime murdered him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjdschwartzstein (talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was the French who made sure Ernst vom Rath died..not the Germans who wanted to question him. oldcitycat (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)it was also the French who spread those rumors.oldcitycat (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not mentioned because it's nothing more than a preposterous fantasy. Paul B (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you're an expert on such matters. oldcitycat (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You most certainly are not, as your unsupported conspiracy theories indicate. Paul B (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The truth is that Barlow doesn't know anything about this case and should at least read Andy Marino's book on it. oldcitycat (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a joke. Marino is not a historian. He did no research and has been accused of making "utterly unsubstantiated and ludicrous" claims. It's sensationalism,not history. Paul B (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would someone who supposedly fled a country have a desire to stay in that same country?

The article makes a strange claim that Grynszpan "fled" Germany and in the same sentence was angry that his family was being "deported from Germany." Which it it? Did he and his family want to stay or leave?Pgg804 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The article clearly says we do not know his motivation. However, there is no contradiction. Grynszpan chose to leave; his family were deported. There's a huge difference, especially if you have to leave jobs, property and other assets behind. Also, choosing to leave does not mean that you want to. It may mean you do so because you feel threatened and vulnerable. A person has every right to feel angry if they are forced to "flee" in such circumstances. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Grynszpan left Germany for France in 1936 because by that point it really clear that there was no future for a Jewish boy in Germany. However, his family ended staying in Germany because the French would not accept them. In 1938, the Gryszpan family like thousands of others of Polish Jews were rounded up as part of an effort to expel all the Polish Jews living in Germany. Thus, Grynszpan fled Germany while his family was deported. No contradiction. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Attitude toward Hitler?

I recall reading somewhere that vom Rath actually had a very low opinion of Hitler, and planned to leave the diplomatic corps when his Paris posting expired because of that (making his posthumous conversion into a martyr for Naziism ironic). Is there anything out there on this? Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not the case at all. If vom Rath really didn't like Hitler, he could had defected at any moment (he had living in Paris for three years after all), and he didn't. Anyhow, if vom Rath really was such an anti-Nazi, that begs the questions why he joined the NSDAP in 1932 (before Hitler was appointed Chancellor), and just what did he think he was doing representing the Nazi regime abroad for five years, starting in 1933. Do diplomats really devote five years of their lives representing the interests of a regime that they hate? Rath is really only notable for being assassinated, and if he had not been killed, I very much doubt we would have an article on him. But as far one can gather, Rath was a man who was loyally committed to the Nazi regime just like almost everybody else in the Auswärtiges Amt. A lot of people in Germany have trouble accepting the fact that the elite Auswärtiges Amt was a criminal organization that was as everybody involved in the genocidal policies of the National Socialist state as the SS was. Hence the legend of the Auswärtiges Amt as "sand in the machine", the story that German diplomats deeply dislike the Nazi regime, and only worked for it in order to sabotage the evil doings of the Nazi leaders. The "sand in the machine" myth clearly had the effort of converting those German diplomats who loyally served Hitler into heroes of the resistance against Hitler. That myth was demolished in 2010 when the German government released a report of the activities of the Auswärtiges Amt between 1933-45, which concluded that the Auswärtiges Amt was indeed a criminal organization. I suspect that the story of Rath, the supposed secret anti-Nazi who ironically end up as a Nazi martyr has quite a bit to do with the legend of the Auswärtiges Amt as "sand in the machine" working quietly to sabotage the Third Reich's foreign policy. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Vom Rath had the reputation of being a conservative, unsympathetic to the National Socialist Government. (86.129.39.158 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205080854/http://www.dewanhoopsdaad.com/english to http://www.dewanhoopsdaad.com/english

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

vom Rath had just dumped Grynszpan?

I read recently in a source I trusted (I don't remember where that's why I'm not adding it to the main body just here) that vom Rath and Grynszpan were lovers and that vom Rath had just dumped Grynszpan...if someone else finds a reputable source for this it would be pretty important to include methinks.Historian932 (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The theorized vom Rath & Grynszpan relationship is covered in the 'sexuality' section of Grynszpan's wikipedia page HasisLfter (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Was the propoganda that Grynszpan had intended to kill the ambassador made up or true?

This page states "Most accounts of the shooting state that Grynszpan did not ask for vom Rath by name but only asked to speak to a member of the diplomatic staff. The records were falsified in 1942, and the Germans spread propaganda that Grynszpan's intention was to kill the Nazi ambassador, Count Johannes von Welczeck." so implying the idea was made-up propoganda.

However, I saw on the Count's page that it says this idea was true: "Grynszpan had decided to assassinate the German ambassador to France, a task somewhat complicated by the fact that he did not know the name of the ambassador or what he looked like" and that Grynszpan met but didn't recognise the Count.

Although all of this could be true--Grynszpan intends to kill the Count, the records are falsified for propoganda, the idea is spread--the implication that it is just propaganda contradicts the Count's Wikipedia page.

Also, (Vom Rath page) "Most accounts of the shooting state that Grynszpan did not ask for vom Rath by name but only asked to speak to a member of the diplomatic staff" almost contradicts (the Count's page) "Grynszpan went into the embassy to ask to see the ambassador". The Count's page says Grynszpan asked to see "his excellency, the ambassador" but that contradicts "only asked to speak to a member of the diplomatic staff".

Does anyone have access to the sources? HasisLfter (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)