Talk:The Black Book (list)

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

'Informationsheft GB' vs 'Sonderfahndungsliste GB'[edit]

The original handbook, or 'Informationsheft GB' was 144 pages long and had sections on important aspects of English society, namely: geography, economics, political system, government, legal system, administration, military, education system, important museums, press and radio, religion, parties, immigrants, freemasons, jews, police apparatus and secret service. The 'Sonderfandungsliste' or 'Black Book' as it is known in the Tabloid Press was a later appendage and consists of 104 pages of names listed in alphabetical order.[1][2] As an aside, 'Fahndungsliste' translates into 'wanted list', 'sonderfahndungsliste into 'especially wanted list' or 'most wanted list' -- with a clear intonation on criminality. --Wittsun (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Walter Schellenberg, The Schellenberg Memoirs, London 1956 (Deutsch: Aufzeichungen, München 1979)
  2. ^ Invasion 1940. The Nazi Invasion Plan for Britain by SS General Walter Schellenberg, London 2000
"Walter Schellenberg wrote in his memoirs that ‘at the end of June 1940 I was ordered to prepare a small handbook for the invading troops and the political and administrative units that would accompany them, describing briefly the most important political, administrative and economic institutions of Great Britain and the leading public figures.’"
Indeed, the quoted words of Schellenberg do not come close to demonstrating that the document he was discussing is the same one as the subject of this article. Harfarhs (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable Sources[edit]

Excuse me but the gentleman who wrote this article is a friend of mine. He got the sources from research in the Impieral War Museum by looking at the official documents, I was with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briton92 (talk • contribs)

The article should say so. Merely testifying is not enough.--Soumyasch 15:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come come, surley we can do away with all this bloody red tape.--Briton92 21:37, 2 April 2006 (GMT)

Surely not, I'm afraid. This isn't pre-revolutionary France where the mere word of a gentleman suffices to lay to rest questions of creditable sourcing. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and bear in mind that insisting on citations for encyclopedic content is not merely "red tape" Longshot14 23:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well unlike you sir I am a gentleman and I stand by my principles. LOL. My friend became disalutioned with Wikipedia and left so I will try to locate the sources if that pleases you.--Briton92 22:49, 3 April 2006 (GMT)

The source was a book he looked up in the IWM called Invasion, 1940: The Nazi Invasion Plan for Britain by Walter Schellenberg. Hope that clears it up.--Briton92 15:20, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

Can I ask where you find the justification to tell Longshot14 that he's not a gentleman or that he doesn't stick by his principles? Citation of sources is an essential principle of any sort of academic work and I, for one, am glad we have gentlemen—in the contemporary, not classical, sense—like Longshot14 and Soumyasch standing up for it. Binabik80 15:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your hair on, it was a joke! The clue is LOL which those young people take to mean laugh out loud. Man with two legs 11:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the very late response. It's all right :) - I didn't take offense, and he did appear to mean it as a joke. Besides, it's a lot easier to suffer such slings & arrows from a source who misspells Imperial, surely and disillusioned ;) Longshot14 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Woolf[edit]

I removed this from the article:

On knowing the book, Virginia Woolf is said to have sent a telegram to Noel Coward saying My dear - the people we should have been seen dead with.

While amusing, that is just plain silly. Woolf took her own life on 28 March 1941. The "Book" wasn't known to Britains until after the war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.20.238.31 (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, my mix-up. It was Rebecca West. --Explendido Rocha 10:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Virginia Woolf still shows up in the main article. This needs to be updated asap. --Wittsun (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this answers the question though: It was Hitler who was afraid of Virginia Woolf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.202.225 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Entire List?[edit]

The article at least should mention where the entire list is available for perusing. Has it never been made publically available? It doesn't seem to be locatable on the Internet. Jimhoward72 06:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial War Museum has produced a facsimile in English. I have added this to the reference section. Lumos3 (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The book Invasion, 1940: The Nazi Invasion Plan for Britain, by Walter Schellenberg, pub by Little Brown Book Group, 2001, ISBN 0953615138 . has the list at an Appendix. Lumos3 (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of Schellenberg's book, and I don't see the name Eric Blair or George Orwell in it. My copy is from St. Ermin's Press, copyrighted in 2000. The list in the back looks with it's a copy of the original list. Does whoever put Eric Blair's name in The Black Book page know something I don't? Just asking. Openskye (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has access to the sources, inline citations for each of the names would be great. Apart from improving the article, it would also resolve the question just posed by Openskye :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made citation needed notations next to Eric Blair's name, and three other names. If whoever wrote this can back up their assertation about the names I marked, I shall take them off. But, I looked on my copy of Schellenberg's book, and do not see the names mentioned, such as Blair and George Bernard Shaw. Openskye (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed George Bernard Shaw from the list, and made note of where in the book that it mentions his not being included on the list as well. I also took the citation from the Stephen Spender name, as I saw it in the list, on a page I hadn't looked on before. Openskye (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed Eric Blair and John Buchan, and made the citations needed to show where in the book, or my copy of it, that the person's name is. I also transposed the names of Paul Robeson and Bertrand Russell, to reflect their positions on the list.Openskye (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution of reasons for people's being on the list[edit]

Some of the reasons given ("for being....") seem odd, and others have weasel words like "likely" and "probably", indicating that these reasons are someone's conjecture or, perhaps, an editor's own conclusions (original research). These problems need to be fixed, preferably by the person who original posted them. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Bernard Shaw, an omission?[edit]

An interesting omission from the list of writers is George Bernard Shaw, who was one of the few English language writers whose works were to be published and performed in Nazi Germany.

Very misleading. If the Nazis approved of GBS then he is hardly an "omission" from the list. Whose is the assumption that he should have been on it? This needs expanding if it's going to make any sense. Flapdragon (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took that straight from page 150 of the edition I was using. It is a quote. If you don't believe it, then get a copy and read it. The line right after it says, "He was one of the few English-language writers to be published and performed in Nazi Germany, and in the 7 October 1939 issue of the New Statesman had written of Hitler: 'Our business is to make peace with him and with all the world instead of making more mischief and ruining our people in the process.'
If you have an issue with how it was written, take it up with the writer of the intro to the book, I just put down what he wrote. Thank you. Openskye (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Death List identical with the Black Book?[edit]

The Daily Mail of September 14th 1945 published some excerpts from an alleged death list of people to be "immediatley arrested and liquidated" in case of a successfull invasion of the UK, allegedly found in the Reich Security Main Office after the occupation of Berlin. Parts of it were reproduced as a photograph in the memoirs of Haenfstaengle

The list contains among others

All of those names are there. Feel free if they are not in the article to add them.Openskye (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tschirschky[edit]

The other day I read Martin Gilbert's edition of "The Churchill War Papers". Among the papers accumulated by Gilbert are the reminiscences of a man named Fritz Guenther von Tschirschky who was Winston Churchill's nabour in the luxurious London Apartment Building "Mopeth Mansion" in 1938-1940 (he and Churchill spent the first night of WW 2 together in the building's air-raid shelter, which enabled him to write a witness account for Gilbert about Churchill's experiences during the first night of WW 2). Gilbert states that Tschirschky had been the aide-de-camp of Hitler's conservative Vice-Chancellor - and wannbe political chaperon - Papen in 1933 and 1934 and that he had been involved in an attempt to overthrow the Hitler Government in 1934, which was thwarted by the Gestapo during the Night of the Long Knives. He continues to state that Tschirschky escaped execution during the Purge in the Summer of 1934 but was informed in Winter 1934/1935 - now a diplomat in Austria - that the Gestapo had realized its omission and was now preparing to make up for it. When he got a summons to the Gestapo Headtquarters for "interrogation" he smelled a deathtrap and fled to the UK. Now I was wondering whether that guy if he was on the Gestapo Death List in 1934/1935 was still on the list in 1940? So if anyone has the Black Book - could you be so kind as to tell me whether Tschirschky is on the list? 80.142.170.219 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked. No, he is not on the list. Openskye (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Some names from book can be see Here...After a quick search its actually frightening to see how unnotable for wikipedia you could be and still be included in the list.Tom Pippens (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Pfeifer[edit]

If someone around here happens to have a copy of the Black Book I was wondering whether he or she could check out if a man named Heinrich Pfeifer (or Franz Heinrich Pfeifer; born in 1905) is among the people listed in it. I'm interested in the man 'cause he played a crucial role in my master thesis. He was a former collaborator of Reinhard Heydrich until 1934 at which time he fled the Nazi ranks. According to my research he is the man who wrote the book "Inside the Gestapo", which was published in the UK in 1940 under the pseudonym Hansjuergen Koehler. On that account I was wondering whether he wound up on the Gestapo list of people who were to be tracked down in case of a successfull invasion of Great Britain compilled in the Black Book? So if he is in there I would be grateful if someone could confirm that and perhaps quote the entry on him, so that I know what it says on him.188.107.3.141 (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is on page 232 of my copy of The Black Book, under the "P" section, name number 63. It says, "Pfeiffer, Henrich, 21.3.05 Frankfurt/M., Schriftsteller, Deckname: Hans Jurgen Koehler, RSHA IV B 4." Openskye (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much indeed! I owe you big time!87.160.110.53 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Haffner[edit]

Could anyone who has a copy of the Black Book check whether the journalist Sebastian Haffner is listed among those to be arrested in case of a sccuessful invasion? Since he published a much noted anti-nazi book in Britain in early 1940, which Churchill is reported to have made a required reading matter to the members of his war cabinet, I wonder whether Haffner had already made his way on the Gestapo shit list when the Black Book was put together.87.160.121.95 (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked in my copy and I don't see him. Openskye (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[edit]

I would like to remark that the translation of Sonderfahndungsliste is by no means "especially wanted list" or "most wanted list" as stated in the article and here on the talk page in the first section. The base word is Fahndungsliste ("wanted list"). Sonder refers to the base word Fahndungsliste and gives it the sense "special", "separate" or "extraordinary", meaning that the manhunt or the list is a special, separate or extraordinary one. David Lampe uses the translation "Arrest List". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the list?[edit]

Out of curiosity: Do Clementine Churchill, George Orwell and John Maynard Keynes happen to be on the list?87.160.122.165 (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on the list again?[edit]

I keep coming back to this article. Is there a complete list anywhere some one can link for us? Was their any royalty on the list? Eg: the king and queen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.125.136 (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The book with the complete list is out there. I bought my copy a few years ago on Amazon, and they have copies for sale.Openskye (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a complete load of tripe this 'article' is[edit]

This 'article' is precisely why Wikipedia has lost it, in terms of ever having any credibility among honest, scholarly academics and researchers.

All based on ONE supposed existing copy, not available online or for other researchers? And from WHOM did that ONE COPY allegedly come, some low-ranking officer? And WHO can verify even the authenticity of that ONE copy?!!

As George Harrison said, "It's all too much...."

Pure tripe. This indoctrination smells of BOGUS through and through. 96.18.186.139 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then look on Amazon and buy a copy, like I did. Openskye (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers are needed[edit]

Someone seems to think that the page numbers are not needed in the reference section. I say they are. People may not have time to look at the whole section, and would rather know what page to look for when they want to know a name in this article is. Thank you. Openskye (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Find me a single other article on Wikipedia that has anything of the sort. And in this case, they really make little sense, because there's no way (even with the other redundant I removed previously) to indicate which page number corresponds to which intended reference. For the sake of discussion, let's look at this version with dozens of identical references. The entry for Winston Churchill leads me to this reference: Schellenberg, Invasion, 1940, at pages 150, 160, 161, 162, 165, 168, 170, 173, 175, 180, 181, 186, 187, 191, 195, 201, 213, 217, 221, 225, 228, 230, 233, 234, 235, 237, 239, 244, 249, 255, 259, 260, 262. What am I, the reader, going to do with this information? It does not in any way improve verifiability. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help that it turned out that way. Should I just make it into separate lines?Openskye (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? If you want useless information so badly, then at least make it verifiable useless information. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I'm curious, what brought you to this page in the first place? Is there some policy I wasn't aware of? As commendable as your work against trolls and sockpuppets is, please remember that, even though you feel like a hammer, not every problem is a nail. Peace be with you.Openskye (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beg pardon? You're the one who was throwing about accusations of vandalism; I just noticed an article that needed editing, like anyone else around here, and you and I had a content disagreement, that's all. The net result is an improvement in the encyclopedia entry. Not sure what led me to it; I imagine I clicked on a link in some other article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I flew off the handle. I didn't create the article, but over time I've added to the list references. It was wrong of me to overreact. I'm sorry.Openskye (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 July 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to The Black Book (list) (closed by non-admin page mover) Danski454 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Book → The Black Book (1940) – Pageviews suggest that this is not the primary topic for "The Black Book"; when I add up the pageviews for other "The Black Book"s, they exceed this one's. Therefore, this page should redirect to Black book (dab) and this page should be moved. Although I suggest The Black Book (1940), I am not set on that title. (t · c) buidhe 10:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support both: there are numerous entries at Black book to consider this to be the primary topic. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Even when we only include subjects that could realistically include "The," there is not a clear primary topic. Using the year to disambiguate feels a bit weird though -- what about the term we use in the article, (list)?--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose in terms of using "(1940)" to disambiguate. I'm not necessarily opposed to disambiguating here, but I do oppose using "(1940)" to do it – hopefully somebody can come up with a better disambiguation scheme for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to the (list) disambiguator. (t · c) buidhe 16:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Black_Book_(list)&oldid=1206318675"