Talk:Alfred Rosenberg/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Sources and Citations

How about citing a few sources for these recently added allegations? where was this public repute? when? This entire article lacks source citations, nothing can be double-checked without some references here. Zosodada 29 June 2005 03:28 (UTC)

What "allegations"? There is no reference to "public repute" so what are you referring to? Paul B 06:16 29 June 2005 (UTC)
The "allegation" of a "Public repute" is in the following paragraph that I reproduce here simply so that you may find it:
"He is considered the main author of key Nazi ideological creeds, including its racial theory, Lebensraum, abolition of the Versailles Treaty, opposition to degenerate art and persecution of the Jews. His strong opposition to Christianity, though publicly repudiated by Hitler, remained influential within the party's culture."
When? where? in what journal or history book is this reported? Note that this paragraph also implies that he "opposed... the persecution..." Zosodada
The paragraph certainly isn't intended to imply that he opposed the persecution of Jews! However the phrasing after (opposition to degenerate art and..) is unfortunate. Easily fixed. The notion that he was the main intellectual force behind these ideas is found in virtually any book on Nazism you want. The phrase "public repudiation" means something competely different from "public repute"! Hitler repudiated - meaning 'rejected' - anti-Christian ideas in public shortly after the Nazis came to power in several speeches in 1933. Hitler's pro-Christian statements can be found here.[1]. That does not mean he was actually a Christian. The truth is more complex. [2]. However it is true that Hitler "publically reudiated" anti-Christian views, while probably having other ideas in private. Paul B 08:38 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Is the claim made in the article that Hitler repudiated the anti-Christian rhetoric? This is the Rosenberg article. So, did he denounce Rosenberg for being anti-Christian? As Paul B hints at, Hitler sought not to destroy the Christian Church in Germany but to control it and direct it towards his ends in words. In actions, of course, he eliminated all the clergy who spoke out in opposition to him and suppressed all faith-based organizations and political parties. I will be picking up a Rosenberg biography from the library and I will follow-up here with what, if anything, Hitler did about Rosenberg's anti-Christian positions after 1933. patsw 04:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The New York Public Library lost its only copy of its only Rosenberg biography. so I'm not able to verify that Hitler repudiated Rosenberg for being anti-Christian. So I'm removing the repudiation reference until it can be verified. Vague references to Christianity in Hitler's speeches served a propaganda purpose and can't be interpreted as a specific repudition of Nazi doctrine or Rosenberg. Indeed if Hitler had a real problem with Rosenberg's writings, he would have been purged or killed. patsw 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Hitler most certainly did not "repudiate Rosenberg", nor did the article ever claim that he did. He publicly repudiated the anti-Christian sentiments expressed by Rosenberg. In reality his views were probably very similar to Rosenberg's, but he always claimed to be a Christian in public speeches. That fact is on record and is easily accessible. [3]. However a lot of this debate depends on what is meant by "Christian". Rosenberg rejected Christianity as traditionally understood, but believed that Jesus himself was a Nordic hero fighting against the Jews, [4] so in that sense he rejected Christianity in the normal sense while continuing to claim to be a follower of Jesus. Paul B 17:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Your citation of a atheist advocacy web site as factual evidence of Hitler's repudiation of Rosenberg is not verification. The Jim Walker quotes are not proper citations in any case.
Hitler (and others in his name) made statements on Christianity all the time for propaganda purposes.
  • The pro-Christian statements were made to neutralize some Protestant and Catholic opposition (i.e. "we're not the monsters the ministers/priests/bishops say we are") but especially to contrast themselves with and to take support away from atheistic Communists in the 20's and early 30's when the Communists were political competitors with the Nazis.
  • Later anti-Christian statements were made to push the culture away from the weakness of Christianity (in the Nazi view) towards acceptance of Nazi ideology and numb the consciences of Germans.
  • In general, Nazis were always trying to calibrate how best to suppress Christianity which was always regarded as an ideological threat - without paying too high a price for doing so.
The inference can't be made from any of this that Hitler repudiated (or "distanced himself from") Rosenberg -- or that Hitler ever rejected the neo-paganism of Mein Kampf. I don't believe the evidence supports it, nor have I read of a secondary source on Nazi ideology which does. The burden of proof for this claim would only be met by an actual repudiation of Rosenberg by Hitler. patsw 04:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Again you completely misrepresent what the article said for reasons of your own that I cannot really understand. Just as it never said Hitler "repudiated Rosenberg", so it also never said "Hitler distanced himelf from Rosenberg". It said he distanced himself in public from some of the ideas associated with him. Why you wish to deny this historical fact is a mystery. The fact that the quotes are on an atheist advocacy website is an irrelevance. It is just a convenient source for them. There are many others. Saying they are "not proper citations" seems to be an attempt to deny what they say. Hitler denigrated orthodox Christianity in private and supported it in public - a fact I already stated back in July with the reference to the Straight Dope website. [5] [6]. As far as I am aware he never made any public statements attacking Christianity, but made quite a number defending it, though usually with emphasis on the Nazi so-called "positive" version. The article merely states that Hitler distanced himself from neo-Paganism in public, which is a fact. Hitler states he is a Christian in Mein Kampf and elsewhere. Yes that was for 'propaganda purposes' as you put it. He needed the support of conservative Christian voters. But it's true nonetheless. Paul B 07:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I have added a section on R's religious ideas to clarify the comments in the into. It could probably be expanded and improved. Paul B 12:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Paul, with each iteration you change your inference in the article and keep moving the goalposts. This is not the Hitler article.
  • The Wikipedia already has an article on Hitler's religious views which does not include any reference that Hitler distanced himself from a Rosenberg idea.
  • The article on Nazi mysticism does not include any reference that Hitler distanced himself from a Rosenberg idea.
What are exactly the the ideas of Rosenberg that Hitler distanced himself from?
Hitler always distanced himself from Communists, Protestants, and Catholics, or any ideology that would subordinate his power. He embraced any ideology that could be adapted to increase his power including both Nazified Chrisitianity and Nazified neo-paganism, depending upon the what he thought would be best received by the audience at that time.
Your burden of proof is not to show that Hitler made propagandistic statements supporting Christianity. Hitler made these statements to advance Nazism, to oppose Communism, and to neutralize criticism of Nazism coming from Christian sources. That's stipulated.
Your burden of proof is the same as it is for any other Wikipedia article:
Can you identify a specific verifiable source where Hitler repudiated Rosenberg or where Hitler identified an idea whose origin is clearly Rosenberg's and repudiated it or even "distanced himself" from it? If that can be done we can have discussion on that verifiable source, examine its context, and the consequences to Rosenberg.
Readers of this exchange may not be familiar with Jim Walker's personal pages which are anti-Christian advocacy promoting the idea that Hitler was Christian. This is an example of a Walker pseudo-citation: on a wireless on 22 July, the evening before the Evangelical Church Election. Convenient or not, this is useless to the Wikipedia as a citation, and no editor, including this one, is going to fact-check it. patsw 14:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have lost me here. I simply do not follow what you are trying to say. Jim Walker's own views are an irrelevance, what matters is that the quoations he cites are genuinely Hitler’s words. No one is saying here that Hitler was a devout Catholic, or that his support for Christianity was sincere. Maybe he thought he was “a christian” in some way, maybe he was purely cynical. It’s impossible to say. Nor is Walker's page being used as a citation in the article. It is just being presented as a convenient accessible source of quotations for the purpose of this debate. What you call a ‘pseudo citation’ is no such thing. It’s just a short summary of the date and context of the quote, which can be found in many other locations. [7] [8]. Yes some of these websites are neo-Nazi or anti-Catholic. That does not mean that the quotation is made up. As for "moving the goalposts", that's an absurd charge. I am saying exactly the same thing I said back in July. I haven't changed, nor do I dramatically disagree with your own characterisation of Hitler’s attitudes. However, I ‘’have’’ tried to reword passages in the article for greater precision. Where I do disagree with you is your attempt to delete references to these points, because they are important. I can only assume that you want to do so because you dislike associating Hitler with Christianity. However it is central to the Rosenberg article to discuss the fact that he was the party’s most famous anti-Christian. His writings were cited by some Christian opponents of the Nazis as evidence that they would institute neo-Paganism. Hitler was keen to reassure the Church that this would not happen. Of course Hitler did not say “I distance myself from that man Rosenberg”, any more than modern politicians usually say such things in public about fellow government ministers. Rosenberg was one of his closest allies. But he did distance himself from some of the ideas that were associated in public with Rosenberg. This was even familiar in allied propaganda during WW2. In the anti-Nazi movie The Hitler Gang (1944) Rosenberg and Hitler are represented as clashing in a private meeting of the party elite, at which Rosenberg suggests that the party officially adopt anti-Christian policies. Hitler calls him an idiot. Of course that’s fiction, but it indicates that there was a widespread public awareness at this time that Hitler had distanced himself and the party from these ideas, and that they were associated specifically with Rosenberg. As for this "not being the Hitler article", no it isn’t, but Hitler is mentioned in virtually every section, as one would expect. He decided what policy was, so his approval or disapproval is of crucial importance. The intro lists all those aspects of R’s ideas that were influential within Nazism. The attitude to Christianity has to be mentioned.
Yes, I am aware of the two articles on Hitler and the church and on Nazi mysticism. The former is chaotic, and little more that a stub. The latter is only concerned with the more pagan aspects of the subject. Paul B 16:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Paul, can you identify a specific verifiable source where Hitler repudiated Rosenberg or where Hitler identified an idea whose origin is clearly Rosenberg's and repudiated it or even "distanced himself" from it? If that can be done we can have discussion on that verifiable source, examine its context, and the consequences to Rosenberg. patsw 17:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
How many times do I have to repeat this? Just as it [the article] never said Hitler "repudiated Rosenberg", so it also never said "Hitler distanced himself from Rosenberg". Why do I need to find a verifiable source that supports a statement that isn't being made and never has been? Paul B 17:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Paul, can you identify a specific verifiable source where Hitler distanced himself from Rosenberg's rejection of orthodox Christianity in favour of a Nordic "religion of the blood"? If that can be done we can discuss that verifiable source, examine its context, and the consequences to Rosenberg.
Is a Nordic "religion of the blood" a rejection of orthodox Christianity? patsw 18:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Verifying this article

I picked up four books on Alfred Rosenberg -- now listed in Further reading in the artcle. I will cite what is currently in the article as verified. I expect most of the article to be reflected somewhere in these books. If have another source that you think would help verify the article, please reply here. patsw 03:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's relationship with Rosenberg

It's simply inaccurate to state that Hitler "supported" Rosenberg. Rosenberg never obtained from Hitler what he wanted: to be named as Reich foreign minister, and to have the neo-paganism adopted and have the party or the state formally reject Christianity. Rosenberg clearly was out of the "inner circle" after the Nazis obtained real power. Rosenberg was aware of this and never attempted to cross Hess, Himler, Borman, etc.

His appointment to ministry of the occupied territories was undermined by the SS and when he complained of their usurpation of his authority he was ignored. patsw 02:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The 1932 Elections

I believe the article may be actually referring to the March 5 1933 Election (majority of 16 to Hitler NSDAP/Huguenberg Nationalist coalition) and not to the July and November 1932 Elections as it was not until 30 January 1933 that a presidential decree allowed Hitler his recognition . It is in particular the 5 March elections which are shrouded in historical intrigue and now, WP dispute. However I track and source active vatican involvement from may 1932 through to at least 1936, as per the testimony of von papen at the Nuremburg Trials. Papen landed his religious master in it, by claiming that with the publication of a tome by a Cardinal (Bishop ?) Hundal in 1936 -he knew that a high vatican authority was still attempting to achieve a synthesis between the healthier aspects of National Socialism, and Christianity. I find this every bit as explosive as the 1932 source for papal interference and the secret annexe to the Reichskonkordat (to which this article alludes without clarity). battling the WP massage and apologia in this subject, has prevented me from view of the allegations placing the Roman Catholic Church and its various cohorts into earlier error.

The article would do well to refer more clearly to these intrigues with Catholicism , rather embattled upon WP , which directly relate to the successes of the Rosenberg program. It is historical record. I also believe a direct quote of Rosenberg nonsense would be possible, though whether the world is a safe enough place to withstand it's mental distortions, is debateable. I have the quotes.

I fully expect that my notice of this article will be cause for question . I come in good faith , having put aside the quotes for some time. It is quite clear that I represent pure vandalism to some Wikpeidians , and yet error such as that here draws me onwards to the very opposite . If by any chance the present attempts to silence me on WP are successful , I assume that the free minds who touch this article will understand their duty . Do not archive this note of mine artificially .

Incidentally , it is the purely christian duty of editors who feel or are actually instructd to eliminate these worrying disclosures, in fact to defend their faith more than to defend canonically erroneous hierarchy and pontifical actions in the past . Such a reminder is of purely legal interest to all others . I make no threat , but to remind these faithful , that they place themselves under threat in their own canonical law . In shortest , you cannot canonically defend a Pope , two in fact , who excommunicated themselves automatically by accomodation of Hitler and of Rosenberg . Such christians who knowingly do so commit a grave offence themselves .

EffK 10:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are on about. Can you refer to specific points/problems with the article? Paul B 11:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
To write that in reaction seems a bit odd. I refer to the section nazi Policy and rosenbergs views, clearly , where it mentions 1932 elections. i do not find the categorisation of hitler's use or relationship to the RC Church , at any rate, accurate or sufficiently revealing. rather the opposite. Does that help you to see what I am on about ( and, why be so provocative to me ? have I offended you?) . EffK 23:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is a mention of the 1932 elections. In fact Hitler made several speeeches in both 1932 and 1933 designed to reassure Christians. I'm sure there were many complex negotiations going on between the more traditional conservative factions and the Nazis. I don't think we can refer to these in detail here. If you look at the above discussion you will see that a particular contributor is very keen disassociate the Nazis from any form of Christianity. I had a long debate with him, which I thought best to leave hanging since the current version more or less fairly describes R's position in relation to the rest of the NASDAP. Paul B 11:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. And I read the above again...I seem to have a subconscious infected with exactly that form of interaction re :Source above . I mean it is beyond deja vu towards groundhog repeat. WP time seems to be compound of opposites. Fast, to the point of forgetting 10 days ago- and slow in that 'headway' is minimal. Of course I can't say more than what I did already and 32 is 32 if it's meant to be 32. And I note well what you say,thanks.EffK 11:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Protocols of Zion

I remember reading in Robert Cecil's book that Rosenberg was the first person to translate The Protocols of Zion. Can anyone confirm? --Cormac Canales 07:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No the first translation was Ludwig Müller von Hausen's version in 1920. Rosenberg's edition was from 1923. Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion und die judische Weltpolitik is more a book about the protocols than an edition. Rosenberg always liked to present himself as a fair-minded objective scholar, and he tries to show his objectivity by presenting evidence arguing for both authenticity and forgery - while of course insisting that the Protocols do accurately display the workings of "the Jewish mind". Paul B 12:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Paul. --Cormac Canales 19:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Max Scheubner-Richter

This was recently added:

"along with Max Scheubner-Richter who was something of a mentor to Rosenberg & his ideology."

Max von Scheubner-Richter is not mentioned in any of the standard works on Rosenberg. Is this speculation, original research or is there a cite for it? patsw 02:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

the book 'Der Fuehrer' by Konrad Heiden, esp. the beginning of chap. IX pg. 183 where the second paragraph begins "Two refugees from Russia devised the plan, Alfred Rosenberg and his friend, Max Richter" and it goes on to desribe the relationship much as the Max Richter article. 67.5.159.225 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ishango

See Leon Poliakov's The Aryan Myth In here, Hitler calls Rosenberg one of the few Jews who deserved to live.

I'm pretty sure he says no such thing, having read the book, but I'll check it. Paul B 20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

After war

What happened to him after the war? There is usually some mention in Wikipedia Nazi biography pages, but none here. 86.143.201.124 06:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

He didn't do much because he was mostly dead, having been executed in 1946. Paul B 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Religious Theories of Alfred Rosenberg

Re BUDDHISM. I have read a lot about this philosopher who was in his time the most famous one in all of Europe. And so I am pleasantly surprised that his thoughts have been allotted so much space also in the American Wikipedia. I had been under the impression, though, that he was a Buddhist, just like Heidegger and Himmler. But now I learned from the article: Unlike Himmler, he had less attachments to Buddhism. Well, this just goes to show you that you can never read enough from our great philosophers.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Intellectually influential?

Is it possible to be 'intellectually influential' in a party so profoundly anti-intellectual as the NSDAP? I never came across any evidence that any of Rosenberg's colleagues ever referred to work like Der Mythus des 20 Jahrhunderts other than to treat it as a joke. In general he seems to have been a fairly marginal figure, not really equipped to survive in the competitive jungle of Nazi politics. White Guard 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rosenberg was one of the earliest members of the party, and one of the very few to retain high rank right through to the end of the Nazi regime. He was editor of the party newspaper and Hitler's "number two" for many years. Yes, he was not an effective political fixer, power-broker, or military organiser, so his significance diminished in wartime. But his main positions of influence were specifically intellectual ones - as head of various organisations concerning cultural life in Germany. Furthermore the Mythus was a huge seller in Nazi Germany, so its influence can hardly be denied. Yes, people like Goering and Bormann, who were not "intellectual", thought he was an impractical abstract-ideas man, but so what? Individuals in any political party conflict with eachother and back-bite about eachother. I think you overstate the claim that the Nazis were "anti-intellectual". Hitler fancied himself as a thinker and there were a number of supporters amongst scientists, writers, artists and even philosophers (notably Heidegger). Paul B 12:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. I don't want to make too much of this, but I have always believed that Hitler liked to have men like Rosenberg-and perhaps Hess too-in senior party positions because they made him look so much better; it is no accident that he was named 'leader' after Hitler went to Landsberg. The Mythus may have been a huge seller-it got plenty of free promotion-but I seriously doubt if this means it was actually read. Have you tried to read it? I remember some quip-I forget by whom-about tired U-boat crews returning to base to relax with Rosenberg's magnum opus. All the research I carried out on National Socialisim in various German archives confirmed the essentially irrational and anti-intellectual nature of the movement; it is no coincidence that mass book burning was one of the first acts of the Nazi state. That is not to say that they were not prepared to use prominent intellectuals; but these people were to find that they had a very limited influence. Think of the novel Mephisto in this context, or the case of Richard Strauss. And there was always an anti-rational strain within the German university sector itself, which explains, in part, Heidegger's association, apart from simple opportunism. Hitler fancied himself as a thinker? This is news to me. He always emphasised intuition over rational though, and had a low opinion of the written over the spoken word; his outspoken contempt for such rational disciplines as jurisprudence was well-known. His second book was deliberately suppressed because, by the time it was ready for publication, it no longer served any practical need. I always believed that most of the noted German writers-if you mean by this important novelists and playwrights-artists and the like left Germany in '33. Who remained? White Guard 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The quip about U-boat crews reaching for The Myth Of The Twentieth Century appears in Neave's work, where a range of other anecdotes relating to this work can also be found. On Page 103, we have:

  • Rosenberg's claim to fame rested on his book The Myth Of The Twentieth Century, an unintelligible 'catechism' of Nazi idology. Hitler called it a 'derivative pastiche, illogical rubbish' but told the author it was 'a very intelligent book'. Goebbels called it an 'ideological belch'.

Continuing, Neave writes:

  • The book attacked Christianity, which, in Rosenberg's immemorial words, was 'ennobled solely by the fact that Germans have believed in it'. I met no importants Nazis who had ever read this book, certainly not those on trial at Nuremberg. The prosecution stated that it had sold over a million copies by 1944 but Hitler may have been right when he surmised that its success was due to Rosenberg's assault on the Catholic Church.

On page 106, Neave writes:

  • I already knew that Rosenberg, the woebegone creature who stood before me, had been a sick joke. Goebbels had sneered at Rosenberg's belief, 'that when a member of a U-Boat crew comes filthy and oily form the engine room, what he reaches for in preference to anything is a copy of The Myth Of The Twentieth Century.

He then continues:

  • When I heard this story, I could understand that the pseudo-intellectual Rosenberg meant every word. His warped and self-deluded nature showed itself clearly in his comment to me on the indictment: "I must reject an indictment for conspiracy. The Anti-Semitic movement was only protective". So spoke the former art master.

Neave cites several of Rosenberg's more nebulous wanderings of the mind on page 104 with respect to women's rights, and surmises that he would even have wittered on in this fashion whilst in bed with his mistress. The same pages also contain doubts about his ehtnicity, including the remark on page 103 that "Most Nazis thought he had Jewish blood and that he must be the 'only Aryan Rosenberg in the world' ..."

Once more, an illuminating source, even if Neave's viewpoint is leavened a little too much with visceral immediacy for the liking of some historical purists ... Calilasseia 15:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes. By the way - in belated response to White Guard - I have read the Mythus. I found it a lot more interesting and readable than the tedious Mein Kampf. Of course Neave was dismissive of Rosenberg. He was an Eton and Oxford educated aristocrat who considered Rosenberg to be a semi-educated parvenu stuffed with misty Germanic waffle masquerading as profundity. Paul B 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Neave was, in addition to being Eton and Oxford educated, a man who had first hand experience of Nazi methods of interrogation (he briefly relates his time in Torun in Poland after being captured as an SOE agent elsewhere in the Nuremberg book) and who somehow found time to take his Bar examinations amid the havoc of World War II (during which he escaped from Colditz, a notable feat in itself). He met the arraigned Nazis at Nuremberg personlly, not only to serve the indictment, but subsequently to arrange defence counsel and other matters. While I have repeatedly stated that his book is perhaps a little too subjective for the tastes of historiographical purists, he was in an enviable position to size up these people. For example, he described Speer as being "more dangerous and beguiling than Hitler himself" and wryly noted how Speer effectively turned himself into a part time witness for the prosecution to save his own skin, feeding the Allies with intelligence on the other prisoners. He also noted, for example, that Hjalmar Schacht, the former head of the Reichbank before being replaced by the mediocre and ineffectual Funk (who was described by Colonel Andrus, the governor of Nuremberg Prison during the trial, as "incapable of running a gas station") was one of those people whom we would nowadays describe as "intelligent and knows it" - Schacht was unbelievably arrogant. He also made a number of exquisite observations of Goering, for example, and arrived independently at the conclusion that Hess was unfit to stand trial (though as he noted, the judges disagreed with that assessment, and that Justice Jackson described him as being "in the volunteer class with his amnesia" - Neave was present during these deliberations between the four principal judges and the prosecution counsel including Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe). Neave was not the only person to be dismissive of Rosenberg, as the quotes I have given above illustrate - Goebbels was particularly scathing in his perception of Rosenberg (indeed Goebbels developed a truly visceral hatred of the man if his diaries are anything to go by), and Rosenberg's failure to make an impression other than that of squalor and sometimes hysterical inefectualness during his tenure of the Nuremberg cells must only have contributed more to the impression of someone who had, to borrow a phrase from Dr Laurnece Peter, "risen to his level of incompetence". I've already described how Neave quotes Lord Vansittart, former head of the British Diplomatic Service, dismissed Rosenberg as "a ponderous lightweight", and apparently even his supposed colleagues in the Nazi government treated him with barely concealed contempt. Neave may have had an education that many in the UK would consider 'privileged', but a good number of persons not thus blessed seem to have reached similar conclusions about Rosenberg's status as a mediocre sub-philosopher - though I have yet to read anything by Colonel Andrus, it would not surprise me in the least to discover that he too (without the benefits of an 'aristocratic' background) reached similar conclusions. For men as vastly different in background as Goebbels, Himmler, Neave and Lord Vansittart to settle upon broadly similar conclusions is rather telling, is it not? Calilasseia 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes of course I know of Neave's activities in the war and at Nuremberg, but I still don't quite know what you are trying to prove here. No-one aside from our last contributer (BZ(Bruno Zollinger) thinks that Rosenberg is some sort of rival to Plato! I find the Mythus entertaining to read precisely because it's such a combination of idiosyncratic ideas of the day. However, as for rising to his "level of incompetence" - given his range of activity, that implies a substantial degree of competence. There was, I suspect, something sanctimonious and pedantic about Rosenberg that the more charismatic Nazi leaders found tiresome. Paul B 23:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re RIVAL. Well, a lot of people would have felt so at the time. Sic transit ... But even now, if you ever get around to reading the Republic you might find certain similarities to German Thought of yore and, who knows, maybe even today.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


"Derivative pastiche, illogical rubbish"

Re NEAVE. It is a great pity that the disputants have failed to draw the right lessons from the Neave quotations on this page. These passages do not teach us anything about Rosenberg. They do not even teach us something about Hitler. Hitler's words, private and official, about Rosenberg reflect the attitude of every strongman everywhere towards the philosophy that he puts to his use. If Hitler would have had a DIFFERENT attitude towards Rosenberg and his philosophy, THAT would have been noteworthy. The same goes for the quip about the U-boat crews. It tells us a lot about books but nothing about Rosenberg's book.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would beg to differ in this respect - the source contains an assessment of the character of Rosenberg based upon author's numerous interactions with him during the Nuremberg Trials. One can learn an awful lot about a person when one is in contact fairly frequently, as I gather Neave was. you may consider Neave's view to be in part the victor's view of the vanquished, among other things, but Neave also had the opportunity to study the documentation at Nuremberg both during the trial and subsequently - several tons of documents formed the basis of the British Military War Crimes Executive's case against the arraigned Nazis, and Neave was responsible for collecting and organising a fair proportion of that material. I'd say he was in a pretty good position to judge Rosenberg's character. Plus, the quote about Rosenberg's work being a "derivative pastiche" is as much a comment on Hitler as Rosenberg - Hitler being portrayed as a reprobate who would use any tool that came to hand to seize and maintain power (I don't think there's much dispute on that issue). Additionally, throughout the trial, Rosenberg was, according to Neave, the kind of person who possessed a singular talent for complicating the simplest of tasks. Plus, Neave isn't the only person to be dismissive of Rosenberg - cue such diverse figures as Goebbels and Lord Vansittart. Calilasseia 22:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
So what is your point? Several people didn't like him? Yes, he was bombastic and his ideas were eclectic. His weakness and his strength was his self-regarding sincerity. He seems genuinely to have believed in the ideology he promoted, a fact which makes him guilty of its effects, but innocent of the cynicism Neave ascribes to Hitler. Paul B 00:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The point being made here is that a wide spectrum of people both on the Allied and the Axis side regarded Rosenberg as second rate. That judgement presumably extends to his written output. You may consider the negative judgement of others to be a less than rigorous basis in this regard, but from what I can gather, that assessment has not been effectively challenged in historiographical circles. of course you may be able to point me to a source that does present a different viewpoint, but until that moment comes to pass, I am minded to consider that Rosenberg was, as that wide spectrum of people considered him to be, a second rate character. It was Goebbels after all who said of him that he almost managed to become a scholar, a journalist, a politician, but only almost. of course, coming from the man who made the mistake of broadcasting Die Ewige Jude in cinemas and who quickly realised in the aftermath of this that propaganda needed a tad more subtlety, this might not be too stinging a criticism, but Goebbels did, reputedly, learn from that mistake. Rosenberg continued to plough on in the same manner throughout his career. The quote about U-Boat crews reaching for The Myth Of The Twentieth Century in preference to anything else when signing off duty is attirbuted to Rosenberg himself, a remark already characterised as warped and self-deluded - presumably you do not agree with that assessment. He attempted to set himself up as a kind of intellectual High Priest of Nazism, only to discover that he was a sideshow with regard to the development of Nazism its real direction was determined by ruthless individuals such as Himmler and Goering. One area in which Rosenberg did manage to display some competence was in his various operations to "acquire" art treasures for the Third Reich (quite a few of which ended up in Goering's collection) - at Nuremberg, it was cited that under Operation M, thousands of tons of antique furniture were confiscated, including items looted from 38,000 apartments in Paris alone. Indeed Rosenberg himself announced at Nuremberg that his einsatzstab had accomplished what he termed "the biggest art operation in history" - which included the theft of 5,281 paintings. As a further measure of the nebulous other-worldliness that characterised him, when asked about a choice of defence counsel, he asked to consult Hans Frank, another defendant. His exact words were: "I believe that Dr Frank who is a legal man could assist me. May I be given permission to see him?" His wish was granted after Colonel Andrus gave assent to the meeting. As Neave says of this, "The thought of consulting Dr Frank of all people on the best defence lawyer to meet a charge of mass murder in the East, was grimly amusing". I suspect that the way forward here is for us to agree to disagree for the time being. :) Calilasseia 12:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re SECOND RATE. No doubt. So why do you have to bolster your argument with quotes that do not prove anything, instead of showing what the great colleague of Heidegger actually wrote himself?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 15:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Tag

May we initiate a discussion about the presence of the "Weasel Tag" in the section entitled "Nazi Policy and Rosenberg's Views"? My perusal of the Wikipedia standards indicates that the phrase "weasel words" indicates words that imply a source to material that is actually unsourced, such as "it is thought by many," "studies show," "some have maintained that," etc. I find no such phrases in this section, unless the tag refers to "Some Nazi leaders, such as Martin Bormann, were anti-Christian and sympathetic to Rosenberg. Once in power, however, Hitler and most Nazi leaders sought ..."(italics mine) However, I don't think those phrases were present when the tag was added.

If I understand the logs correctly, the tag was added by one pzg_ratzinger on 7 September, 2006. He editorializes about stretching "POV" to the limit and says he added what he calls the "POV tag".

Allow me to begin the discussion by stating that I think the weasel tag is misplaced in this circumstance and by inviting the editor to further amplify his reasons for attaching it.

Allow me to also state that I'm not a very experienced Wikipedia editor and I'm not an expert on Rosenberg or the Third Reich. I apologize in advance if I have mischaracterized or misunderstood anyone's editorial actions. Steven J. Anderson 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of this section was written by user:Patsw, with whom I had the rather unproductive debate above. After proclaiming in the debate that Rosenberg and Bormann hated eachother, he strangly decided in the end that they were bosom pals after all - well, that they colaborated in this area, though on occassion Bormann actually criticised Rosenberg for being too pro-Christian! (See Stiegmann-Gall). I don't think there is much that's really in dispute in this section. It's just that it's poorly referenced and makes some rather sweeping statements about what Hitler truly believed. Paul B 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Paul, thank you for your swift and courteous reply. I replaced the weasel tag with a neutrality tag as I think it's more to the point, but now that I read your comment again, maybe even that goes too far. Since you say there's not much in dispute, perhaps we shouldn't have a tag there at all. The editor who put the tag in, user:pzg_ratzinger aka 209.251.21.252, doesn't seem to have ever made another contribution to Wikipedia.
Thank you again for your kind attention. Steven J. Anderson 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A mistake

There are an mistake in this article. Alfred Rothenberg didn't study at Moscow Univercity (Moscow State Univercity now). He studied civil-engineering at Moscow High Technical School (Moscow State Technical University named after N.E. Bauman now) and graduated in 1918. This mistake is widely distributed across English-speaking internet with copy of this wikipedia article.

Source: List of MSTU graduations http://people.bmstu.ru/ABCDE/16%20Ro.htm (in Russian)

So, uh, correct it. Afabbro 00:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cause of death

You guys know it doesnt even state how he died? I mean WTF. someone on this talk page even said execution, so why isnt it in the article, and what was he executed for?

Yes it does. Read the article. Paul B 08:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


Is this really accurate?

The article opens with "He is considered the main author of key Nazi ideological creeds, including its racial theory, persecution of the Jews, Lebensraum, abolition of the Treaty of Versailles, and opposition to "degenerate" modern art." It's the adjective "main" that I question. Rosenberg was a key Nazi thinker, but to ascribe everything to him as the "main" author may be a stretch...abolition of the Treaty of Versailles in particular came from a wide swath of German thinking, and opposition to modern art may have been as much Hitler as Rosenberg. Perhaps this sentence could be rephrased? I'm not sure the best way to do it, which is why I didn't make the correction. Afabbro 00:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased it to say "one of" the main....Thanks, --Tom 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Additional Perspectives

I have already referred to Airey Neave in the talk on Franz von Papen, another figure in the Nazi hierarchy tried at Nuremberg. While Neave's book on the Nuremberg Trials (I provided full details in the Franz Von Papen talk page) is subjective, it is based both upon personal interaction with the various accused individuals (Rosenberg included) and access to the wealth of documents that Neave and others processed during their work for the British Military War Crimes Executive and the British prosecution team at Nuremberg. Therefore it is worth at least a degree of perusal.

In the chapter on Rosenberg (Baldur and the Unloved Philosopher, pp 97-107) , Neave seems to take a particularly schadenfreude delight in recounting the fact that "Hitler continued to find him meaningless jobs with long names" (p. 105), and refers to the various titles Rosenberg accrued during his career under Hitler as "... labels invented by Hitler himself. They were designed by that arch-cynic to conceal the insecure and second-rate character of Rosenberg" (p. 103). He also seems to take a delight in the venom with which Rosenberg's erstwhile colleagues in the Nazi government described him : this example quote of Goebbels is typical of the material Neave alighted upon for inclusion in his writings:

  • Goebbels, the waspish Propaganda Minister, said, "Rosenberg almost managed to become a scholar, a journalist, a politician, but only almost". (p. 103)

Neave follows by writing "By 1940, Hitler had started to treat Rosenberg with contempt. Perhaps it was because the wretched man really bored him stiff". (p. 103), and "Only devotees of the pure doctrine could have stomached this funereal pedant" (p. 104). At the end of the chapter, Neave quotes Lord Vantissart, who apparently described Rosenberg as "A ponderous lightweight" (quoted on p. 107).

Among the episodes in Rosenberg's political career, Neave highlights how Rosenberg harboured the ambition to become the Nazi Foreign Minister, but, as a consequence of inept handling of the mission to London in May 1933 to cement diplomatic relations between Britain and Hitler's Germany, was passed over for the post, which was handed to Joachim von Ribbentrop. This was, ultimately, to test Rosenberg's loyalty to Hitler, and Neave cites two of Rosenberg's diary entries after the signing of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as a pointer to Rosenberg's state of mind.

All in all, as described above, Neave's book may be subjective, but it is certainly illuminating! Calilasseia 05:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm still reading the books. It's fascinating. Hitler privately was indifferent to this and used Rosenberg as a tool. Hitler's contempt for Rosenberg didn't neatly translate into a contempt for Rosenberg's ideas. I agree that the London mission was given to Rosenberg as a trial: "Let's see our Alfred does..." He couldn't restrain his loathing for the British government and British people. Laying a wreath with a swatstika at the cenotaph at Whitehall in May 1933 was really, really bad. Prior to this he has delusions of being foreign minister. patsw 05:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Really what was happening is that Hitler wanted to do away with Christianity, but couldn't afford do smash the Christian structures which had been serving him so well in his war against the Jews. Rosenberg had a complex scheme in which to 'convert' the Catholics to his beliefs, by showing the truth that Roman Catholicism had absorbed many pre-existing, native nordic traditions. The Protestants would no be so lucky, but could be personally spared due to their zeal and honesty. Hitler knew that Christianity would ultimately undermine him, but he used it while it served him. Witness the cult of the "sixteen immortals", i.e. the worship of the war martyrs. As for a source of this information, I can give you no names or documents, so you can believe me or disbelieve as your conscience and reason sees fit. My source is contact with some of the small remnants of the nordic religious groups that were either helped by Rosenberg or formed by him. The members who were alive and participating in the war are a diminishing number, yet their tales continue to be told by new members of these secretive groups. These elder members have mixed feelings about Hitler and the Nazis, but are generally predisposed to thinking well of the spirit of Rosenberg, even if he was misguided. -- Mountain Rose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.55.175 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely comfortable with believing you or disbelieving you as I see fit. Fortunately, however, that has nothing to do with how Wikipedia articles are edited. Wikipedia has a policy called verifiability. This means that other editors have to be able to independently verify the information that's presented in articles. Since it's impossible for another editor to go to a library or an archive or the internet and look up your personal experiences to check that they say what you say they do, they are disqualified from being used as sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an ad instead of Rosenberg's picture!

The same in the article called "Origin of the coats of arms of Germany and its federal states" (only it's much lower, thus harder to find). Please someone do something! And maybe ban the one who did these. P.S.: for a couple of seconds, it does show the right image. Is the problem in my PC? It shows ads even at the end of the page, instead of the Wikimedia Foundation icon. --Ernobius (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like some kind of advertising malware on your computer rather than a problem with Wikipedia (I am sure a doctored image would be spotted tout suite). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious Theories

Paul, so much of what you've written is incomplete or contradicted by history texts. Where is this stuff coming from?

The entire second paragraph is ludicrous. Rosenberg and Bormann hated each other passionately and were always attempting to undermine and mischaracterize each other to the public and to Hitler. Rosenberg would remind Hitler of the need to Nazify the culture as well as the state (and of Bormann's lack of zeal) and Bormann would remind Hitler of the risk of alienation of the population who would be uncomfortable with the abandonment of Christianity (and the unnecessary risks that Rosenberg wanted the party to take on) (Cecil, op. cit. p.119)

While all Nazis were racists, only Rosenberg and a few others took Rosenberg's particular version of the Nazi Nordic myth seriously. For the rest of them, and Hitler especially, it was only a means to an end. But for personal loyalty to Hitler, the party's real behavior was hypocrisy -- no honor, ideology or aesthetics -- and this is the at the heart of Rosenberg's life. patsw 04:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "immorality of the soul" appears to me to be a typo for "immortality of the soul", but it will take someone with some real knowledge of this subject to make a correction.
Floozybackloves (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I checked the source and it's indeed a typo. --Martin (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In German Wikipedia his Jewishness is mentioned, so why not here?

Please compare the German Wikipedia about this person, it is mentioned that he has Jewish anchestors and the Nazis destroyed evidences that would prove that. Why is that not mentioned in English Wikipedia, too? --89.204.153.239 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)PS: Read this in German Wikipedia: "Allem Anschein nach wurden diesbezügliche Akten, die den Nachweis damals möglicherweise erbracht hätten, während der deutschen Besatzungszeit in den Jahren 1941 bis 1945 gezielt vernichtet.[7]"

Because it isn't true. Paul B (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is, there is a little Jew in every German. --89.204.137.154 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want it in the article, you need a reliable source. Got one? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There were lots of rumours flying around about Nazi leaders put about by oppponents. It's an obvious way to get at an anti-Semite - by claiming that he is really Jewish or has some Jewish ancestor. I've no idea what "there is a little Jew in every German means", but I know of no existing evidence that Rosenberg had Jewish ancestors. All the German article quotes are rumours. Paul B (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Rosenberg and Slavs-misconception

There is a misconception, and the common mistake of using general term "Slavs" for diverse groups.Rosenberg was more friendly than Hitler towards Ukrainians whom he wanted to form into a satellite nation, but he hated and wanted to destroy Poles and Czechs. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Being willing to use some Slavs as a buffer against others in no way precludes considering them to be subhuman. That said, I didn't find the bit about Poland and the Slavs on the page cited.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry, Part II

According to this webpage (I have it cached so that things are highlighted) http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:hQd9Rld3cOQJ:www.intelinet.org/swastika/swasti07.htm+alfred+rosenberg+jewish&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4 he was the son of a shoemaker and yes was Jewish.

Yes, that's from Servando Gonzalez's website which is full of inaccuracies. It's true that he was the son of a shoemaker, however. Paul B 11:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Whichever is the actual truth with respect to R's Jewish ancestry or not, there should be a mention of the controversy regarding the topic in his main article. If only to point out that there is a controversy over the topic, with a summany of the claims and contentions. Ignoring such comment only begs the question, since Rosenberg IS / WAS a quite common surname for German Jews.User: Frank B 12:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no "controversy" in actual serious literature on the subject. Paul B 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there isn't any meaningful level of controversy but there should be some mention, since many readers (most?) will be default make the *wrong* assumption about his heritage. Historian932 (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be rather unlikely that a Jew would be one of the founders and leaders of the Nazi party, especially since the Nazis defined Jewishness in racial, not religious terms?

— Paul B 00:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there are/were Jews that "defined Jewishness in racial, not religious terms", as for example Moses Hess, who also was the earliest proponent of Zionism. And also Theodor Herzl thought of Jews as a race that has to be improved, to be made virtuous, industrious, and fit for war before emigration. In this context it wouldn't be that surprising if in fact one of the founders and leaders of the Nazis would have been a Jew since Zionism needs Antisemitism and has a lot in common with National-Socialism. And in the end, the Nazis did more for the furthering of the goal of Zionism than anyone else.62.226.5.93 (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is like triple reverse logic that leads nowhere. Yes, some Jewish people may have defined Jewishness racially (I tend not to think so, btw) but that doesn't mean they would then be open to destroying their own people magically (that's like saying because a Nazi was nationalistic, he would support the British nation destroying Germany). Nor the fact that the Holocaust in certain ways led to the creation of Israel mean that the Nazis were somehow actually working towards the goal of furthering Zionism. Historian932 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if this talk is somewhat old now, I think that some more information about rumours on a Jewish origin of Alfred Rosenberg should perhaps be included in the article. A 1923 newswire by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, which can be consulted in the agency's excellent website, about an edition of the "Protocols" says

"The author of the new volume is Alfred Rosenberg said to be a Jewish apostate"

(http://archive.jta.org/article/1923/07/16/2755474/new-edition-of-protocols-in-berlin)

It is of some significance that also Jewish information agencies shared the - most probably wrong - idea that Rosenberg had a Jewish origin because of his surname. Lancioni (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Frigging retarded assertions of Jewishness

It seems very important to those asserting Rosenberg's Jewishness that he indeed was -- is this some variant of Holocaust denial? I.e., if some Jews were responsible for the Holocaust, then the Germans were not even solely responsible -- Jews themselves were behind it!--Jrm2007 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he wasn't Jew. But it is striking that he divorced his baltic wife to remarry with a Kramer.
Kramer sounds to me jewish too. Maybe the above debate is to be rehearsed.
Was he antisemite because rejected from the jewish community as his mother was a schicksa (abominable woman i.e. gentile spouse ) ?
On the other end, the Jewish identity needs antisemitism in order to persist throughout ages, otherwise Jews from the diasporah would get assimilated. Paradoxically, Alfred Rosenberg could have help to enhance the jewish identity and sionism with his ideological work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.126.73 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Your speculations are useless and unproductive unless you first produce a reliable source that says he was Jewish. But you can't, because he wasn't. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Rosenberg and Kramer are German names. German Jews (and people with German Jewish ancestary) usually have German names. There are some German names that are relativly common with German Jews and some very uncommon. Most names Americans tend to call jewish names are just German names134.3.76.108 (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

diary pages online

This is where you can see some of the pages with a transcript in German. http://collections.ushmm.org/view/2001.62.14 71.163.117.143 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Rosenberg and the protocols of Zion

Konrad Heiden in his book 'Der Fuerher' says that Rosenberg told a story of a mysterious man entering hs room in Russia in 1917 and dumping a copy of the protocols on his desk, then leaving. Where does this story appear in his work? Maybe his 1923 translation? If it can be sourced, the story should probably be put in the article, if only as something Rosenberg said.

Heiden has some interesting things to say about the protocols, and how they ironically reflected the Nazi's own methods. I think it would be interesting to add more info on Rosenberg's own attitude to the forgery and how he was promoting it as a real thing. But all the available sources here are in German, so someone who speaks it should expand the article on this subject. 67.188.213.31 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Alfred Rosenberg

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alfred Rosenberg's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "William L. Shirer p240":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Memoirs?

I've read that he wrote his memoirs in 1946 while awaiting execution at Nuremberg. Indeed, here is a link to what seems to be them: https://archive.org/details/MemoirsOfAlfredRosenberg. However, I don't see it on the list of his writings. Am I correct that this is different than his diary? Is there any reliable sourcing that verifies this? Holdek (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry?

The article claims that Rosenberg was of Jewish ancestry. It's true that his surname is common among German Jews, but I've never seen any evidence that Rosenberg himself had any Jewish ancestry (unlike Heydrich, for whom there is some evidence of it). Is this claim substantiated by research, or is it just an assumption based on his name? If it is just speculation or assumption, it should be deleted. Paul B

Peter Viereck mentioned the Jewish ancestry of Rosenberg and Goebbels in his 1939 book "Metapolitics"

1939? I think a more recent source would be more to the point. Trustworthy information is not likely to be found in 1939. Anyway, the passage has already beeen removed. Paul B 12:40 Mar 28 2005 (UTC)
With the name Rosenberg it is highly likely that he is infact ethnically Jewish.
No it isn't, not in the part of 'Germany' from which he came. Anyway, if he were ethnically Jewish he would hardly be likely to have written The Myth of the Twentieth Century! But the point is that I haven't seen any authoritative evidence at all of this claim. Paul B 11:35 Apr 12 2005 (UTC)
Karl Marx wrote many anti-semetic things in his writings and he was ethnically Jewish.
That's a daft comparison. Marx was never 'anti-Semitic' in the way that Rosenberg was. His essay on the Jewish Question tries to find a historical explanation for Jewish social position and culture. Rosenberg was a racist. He believed that Jewish character was innate and that it was in essence corrupt. If he had been Jewish himself he would have been condemning his own nature. And he would hardly be likely to have been given senior positions within the Nazi party!!!!! Paul B 11:35 Apr 16 2005 (UTC)
Bobby Fischer is ethnically Jewish, and he denies the Holocaust.142.150.205.12 19:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
So? He was not a member of an organisation that denied entrance to Jews. Paul B 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
He said they were innately evil, true. Still that doesn't mean he didn't have Jewish ancestors, Erhard Milch was pure Jewish and he was second in command of the air force. So I dont think its fair to say that the Nazi's wouldn't give someone with Jewish ancestory a high position, they would give ethnic Jews a high position if they have corresponding views with the Nazi's.
Again, a very different situation. Milch was an aeronautics expert who became a key figure in the war effort. He was not a Nazi ideologue, or a senior party figure - like Rosenberg was. He was incorporated into the Nazis military plans as a bureaucrat along with other businessmen and career military men who simply served their country's government of the day. When his part-Jewish (not 'pure Jewish') parentage was discovered it was a huge embarrassment, since Nazi laws meant he had to go. But he was already a figure in the public eye! How could the Nazis admit that a man making decisions on the their behalf, was a member of the "evil" Jewish race dedicated to the destruction of the German people? There was an investigation, but Milch's mum "confessed" that her son was actually the product of an extra-marital affair with a non-Jew. So he wasn't Jewish after all! Whether this was true, or whether she just made this up to save her son, I've no idea. But the story indicates what a serious matter such accusations were in the Nazi state. Rosenberg was a key figure in the Nazi party, its principal anti-Semitic theorist. There is no way that such a person could have had close Jewish ancestors. The fact that most other famous people called Rosenberg are Jewish is rather ironic, but I don't think there's anything more to it than that.
BTW, technically, Milch wouldn't even be Jewish even if he was his official father's son, since it was his father not his mother who was Jewish. Not that the Nazis would have cared. Paul B 11:45 Apr 20 2005 (UTC)
I know 2 Rosenbergs in Germany, and they aren't jewish, and never were. Rosenberg is a surname - not like Goldstein or Goldmann which are only used by German-Jews - that is not really common among ethnic Germans, but yet used by tens of thousands of ethnic Germans. Just like the surnames Lilienthal or Rosenthal (which sound jewish). Also the name Wiesenthal is used by ethnic Germans. All surnames that make sense in any way - which Goldmann doesn't - are (also) used by ethnic Germans. Rosenberg means "mountain of roses" which refers to people who lived at a "mountain of roses" a long time ago, thus they got their surname. OotHb 11:43 (GMT +1) Dez 15 2005
Rosenberg was a Baltic German and the name was more common there among Christian Germans than Jewish Germans. As OootHb mentions, elsewhere it was more common among Jewish Germans. The most famous people named Rosenberg in my life were Ethel and Julius Rosenberg who were Jewish. Perhaps most of the people named Rosenberg in the United States are Jewish, but none of this changes what is a consenus among historians that Alfred Rosenberg was not of Jewish ancestry. patsw 13:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with patsw - There is a singer named Marianne Rosenberg in Germany, but she is not Jewish, but of Roma heritage. --1523 10:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
There are a few full German-Americans I know who have jewish sounding names such as Simon but aren’t jewish nor were their immigrant Grandparents and Great Grandparents Jews or "secret Jews". They’re full German Catholic or Lutheran. In WW2, there was a Werrmacht Heer General name Colonel General Johannes Blaskowitz who fought it out pretty well against the 101st Screaming Eagles. I forgot what battle it was but I read about on a thehistorynet.com magazine. However he wasn’t a secret Jew or half-Jewish like some half-jewish German soldiers the Werrmacht had in their ranks. He couldn’t have risen through the ranks if he was “half-Jewish”. Only one other "half-Jewish" Luftwaffe General rose through the top ranks but it was only because he was a good Luftwaffe General. Then you have the Kommandant of Auschwitz who has the same surname as Anne Frank, Governor General Hans Frank. There were also a couple of WW2 Luftwaffe German aces that don’t have German sounding names like "the Count" Walter Krupinski, Hans-Joachim Kroschinski, and Adolf Galland but they’re full ethnic Germans. List of World War II aces from Germany --Pilot expert 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well if Rosenberg wasn't Jewish then he shouldn't have been using a Jewish surname! Why didn't he have the dececy to change it? As was often done by Jews, to hide they're Jewishness from antisemties. Or in Rosenbergs case to stop his collegues thinking he was Jewish. I was as shocked as anything to find someone called Rosenberg in the Anti Semites list! It's a bit like finding a muslim hater called Mohommed! Surnames eh, I can never understand them, like for example all these muslims who have Patel as their surname, I thought Patel was Hindu? -- Yakface
Because it isn't a Jewish surname. It was his family name. Most people with the name Rosenberg in English speaking countries are indeed Jewish - Julius and Ethel Rosenberg; Harold Rosenberg; Isaac Rosenberg. So it's a fair rule-of-thumb to use, but there is nothing specifically Jewish about the name, unlike say, Cohen or Levi, which are Hebrew in origin. Rosenberg is just German for "rose mountain", it's a location-related surname (like my own, which derives from a village in Lancashire, England[9]). Don't you think it would be rather unlikely that a Jew would be one of the founders and leaders of the Nazi party, especially since the Nazis defined Jewishness in racial, not religious terms? As you can see from these sites, it was quite common for Jewish families to adopt the name Rosenberg.[10]; [11]; (see para 148) They were required to adopt a German name under pre-Nazi legislation. The name Rosenberg was a popular one to adopt. Why that name was popular, I do not know. When these Ashkenazi populations migrated to America and England they retained the Germanic name. BTW, "Patel" means "farmer". It refers to a job, not to a religion. Paul B 00:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Rosenberg is also an popular jewish Surname. But this Guy looks not like a Jew! Point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.204.83 (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Rosenberg is german for 'rose hill/mountain' it is a german name held by non-jewish germans as well as by german jews (an their descendants) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.96.141 (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Rosenberg helped plan the invasion of Norway?

At the Nuremberg Trials, the prosecution maintained that Rosenberg had a hand in the planning of the invasion of Norway. (Source: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/meetthedefendants.html#Rosenberg ) Was he found guilty of this charge? If so, does anyone have any information on the extent of his influence? --Cormac Canales 05:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Under Count II of the indictment "Waging an aggressive war" the IMT pronounced Rosenberg guilty. His so-called participation in the invasion of Norway was marginalized by his involvement in aggressing warfare in the Eastern Occupied Territories - of this he was found guilty. The IMT found co-defendant, Alfred Jodl the chief aggressor in the invasion of Norway. Given the fact that Rosenberg was adjudged guilty on all counts of the indictment, it is feasible to assume that he was, in a legal sense, convicted of being a party to the invasion Norway, however his influence in the sphere of military matters was minimal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.228.200 (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That isn't answering the question. Did Rosenberg actually have anything to do with the proposed invasion or Norway or its planning? Though he was convicted of this, the Nuremberg Trials were show trials, and there seems no evidence that he had any such role.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ignorance of holocaust

At the Nuremberg Trials he claimed to be ignorant of the Holocaust, "despite the fact that Leibbrandt and Meyer were present at the Wannsee conference". Rosenberg is not Leibbrandt and Meyer. Furthermore the Wannsee conference did not say anything about killing Jews, despite what some now think. Rosenberg could easily have been ignorant of the killing of jews, after all it was not widely publicized - only those with a need to know where aware of what was happening.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfred_Rosenberg/Archive_1&oldid=1073750383"