Talk:Albert Speer

Impartiality of the "Speer Myth" section

This section reads like such a desperate attempt to discredit the subject of the article that in my opinion it hurts its credibility, in what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopaedia.

A few examples:

> In his memoirs and interviews, he had distorted the truth and made so many major omissions that his lies became known as "myths".[154] Speer took his myth-making to a mass media level and his "cunning apologies" were reproduced countless times in post-war Germany}}

> Speer, Siedler and Fest had constructed a masterpiece; the image of the "good Nazi" remained in place for decades

Is that the author of the article qualifying it as a masterpiece?

> Trommer [...] he was one of the most powerful and unscrupulous leaders in the Nazi regime.

What purpose does such an opinionated sentence from one historian serve in an encyclopaedia?

> Brechtken said that if his extensive involvement in the Holocaust had been known at the time of his trial he would have been sentenced to death.

Or a hypothetical statement like this?

> The image of the good Nazi was supported by numerous Speer myths.[154] In addition to the myth that he was an apolitical technocrat [...]

This section doesn't sound like an encyclopaedia at all, but rather the paraphrasing of viewpoints held by a select few historians. Historians build their own narrative of the past based on their perception of the historical evidence, but there's an element of speculation in what a historical figure intended or was thinking, like whether they "had carefully constructed an image of himself as an apolitical technocrat". I'm not a professional encyclopaedist but I don't this as appropriate content--or at least not in the presented form.

To be clear I'm not disputing the wickedness of the subject, but that such partial writing does not belong in a neutral encyclopaedia.

What do people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewWorld101 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. "He assumed his German readers would not be so gullible..." This certainly sounds as if the author has an axe to grind. David Callan (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The cited author, Isabell Trommer, is a German historian—a respected scholar who is perfectly positioned to define the topic. Whatever axe is being ground is the normal anti-Nazi axe that we can all learn from. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Modern works on Speer almost universally include material such as this. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Another source to possibly use

Kim Christian Priemel extensively covers Speer in the fourth chapter of The Betrayal: The Nuremberg Trials and German Divergence (especially the section: "In the Mirror: Albert Speer", pp. 137–141). The book is in Oxford Scholarship Online and can be accessed with WP:TWL. (t · c) buidhe 01:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"What is strange is that this widely shared impression [that Speer apologized in his final statement, which Priemel describes as a masterpiece] is not borne out by the transcript. Speer hardly apologized, and admitted individual guilt only indirectly, if at all. Neither forced labour nor the Holocaust figured in his short speech and the only victims he named were the German people." (141) (t · c) buidhe 01:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Atlantic Wall

Seems to me that the Atlantic Wall was a project of such scope and scale that it ought to be mentioned in this article Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Speer and Hollywood

I was in college when Speer was released, and can personally attest that the astonishing, fawning treatment which this article described happened, and lasted for years. The vapid Hollywood types who later went to North Vietnam to dance before the camera around the anti aircraft guns which shot down our pilots, and to China to be inspired by Mao's murderous Cultural Revolution, were out in force for the Nazi who was "an artist, just like us." It was so typical an American cultural event that the memory has lasted half a century-- a documentary, Speer Goes To Hollywood, came out in 2021, and has won seven major film prizes so far (2023). Students of American popular culture should see it. Profhum (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Birth anecdote

i'm not going to engage in petty edit-warring but i really don't think the sentence about speer's account of his birth warrants inclusion. is that not basically par for the course in autobiography? "the guy who pretended not to be a war criminal was so entrenched in lies he even lied about his birth wow" is like saying "this recurrent hit-and-run murderer was so twisted he ran red lights" like sure it isn't upstanding behavior and i agree it is no coincidence, but it's a really strange thing to say in this manner Fox Room (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

if anything the anecdote about the reporter's story is a much more reasonable one to put there? Fox Room (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Judges and death sentence

The article only says that two Soviet and Biddle were for executing him. Who were the Soviet judges, and who were the other five? One would think that if they were important enough to judge one of the literal architects of the Holocaust then they would be notable enough for at least a rudimentary wiki page. MyIP19216811 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Family

Can somebody please add his family information? I don't know how to do this correctly. For example, his son was: Albert Speer (born 1934). Thank you 82.32.70.91 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)