Talk:Otto Skorzeny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


You can't have it both ways: if (as is the case) it's only alleged that he worked for the Mossad, with zero proof, you can't state this as a fact in the side panel.

Public Domain documents[edit]

President Clinton ordered thousands of documents to be declassified in 1998. A lot more about Skorzeny is now known:

In August 1944, top Nazi officials made in a secret reunion in Strasbourg, France. Skorzeny, Martin Bormann, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, among others, were present. During this gathering, they created The ODESSA, organization of ex-members of the SS. ODESSA became a new brotherhood with guidelines and missions: To take out of Germany whatever they could of Nazi Loot, to use special routes called "The Rat Lines" safehaven houses, such as barns and monasteries where these officers could spend the night, while heading to Southern Italy or Greece and boarding a cargo ship. The ship would take them to a new home, most likely in South America.

Public Domain archives in NARA.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like nonsense to me, for these reasons:

1. Germany and the SS were still very much fighting WW2 in August 1944, therefore there could not be any organization of "ex-members" of the SS formed at that time. Himmler at that time was trying to find a way to get Germany out of the war and save his neck.

2. Skorzeny was a Waffen-SS soldier, who probably never met Ernst Kaltenbrunner in his life, or would have had any desire to. If they did meet, it was only in passing.

Skorzeny writes in his autobiography "Geheimkommando Skorzeny" (first published in 1950) several occasions where he met Kaltenbrunner (not the least spending 5 days in the same prison cell in American captivity). He also mentions a meeting with these men but does not elaborate on the topic. Skorzeny and Kaltenbrunner where both Austrians, which S. makes a point of and which at the time was probably more important than we think today. (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[]

3. When Skorzeny learned that Germany had surrendered, he immediately started looking for an Allied force to surrender to. He made no effort to flee, apparently not realizing what his reputation was among the Allies. In fact, the first two Allied patrols he met refused to take his surrender because they didn't believe Otto Skorzeny would just give himself up!

There is evidence that he was part of a network that helped Nazis escape justice after the war, but I wouldn't accept an American intelligence report from WW2 as gospel on Skorzeny's activities. After all, these are the ones who kept getting duped by him all through the war, and then put him on trial afterwards basically for making fools out of them. John

There's much more nonsense in this article. Skorzeny was never judged, but acquitted from any allegations for his wartime actions. Besides, he was not even a regular member of the Waffen SS, he was just a reservist. It is true that he helped members of the Waffen SS after the war, but the quotation marks are wrong. He helped them to escape justice.

Wasn't Otto also involved in the capture of the Belgium fortress?

No, Otto wasn't there.

Skorzeny became a soldier only after the Belgium fortresses were taken.

Fascist Spain[edit]

A common error is to refer to Franco's Spain as "Fascist" Spain. The correct way to refer to diverse 30's ultra-right wing movements in Europe is as follows:

Italy: Fascism Germany: National-Socialism Spain: National-Catholicism

Of course, there were strong influences among them. For example, one of Franco's Ministers, Serrano Suñer -who recently passed away-, was a strong Hitler supporter. Also, one of the groups that supported Franco, "Falange" (Phalanx) was of clear Fascist inspiration.

Delisted GA[edit]

This article has been delisted as a good article as its image is inappropriately copyright tagged. As far as I can see, this is the only objection to it receiving this status. However, an appropriate copyright tag needs to be found, and if used under fair use, a rationale needs to be written. Compare to the images at Our Friends in the North, which are correctly tagged and include rationales. Thanks for a really interesting article! TheGrappler 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[]

Cancer or car accident?[edit]

Just wondering - Why does it say Otto Skorzeny died of cancer, while in another Wikipedia article it is stated that Otto Skorzeny died in a car accident. Here's the link:

Any opinions as to which is true?

He died of cancer. But if you read how evaded death and trial throughout his murderous lifetime you realize that it was an accident. An Otto accident. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[]

If you actually read about Skorzeny, most of his missions were noted for their lack of casualties on either side. Where do you get your information about him being a murderer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[]


Whats with the nazi roughnecks? from the wikipadia entry I conclude that the takeover of austria took place on an oil rigg

Citation Regarding Skorzeny's Death[edit]

I agree with the above poster (Cancer or car accident?), we really need a citation from a reliable, verifiable source as to the cause and exact date of Skorzeny's death --Tascio 20:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Operation "Rösselsprung"[edit]

according to SS-Brigadeführer Otto Kumm in "Vorwärts Prinz Eugen!", Skrozeny refused take part himself on that mission since he knew that the planning details were leaked to the partisans. Dead-cat 08:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[]

And the same is mentioned in Skorzeny´s autobiography "Geheimkommando Skorzeny" (first published in 1950). (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[]


I would think that Skorzeny is a Magyar name not a Polish one. Is there a reference for his Polish family origins?

Agreed. A Google language search for "Skorzeny -otto" gives 28.000 hungarian and 1.100 polish matches. I would really like to see a reference for these claims about his polish origins. 16:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[]
According to Charles Foley's "Commando Extraordinary", Skorzeny's "family course can be traced [over three centuries] from the East Pomeranian Village of Scorzencin (from which its name was taken)... (16)." A Wikipedia search tells me that East Pomeranian is a language formerly spoken in northern Poland.-- 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[]
It cannot be implied that all place names in East Pomerania are derived from the the East Pomeranian Language.Xerex 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[]
There is not east pomeranian language - there was prussian (slavic/baltic), but all Prussians were slained by german/tetonic during middle ages; besides, Skorzeny sounds like polish name, of which I am not happy Iznogud (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Geez, no. Old Prussians were just Germanized, and not merely during the Middle Ages. And the "east Pomeranian language" I think would mean just the Pomeranian language, as they had the Polabians to the west. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[]
As a Hungarian, I can say that Skorzeny doesn't sound at all a Hungarian name to my ears. On the contrary, its expressly a foreign sounding name, and it doesn't have any meaning, or has any recognizable connection with a Hungarian word, name or place. Hungarian language usually avoids adjacent consonants in the first letters of words. Hungarian telephone register doesn't contain a single Skorzeny, Skorzény or Skorzényi. Pannonius 08:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[]

Who says he was a Hungarian? Magyar is another word for Hungarian. Pwnt. ---
Well, it's an existing Czech name for sure[1]. -- (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[]

Chronology Problems[edit]

The article seems to say that Skorzeny's work with Peron and Nasser came after 1970. Nasser died in 1970. Skorzeny had a great deal to do with Nasser (and the Egyptian army) and Peron in the 1950s, and that should be part of this article. If my books weren't in storage, I'd write it up. Help, anyone? 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[]

Skorzeny aquitted because of another reason[edit]

In the text it is mentioned that:

"However, he was acquitted when Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas G.C. of the SOE testified in his defence that Allied forces had also fought in enemy uniform."

This statement is confusing. see If the link is down: (Source:Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals. United Nations War Crimes Commission. Vol. IX, 1949 pages 90-94)

"They were charged with participating in the improper use of American uniforms by entering into combat disguised therewith and treacherously firing upon and killing members of the armed forces of the United States. They were also charged with participation in wrongfully obtaining from a prisoner-of-war camp United States uniforms and Red Cross parcels consigned to American prisoners of war."

The reason why Skorzeny was aquitted was not that other countries used the same tactics as in the above statement is implied. The reason is that the prosecution could not prove that Skorzeny made an improper use of uniforms and insignia as defined in article 23 of the Hague Convention of 1907. And he was acquitted of the lesser charges because the major could not be proven.


"The Defence, quoting Lauterpacht, pleaded that the 150th Brigade had instructions to reach their obectives under cover of darkness and in enemy uniforms, but as soon as they were detected, they were to discard their American uniforms and fight under their true colours."

"On the use of enemy uniforms other than in actual fighting, the law is uncertain. Some writers hold the view that until the actual fighting starts the combatants may use enemy uniforms as a legitimate ruse of war, others think that the use of enemy uniforms is illegal even before the actual attack."


Since Skorzeny gave specific instructions to discard the American uniforms before the fight, the prosecution could not prove that he ordere "To make improper use[]of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy[]; "(Hague Convention 1907, article 23)."

Skorzeny was aquitted because it could not be proven that he ordered the improper use of military insignia and unforms as stated in article 23 of the Hague Convention of 1907.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:01, 21 July 2007

One has to read between the line (or should that be behind the lines?) The Americans wanted blood and if Yeo-Thomas had not stood up in his defence they would probably of got it.
I added the name Yeo-Thomas on 21 May 2004 given the standing of this man and what he said, his contribution made it impossible for the court to find Skorzeny guilty without finding him guilty by implication, which was politically impossible.
Given that I am supprised by this edit Revision as of 13:23, 28 July 2007 by a user:Owen36 who seems to have made very few edits with this being the last one. If it had been an honest edit Owen36 could have added the additional information discussed here without removing the Yeo-Thomas contribution to the trial.
I am glad to see that user:Paul1776 re-added the Yeo-Thomas' contribution on 2 September 2008
-- PBS (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Truth vs. Fiction[edit]

One hopes this article is meant to be about Skorzeny the man, rather than Skorzeny the myth. The two seem to be very different, but so thoroughly blended together in popular opinion that most people are unaware that there is any difference. "The most dangerous man in Europe" must be capable of anything, obviously, and if there is no evidence that such a thing ever existed or occurred, that can only be because he was able to hide every trace, which further "proves" the legend. He was also ten feet tall, shot laser beams from his eyes, and if he jumped in the water, he didn't get wet; the water got Otto. Yeah, right.

Just to address one point, because I have neither the time nor the inclination right now to chase down references to go over the whole thing: In the article, it is stated that Protected by Franco, Otto Skorzeny was a key figure in the organisation of the secret ex-Nazi escape network ODESSA. Yet even the Wikipedia article for ODESSA admits that such an organization very probably never existed at all, certainly not in such a monolithic form. And in whatever form (if at all) it did exist, it is highly unlikely that Skorzeny had much, if anything, to do with it. Prior to the German surrender, he was a field commander; afterwards, until the end of July 1948, he was a prisoner of the Allies, and certainly not setting up any escape networks. Moreover, he was not a man with the contacts or experience to do so anyway. He was an innovative commando leader, superb at planning operations that involved things being blown up, or flying in to rescue the occasional stray Duce. That is not a skill that translates well to arranging for false papers, transport, etc., for ex-SS members. That was a job for a politician or a bureaucrat, not an army officer. Making any such arrangements before the fall of Germany (even if he had the time, knowledge, and contacts) would have been difficult at best; making them afterward would have been impossible for Skorzeny because he was a prisoner for over three years -- by the end of which time, there would be no longer a need for anyone to set up any such escape route; its job would already have been done.

Skorzeny had been employed since August 1944 by high-ranking Nazis and German industrialists to hide money and to loot property, documents, etc., some of which were buried in the mountains of Bavaria, and others shipped overseas. When? How? He was fighting a war. And until quite a bit later than the Normandy landings, it was a war that Germany still believed that it could win, or at least negotiate a separate peace with the western powers and turn its sole attention to the east.

The short version of all of this is that Otto Skorzeny was a commando leader. A highly skilled one, yes, but not some sort of mythical being, capable of superhuman feats. His mythical reputation undoubtedly served him well during the war, intimidating and sowing confusion among his enemies. However, that legend is not suitable material for an accurate biography.

I have not seen any reference to a Skorzeny-Werwolf connection anywhere else. I suspect someone is confusing the Werwolf resistance organization (which was a failure) with Operation Werewolf, reportedly the code name for the mission to rescue Mussolini.

In short, much of the content of this article is legend, myth, supposition, fantasy, rumor, fiction, or just plain wrong.

Perhaps it could be put into a section called "The Skorzeny Legend" or something, but as far as the body of the article goes, it doesn't belong there. A Wikipedia article should be confined to verifiable facts, and should not be putting the stamp of truth on every wild tale of how its subject's exploits that happens to come down the pike.

Worldwalker (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[]

This is the most sensible, reasonable and historically accurate part of this entire article. Should Wikipedia ever adopt such simple sense to each and every article rather than it's usual melodramatic nonsense, as displayed in in article, it might find more serious contributors becoming involved. Until then it remains a source of information for folk too lazy to read books. Tally Ho!

I agree in addition the description of his military exploits in WWII somewhat falls prey to the myth as well. The assessment of him by fellow commanders is rather negative. His role in Mussolini's capture is mostly hyped (essentially he was just along for the ride rather than leading/executing the operation. The assessment of him by intelligent agencies such as CIA and BND essentially describes him as a baffon and conman. Much of that (the real man behind the myth) is described in a recent documentary by the German ZDF (public TV, see youtube copy). In connection wit that it should also be clear that Skorzenys own words, his memoirs or edited writings can hardly be considered a reliable source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[]

In his autobiography "Geheimkommando Skorzeny" he actually plays his role down in the operations described. He does not claim to have an exclusive role on the planning and execution of the Gran Sasso raid and states quite clearly that he insisted on flying in the overloaded Fiesler Storch with Mussolini because he wanted to deliver him in person to Hitler. He got the mission personally and felt he could not fail, so he wanted the full credit. Vain or typical for the time, that is up to anyone to judge. He also writes that his role as Europe´s most dangerous man was a surprise and something that he realised in the interrogations after the war (even if it was actually Goebbels who coined that title and had an interest in spreading it). The Allies found him more dangerous and successful that he himself felt. (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[]

Bizarre External Link[edit]

The article linked to under "Operation Paperclip Involvement" is total conspiracy wackness about Skorzeny's supposed "deathbed confessions": President George H.W. Bush is actually a German agent named "George H. Scherff, Jr." and was involved with the "murder" of Nikola Tesla, Hitler was alive and well in the U.S. and posing for photos in 1997 at age 107, etc. It's very entertaining but obviously not a reliable resource. PapayaSF (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[]

OK, nobody has commented on this, so I deleted the link to . PapayaSF (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[]

Operation Long Jump[edit]

There is a contradiction. At first it is written that Kaltenbrunner was heading the mission, later it says that Skorzeny was chosen by Kaltenbrunner to head the mission. So who is heading? perhaps can change the words will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levtchenkov (talkcontribs) 16:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Operation Francois[edit]

According to the article:

Sonderverband z.b.V. Friedenthal's first mission was in summer 1943. Operation Francois saw Skorzeny send a group by parachute into Iran to make contact with the dissident mountain tribes and used to sabotage Allied supplies of materiel being sent to the Soviet Union. However, commitment among the rebel tribes was suspect and Operation Francois was deemed as a failure.

None of this makes much sense, as:

  • 1. It's not referenced.
  • 2. If this was the summer of 1943, the the Battle of Kursk was raging in the Eastern Front. So German forces in Russia were involved in one of the largest land battles ever undertaken.
  • 3. How did they parachute in to Iran? The Luftwaffe would have had to flown more 3,000 miles round trip (from the closest point across the Black Sea - right next to the Soviet Front line, across Turkey, into the Northern parts of Iran and the adjoining border regions with Afghanistan). That is way to far for non-stop flights of planes of this era.
  • 4. How did the SS make contact with so many groups in such a short time (three months at most)?
  • 5. Likewise how did the team leave? A group of SS men trekking across British Mesopotamia is straight out of a Len Deighton novel!!
  • 6. Because by September Skorzeny was back in Europe, and had planned and executed the rescue of Mussolini?

Overall, this sounds like a theoretical plan that never left the 'ground', probably for the reasons I have just mentioned. It should be given references that make it credible (and fill in the leaps of logic) or it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Taking your very valid points raised in turn ; References to the original publication now added. As for the feasibility of parchuting into Iran, the Junkers JU 290 transport had a range of over 3,800 miles; so even Tehran was within reach of (say) Rhodes in nazi occupied Greece, some 1,299 miles away. Careful inspection of the referenced text contains no confirmation that the 'group' involved were specifically SS men; presumably the group included some German military presence, but with several Iranian dissidents with knowledge of other useful cells, etc. Finally, Skorzeny devised the plan , but did not appear to actively take part in the incursion into Iran. Hope that clarifies things a little. Thanks. Harryurz (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Accompanying Mussolini to Berlin[edit]

It should be noted that Skorzeny insisted on accompanying Mussolini to Berlin after his rescue. The Storch is a two person plane. They barely made it off the mountain. In the famous picture taken in the plane, you can see a look of what can be described as extreme nervousness on Mussolini. He jeopardized all three of their lives and the whole mission for no other reason I can think of outside of ego. I think it shows a lot into his personality. (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[]

Well, he pulled it off, didn't he? You'd have an ego too, if you'd done some of the things Skorzeny did and lived to tell about it. (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[]

Some facts about the Storch, not hyperbole: It was a two passenger plane. that means 1 pilot and up to two passengers. Empty weight was 1950-2045 pounds. Allowable gross weight was 2920 pounds. the Wiki article on the Storch is wrong as is not surprising. Usable load about 900 pounds including fuel. The Storch held 40 gallons max, at 6.2 lbs. per gallon that's 248 pounds of fuel if the plane had full tanks, we don't know. If you calculate that each passenger plus pilot weighed 250 pounds, which is probably way too much,(except for 6'4" Skorzeny, Mussolini was 5'6" and about 170 lbs. Gerlach was thin and average build) the onboard load including fuel at full capacity of the Storch was 998 pounds. the published useful load was about 870-900 pounds. so even at these hypothetically heavy numbers the Storch was only slightly over loaded and in reality most likely within limits. This is not to say it was not loaded to capacity or that it was a normal take off, it was not. The thin air at 6,800' and short field made it risky. but let us not over state the case.--RHB2 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC) [1] [2] [3][]


Reinhard Gehlen[edit]

The article refers to Reinhard Gehlen as a former Nazi General however I can find no information showing that Reinhard Gehlen was a member of the Nazi party or affiliated in any way other than a member of the armed services. I don't believe that qualifies him as a Nazi. I think this reference should be changed. KMcD (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[]

CIA backed general Mohammed Naguib[edit]

sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[]

Name origin[edit]

Does anyone know about ethnic roots of the surname? A Romanian toponym Scorţeni is pronounced exactly as German "Skorzeny". The word is quite rare, and coincidence is hardly occasional. - Altenmann >t 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[]

The most logical explanation I have read thus-far is that it is of Polish origin, or at-least derived from the Polish language. Despite that though, it would be a bit preposterous to call Otto himself a Pole, as he was born and raised in Austria and spoke best in German and French. --Luftschiffritter5 1 (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[]

There are a variety of interrelated Slavic groups with origins in what are now Poland and Eastern Germany that have either largely willingly or forcibly been germanized in the past millennium. What's ironic is that so many of these fought in the Third Reich when it was more than obvious that their German ethnicity was far from "pure" by virtue of their obviously foreign-sounding surnames. The hypocrisy is even more obvious when you consider many with partial Jewish background were also given dispensations, such as Emil Maurice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Paladin Group: date founded?[edit]

When was the Paladin Group founded? This page says "the 1960s". The Paladin Group page says 1970.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[]

Operation "Eiche"[edit]

"..he was chosen as the field commander to carry out the rescue mission that freed the deposed Italian dictator Benito Mussolini from captivity.."

Gran_Sasso_raid and the correspondig German page and discussion say that Skorzeny had no part in planning and commanding the mission. He managed to partecipate with his small SS-Kommando but he had no autority whatsoever on the executing forces, the Paratroopers.

"Skorzeny joined the team—led by Major Harald Mors—to rescue Mussolini in a high-risk glider mission. The operation on the ground at Campo Imperatore was led by Lieutenant Count Otto von Berlepsch, planned by Major Harald Mors and under orders from General Kurt Student, all Fallschirmjäger (German Air Force Paratroopers) officers."

This is all together a very hagiographic article. (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[]

Proof of Skorzeny's Death?[edit]

I see below that there are at least two different causes of death claimed -- cancer and car accident. Has anyone been able to come up with a solid citation for either of these? The reason I ask is because there's an author's website claiming that he interviewed Skorzeny extensively for his recent book and claims to have a photo taken in Florida in 2003. The book is pretty far out in conspiracy land, so I wouldn't be willing to cite it as legitimate, but I do think it's important to be able to cite SOMETHING solid before we assume that he died in the seventies. See: --Snowrail (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Speaks French[edit]

Athanatophobos June 14th, 2013.

In the end of this interview, Otto speaks French : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athanatophobos (talkcontribs) 10:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[]

Work for Israel[edit]

More details on his work for Israel: Criostóir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[]

I don't doubt he apparently worked for them but his motives, as stated in the cited linked piece, makes clear that there was not clear evidence of why he worked for the agency, but for wanting to be taken off the Wanted list, which did not happen; but, he also did not want to be assassinated. The rest is speculation. I don't feel strongly as for incision or exclusion, only believe to list "allegiance", the RS sourced evidence should be stronger. If someone can find other RS cites which state a true "allegiance" then, by all means, list it. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[]
I had restored this, but it was just as a self-undo since I realized that there was actually some basis for including it. I agree with Kierzek that we don't have sufficient basis for calling his work with Mossad an allegiance to Israel. Meters (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[]
Netflix series "(Inside) The Mossad": Mossad operator Rafi Eitan (d. March 2019) states that by 1965, with Skorzeny's help, all German scientists working in Egypt had been eliminated. Mossad paid Skorzeny, removed his name (with Ben Gurion's approval) from war criminals list, & promised not to kill him. However, no one says that Skorzeny ever "pledged allegiance" to Israel. BubbleDine (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[]
Could the same not be said about Egypt?

Great article! However one thing![edit]

Great article on this "adventuer" Skorzeny.Afraid I dont knowmuch more of his background For one it says he was from Austria ,No town city mentioned wherehe was born! Also,Skorzeny doesnt sound like a Germanic name! ThanksEddson storms (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[]

Those things are in the "Pre-war years" section, did you miss them? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[]

Otto worked for Israel revisited[edit]

Otto Skorzeny worked for the Mossad!!: "Say it ain't so"; One reference could be biased (pro-Israel or pro-Nazi as some kind of propaganda), but as hard as it may be for someone to believe, it apparently is referenced as fact. If someone can find one reference that refutes this then list it, or shake your head in bewilderment, but he also owned property in Ireland so go figure. Otr500 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[]

I can contribute several information to this wikipage that are missing but all sourced from actual documents from archives i work with as a historian, including to the whole Mossad topic from letters and other items i inherited from my granduncle who while never in any of Ottos units, after the war they were introduced to eachother through some higher ranking friends from my grand uncle at a meeting of Waffen SS veterans. I have pictures of these, i also own some documents of Otto Skorzeny since his daughter is friends with my parents and she knows what i do as a historian and how i would never try to make money or sell her fathers items, like his diary, pictures, information on his work with Gehlen and more. But i'm absolutely new here, i was told to help work on wikipedia because of my access to several archives but also to collections of documents and other historically significant items that don't exist in any archive and are owned by the peoples families that are friends with mine. My question is, how do i use sources from official documents from private family estates? Upload the documentary evidence as high quality scans on the archive website, make it public for everyone so they can crosscheck and cite the archive link? And how about archives owned by the government, is it enough there to cite the archive's name, the code, number etc. it has in the government archive, so when someone wants to crosscheck what i contribute they know what to ask for at the archives website or in person. Take the US NARA archives f.e. they have code and number and are online or the german Bundesarchiv which works together with wikicommons and whos pictures are used here with the number and code of the picture. Obviously archives are reliable sources, but do i need more than one source of and actual official document to add new info or correct a mistake? And as i asked above, what about official documents and photographs in private family collections or in my own? I mean official documents of course, i doubt the diary of Otto Skorzeny i got from the daughter would be allowed as reliable source on here, but official ones are enough? Thanks in advance, i'm already reading and learning how things work here right now, but couldn't find an answer to my questions so far but i'm still reading the rules. ChartreuxCat (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[]

See my response to your posting later on this page. Zerotalk 16:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[]

Raid on Drvar[edit]

The section, Raid on Drvar, is tagged as not citing any sources. It has "main article|Raid on Drvar", redirected to "Operation Rösselsprung (1944)". This article is a "good article" and has what appears to be 27 separate sources:
  • Stein 1984.
  • Bennett 1987
  • Roberts 1987
  • Eyre 2006
  • McConville 1997
  • Geografski institut JNA 1952
  • Odić 1981Melson 2000
  • Schraml 1962
  • Dimitrijević & Savić 2011
  • Greentree 2012
  • Popović, Lolić & Latas 1988Krstić 1991
  • Schmider 2002
  • Kumm 1995.
  • Orlović 1990
  • Damjanović & Popović 1985
  • Čaušević 1981
  • Zorić 1968
  • Radošević 1984
  • Vuksanović 1981
  • Trikić 1987
  • Ferenca 1975
  • Pribilović 1988
  • Rendulic 1952
  • Milazzo 1975
  • Naimark & Gibianskiĭ 1997
  • Cornis–Pope & Neubauer 2010
I have not looked yet, and don't have any of these books, but I imagine some or most of the content in the section is covered by one or more of these sources from that article. Otr500 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[]
Some material might be available via google books. It might also be a good idea to ask at the other articles talkpage if there is someone who´d like to help sourcing this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[]

"Work for the Mossad" should be removed[edit]

In fact, only one reference is being used for this claim, all other sources refer to this one and this source is not verifiable at all because it is quoting unknown Mossad agents. And because it's a very controversial claim it "requires multiple high-quality sources" as it's been written in WP:EXCEPTIONAL. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Haaretz is not enough. Also in another claim, it states that both his Nazi friends and people from Mossad attended his funeral!!!!Nochyyy (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[]

Haaretz is a reliable source and the material is attributed. The type of evidence presented, much of it anonymous, is exactly the type of evidence that is expected in such a case. If you know of an official denial, we can cite that too. Zerotalk 13:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[]
There is no need for official denial for every fake report. This article doesn't even make sense! It says that Mossad agents attended his funeral with Nazi people with Nazi salutes. Otto Skorzeny was part of many groups that helped former SS fellows, now this person help Israelis to murder a German scientist in Egypt?? Some guy had a very strong imagination I guess. As I said, the claim is very controversial and it needs "multiple high-quality sources". WP:EXCEPTIONAL is a policy of Wikipedia and if it can't be found, then this section must be deleted. Also, Haaretz is not a neutral source in this case. Nochyyy (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[]
Your response consists of saying that you don't believe it. Ok, you don't believe it. That's not a policy-related argument. Again, where is the official denial? Zerotalk 00:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
A second source is Tom Segev's biography of Simon Weisental (pp.162–165). Segev's sources include an interview with a named senior Mossad operative (Rafi Meidan) who reported that he asked Weisental to remove Skorzeny from his wanted list to make it easier to recruit Skorzeny. Segev says that Weisental refused. Also some other sources. Zerotalk 01:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
It's not about what I believe or not. Exceptional claims need exceptional and "multiple high-quality" sources. All of them comes from the same person and they are not "high-quality" sources. Read WP:EXCEPTIONAL, it is a Wikipedia policy. There is no need for official denial if suitable sources is not provided. Nochyyy (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
Is Tom Segev the same person as Dan Raviv or Yossi Melman? No. How do you know that the named people interview by Segev are the same as the unnamed people interviewed by Raviv and Melman? You don't. And how do you know that the multiple sources claimed by both publications are really just one person? You don't (we even have two names, Rafi Meidan and Rafi Eitan, both very senior Mossad figures). You should stop making claims that you can't justify. I also disagree with you about this being an exceptional claim. Actually it is perfectly in line with the way intelligence agencies think. Doing deals with shady characters is part of the job. Zerotalk 07:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
All these persons are included in the same source. It wouldn't make any differences if they include 1000 person in this source, it would be still considered as one source and dirkdeklein (is that even a source??) is using Haaretz report. You don't find the claim that a former Nazi and anti-semitic person working for Mossad and killing his Nazi colleagues as an exceptional claim? Nochyyy (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
It is really tiring that you keep misrepresenting the facts. One source is Raviv and Melman, and the other source is Segev. Neither of them cites the other; they cite their own interviews. That's two sources. Also, there is nothing new about a Nazi killing another Nazi. As for Mossad, it didn't see chasing war criminals as its primary function and that always took a back seat compared to the security of the state. It's like Melman wrote in the Jerusalem Post in 2013 when he reported the basic facts of this story: "D’un côté, il y a le poids de l’histoire et le devoir qui en découle et de l’autre des questions prioritaires, plus pragmatiques et urgentes sur la sécurité du pays." (I'm too lazy to find the English edition.) In addition, your claims about Haaretz are (1) wrong, since it is a highly reliable source, (2) irrelevant. The fact the Mossad had recruited Skorzeny was published already in 1989 by the Israeli intelligence magazine Matara and picked up by Yedioth Ahronot and other newspapers. Jerusalem Post's story on the revelation wrote "According to Yediot Aharonot, which published a story about the article in Matara, a former senior member of the Mossad confirmed the story on Monday, emphasizing that 'Skorzeny was never an employee of the Mossad, but he was certainly an agent for the Mossad.'" (JP, 20 Sep 1989, p2). JP didn't express doubt or even surprise. The 2016 Raviv/Melman article that adds the Klug detail was first published by The Forward, which is an extremely reputable source, and only later published by Haaretz (and dozens of other newspapers). In other words, I can find it all over the Israeli and Jewish press but I didn't find anyone denying it. Things like that happen; it is how the world works. Zerotalk 08:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
When interviewed in 1989 over the Skorzeny relevations, Isser Harel confirmed that Israel had recruited former Nazis, though I don't know if he said anything about Skorzeny in particular.(Guardian, Sep 21, 1989). Another reliable source that accepted the 1989 revelations was Israel's Secret Wars by Benny Morris and Ian Black. Zerotalk 09:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
About Infeld's book, which I just reverted, how can a 1981 book cast light on revelations made with sources in 1989–2016? Obviously it can't. Does Infield specifically make the argument you put in the article? Quote please. Furthermore, the argument you write is silly; antisemitism isn't a reason for not working for Israel. Skorzeny was a professional soldier and thrill-junkie who would have worked for anyone. Zerotalk 11:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
Matara is not a high-quality source and in Israel's Secret Wars it is only stating that "Skorzeny was living in Spain when he was approached by Mossad agents early in 1963. It is unclear whether the former Nazi knew he was dealing with Israelis". It is better to read these sources before using them. There is no talk of Skorzeny hired by Mossad there. So I deleted this source from the section that states Skorzeny was an agent of Mossad, added to section that I added. As it stated this exceptional calim needs exceptional sources. It is a wikipedia policy not about what you believe or how world works. Nochyyy (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
"if there were any doubts that Skorzeny's allegiance to the United States was of an opportunist nature and temporary, they were dispelled by his actions in Egypt and the Mideast. Even his deep hatred of the Soviets was forgotten when it interfered with his personal ambitions. Egypt presented Skorzeny the opportunity to promote fascism; to establish a Nazi clique whose influence would be felt by the West German government to restore German prestige in the Mideast, and to become a wealthy man. He didn't allow the opportunity to pass." "As for Skorzeny's anti-Semitic and fascist propensities, this is undoubtedly true. Skorzeny readily admits his strong anti-Semitism." (205-207) From this book. Also read Israel's Secret Wars. Nochyyy (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
Like I thought, Infield doesn't mention the Mossad. It was you who created an argument against the Mossad link out of Infield's comments made earlier. It is a perfect example of what editors are not permitted to do. You need to stop editing and start reading the rules. Also, prove "Matara is not a high-quality source" and explain why Yediot would have taken this poor source seriously and obtained confirmation from their own informant. This has gotten beyond ridiculous and you are headed for a behavior noticeboard. Zerotalk 11:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
It is very interesting you didn't mention how you used Israel's Secret Wars as a source for your claim, but actually it is against your claim, you don't even read the sources and actually "make" one, your behavior is unacceptable, you don't know what is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, quote french sentence in talk page, make accusations instead of talking. If anybody is headed for a behavior noticeboard is you not me. Unlike you, I didn't use a wrong source. I have several sources for what I added to article, your problem is that you don't read. Nochyyy (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
Dear rude person, Morris and Black give Matara as their source, so it is pretty bizarre to claim that they don't support what it said. The issue of what Skorzeny knew and when wasn't raised here and is independent of whether he was recruited or not. Zerotalk 12:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
In Israel's Secret Wars it says it is not clear he knew that these people who contacted him are Israelis or not and there is no mention of Mossad recruited Otto, you added this as a source for your claim which it is not true. Also, I'm not rude because I don't call people "ridiculous" and I don't threatens them. As I said, EXCEPTIONAL claims need EXCEPTIONAL sources not mediocre ones. Nochyyy (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
First three lines of p198 of Black and Morris: "More important information about the German scientists was provided by the Mossad's recruitment of Otto Skorzeny,..." Also I didn't add it to the article, I only mentioned it (correctly) here. Zerotalk 13:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
From this paragraph, it's obvious they introduce themselves as NATO agents and all of this was a "false flag" operation. So, Otto Skorzeny may not be aware of their identity, it should be included on this paper, it is different from what that stated on this article. Nochyyy (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[]
Actually it doesn't say that. It says that they were introduced to the German scientist as Nato agents. It leaves open the question of what Skorzeny himself knew about them. The latter question is partly answered by later sources, eg, Segev's book. Overall I don't think Morris and Black add much. Zerotalk 02:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[]
It says the whole operation Damocles was a false flag operation. Also, as book was wrote after 1989's report of Matara, It is significant that it states it is not clear whether Skorzent knew he was dealing with Israelis or not. Nochyyy (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[]
The guts of what B&M wrote is included in the article, though I don't think it need be. Zerotalk 07:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[]
Note that you haven't solved the problem of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, yet. Nochyyy (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[]

I posted this on an older post further up but i see here are more people so i post it here too because i can help a lot on this topic and am a historian working with gov and private archives of official documents, a fellow historian colleague urged me to help on here on several topics but I have a few questions i couldn't find a definite answer on wikipedia yet. I can contribute several information to this wikipage that are missing but all sourced from actual documents from archives i work with as a historian, including to the whole Mossad topic from letters and other items i inherited from my granduncle who while never in any of Ottos units, after the war they were introduced to eachother through some higher ranking friends from my grand uncle at a meeting of Waffen SS veterans. I have pictures of these, i also own some documents of Otto Skorzeny since his daughter is friends with my parents and she knows what i do as a historian and how i would never try to make money or sell her fathers items. Like his diary. pictures, information on his work with Org Gehlen and more. But i'm absolutely new here, i was told to help work on wikipedia because of my access to several archives but also to collections of documents and other historically significant items that don't exist in any archive and are owned by the peoples families that are friends with mine. My question is, how do i use sources from official documents from private family estates? Do i upload the documentary evidence as high quality scans on the archive website, make it public for everyone so they can crosscheck and cite the archive link? And how about archives owned by the government, is it enough there to cite the archive's name, the code, number etc. it has in the government archive, so when someone wants to crosscheck what i contribute they know what to ask for at the archives website or in person. Take the US NARA archives f.e. they have code and number and are online or the german Bundesarchiv which works together with wikicommons and whos pictures are used here with the number and code of the picture. Obviously archives are reliable sources, but do i need more than one source of and actual official document to add new info or correct a mistake? And as i asked above, what about official documents and photographs in private family collections or in my own? I mean official documents of course, i doubt the diary of Otto Skorzeny i got from the daughter would be allowed as reliable source on here, but official ones are enough? Thanks in advance, i'm already reading and learning how things work here right now, but couldn't find an answer to my questions so far but i'm still reading the rules.

ChartreuxCat (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[]

@ChartreuxCat: The answer is that Wikipedia does not serve as the original publisher of primary documents or original analysis of primary documents. That is one of the basic corollaries of the no original research policy. What you need to do is to find another publisher, such as a history journal or even a suitably eminent magazine or newspaper, and publish it there first. After that we can consider if it meets the criteria for inclusion here. Note that making a web site of your own to present the material is not enough (though I would personally read it with great interest), see WP:SPS. Zerotalk 16:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[]
@Zero0000: I might have phrased it in a unclear fashion, i didn't mean to imply uploading it on wikipedia nor on an own website. I mean linking to an archived source like let's say for example to the US NARA archives and diredctly to the document. But as i understand this is not enough and needs at least a mention in a reputable book or history review/journal like the german one i get and wrote myself for.
So in short: If i want to link to a document in a reputable source like the NARA archives, the link to the document itself must be inside a book or history journal that states what the document is about or what it says.
And when i have this i can put it in here for approval, correct?
Considering personal interest for documents that can never be regarded here unless a reputable writer or book author contacts me to write about it and then use their newspaper article or book section as reference, otherwise not, correct?
Also these private documents that would add a lot to this article especially the whole "mossad thing" i can share with you as scan via e-mail if you just curious or historically interested. Where do i add my e-mail info? Can't find a place for that in my profile. Thanks in Advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[]
@ChartreuxCat: According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is made available to the public in some form (This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see.)".
Also, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."
If the official documents that you are talking about is accessible via a trustworthy website (for example the website of the archive) then you can use them. Of course, they should have clear meaning, you can't presume things according to them.
See also Wikipedia:Archives as sources. Nochyyy (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[]
Hello Nochyyy. Thanks for the information. That is good and alright. I'd be using sources from official archives but also studies and other public releases of the IfZ: [1] which as far as i'm aware are reliable sources and i see them being used on the german wiki as RS many times. I got one question though, if the IfZ or other reliable sources use or quote something that might be considered biased like the official history of an axis regiment written after the war but accepted by the IfZ as reliable enough to use it, can this also be used on wikipedia? For example, let's say the 1st Waffen SS division Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler I. Panzergrenadierregiment 1 has published a history after the war which many regiments did and this history includes reliable information that is accepted by the IfZ but also by non-german historical researchers like the US Historical Division from post-WWII. And the IfZ or us the USHD use this information in their research, does it count as reliable?
Thanks in advance, i don't want to edit or add something without being 100% sure ChartreuxCat (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[]
@ChartreuxCat: I don't believe that is a problem. In many conflicts there are conflicting reports, if you have a source for it, you can add it. It is interesting to know the point of view of the SS divisions in the war, also you can add information from other sources that challenges their view. You can add a view and also its criticism on the condition of having sources for the view and for the criticism. Nochyyy (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[]

The story is recounted in full detail citing interviews with participants or people in the know as well as primary sources in the Ronen Bergman book Rise and Kill First. Also, *No confirmed source can explain Skorzeny's motives for working with Israel,* - this is incorrect the book explains that he was provided a promise they would not try him (although they could not get him off Wiesenthal list) as well as paying him a substantial amount. It was simply a case of money. LamontCranston (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[]

Unsourced material on 20 July plot & awards[edit]

Unsourced and challenged since Oct 2016; preserving it here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[]

The awards are mostly minor and this information is unlikely to be found in secondary RS: Eastern Front Medal, various badges, etc. Preserving it here by providing this link link. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[]
The Eastern Front Medal is not worth mentioning indeed, i also agree that many listed in the previous version are minor but you also removed some that are worth mentioning of which one was even hard to get between 1942-1945
So i would re-add the *Honour Roll Clasp of the Army, he received on the 5 February 1945. Unlike a handful of Knights Crosses, this one wasn't given out en masse at the end of war. In fact, it only started to exist from the 30th January
1944 onwards and only given for "extraordinary bravery during front battle" which dumbed-down means that the person must have done something "incredible" that the soldier is worth to be added to the "Ehrenblatt" and needed at least 5
witnesses. It's rare because soldiers have been added to the Ehrenblatt (Honour list) since 1939 before the Honour Roll Clasp of the Army was even introduced. Which makes it one of the most rare and mentionworthy awards of WW2. A total
of 4550 awarded in 5 years, way less than a Knights Cross of the Iron Cross, which is already worth mentioning.
Sources for this is the book officially recgonized by the IFZ and the German Gouvernment who also list it in their publishing.
Source: Absolon, Rudolf: Wehrgesetz und Wehrdienst 1935-1945 - Das Personalwesen in der Wehrmacht p. 262-263 Source 1 and here a source confirming that
the book and author are reliable, the german government officially lists book and author as being published by the Bundesarchiv of the Government and is now part of their official "Bestand"
Source: Source 2
There are two other examples that are relevant enough to add that you removed. But now i got to run and give you sources for the other 2 later. ChartreuxCat (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[]
Another award you have removed K.e.coffman that should be included besides what i contributed above with sources would be the German Cross in Gold which if we compare awards from other WW2 involved countries that are seen as notable, at least just as notable. The German Cross in Gold as well as in Silver (for non-military actions as well as to military-actions in the topic of leadership) was also an award that was not given out at the end of war with less qualifications unlike the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in 1945. And since the German Cross in Gold was not needed to advance to the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross, it is also not below the significance of the KC. Reliable Sources: [1] (recgonized by the official IFZ in Germany as reliable) as well as a non-german source [2] And here proof that the book of Klietmann on military awards in the 3rd Reich are a reliable source: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChartreuxCat (talkcontribs) 01:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[]

In popular culture section[edit]

I've removed the section as it does not offer and 3rd party commentary on why Skorzeny's portrayals were important or how they had impact on popular culture. I'm preserving this material here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[]

I´ll admit I don´t know any sources that discuss OS in Fiction per se (if we were talking about sources that discuss Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump there would be no problem). Here [2] is book that discuss a "Skorzeny-book" as part of a bigger context, that indicates... something.
I´ve thought before of changing the section from list to prose, it´s a bit bloated (though I´ve seen much worse). I will R your B with an attempt at compromise, then we´ll see who wants to D it. For disclosure, I created the section you removed [3], and it´s pretty much the only thing I´ve edited on this page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[]
There:[4]. Also improved the sources a little. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[]

"coffin draped in Nazi colours"[edit]

There are issues with this claim "His coffin was draped in the Nazi colours." in the Death section of the article. A video of his funeral is available on youtube, and it shows this claim to be spurious at best. The video (seen here [5]) shows a red-black-white ribbon adorning his coffin with the words "Ordensgemeinschaft der Ritterkreuzträger" (Association of Knight's Cross Recipients). You will also see later in the video, members of his procession carrying a wreath adorned with a ribbon in the Austrian colours immediately following his medal bearer. Seeing as there is easy misunderstanding of colours in this case to mean a military flag (as is often done at military funerals), I think it should be reworded to accurately represent the truth.

-- (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[]

I added an inline dispute tag in the article after "draped in the Nazi colours". SlightSmile 12:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[]
Note that neither the source nor our text say "Nazi flag". Only "Nazi colours". The ribbon adorning his coffin has the same colours as the Nazi flag. So, unless the Ordensgemeinschaft der Ritterkreuzträger had those same colours independently of the Nazi colours (which I think is highly unlikely), our text is correct. It could be improved, though. Zerotalk 14:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[]

The issue is with the wording, not with the combination of different tinctures. "Colours" in a military context means a specific type of flag, saying his casket was draped in Nazi colours makes it sound like it was draped in a flag like one usually sees at a military funeral. Since the Association's ribbon takes their colours from the order's ribbon, it's slightly ludicrous to tie it to the swastika flag instead of the association it specifically states the ribbon represents. Note that the Knight's Cross was "denazified" after the war but maintained the same ribbon, to say they are the "nazi colours" is to conflate very different things. Would Feldgrau not also be a "nazi colour"? Would someone wearing a black suit be said to wear the SS colour?

The source also says in the same sentence that he was buried by his comrades, but the video clearly shows young students from his former Studentenverbindung being the pallbearers. It's fairly safe to say that this was journalistic creative writing rather than actual research into his funeral, since it only has one sentence in the whole article about it.

-- (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[]

I agree the wording is a bit odd, especially since the colours used were the same colours used by the Kaiserreich. Maybe colours should be changed to "flag". I'm aware that colours is often used to mean "flag" by native english speakers, but english wikipedia is used by the whole world, especially because he english wikipedia is the most neutral one. I'm sure many who read this think "nazi colours" means "black/white/red" which leads to misinformation.
While i'm at it. I'm a bit confused about using privately owned pictures on wikipedia. A relative of mine was attending Otto Skorzeny's funeral and i inherited these, many of the pictures show the coffin and flag used in colour. I'd be happy to provide one of those pictures to the article to help if it's possible. Thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[]

Was it an actual flag or a ribbon on the coffin in the photos you have? The video I linked to only shows a ribbon with the aforementioned inscription.

As for using your own pictures, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. I'm sure your photos would be welcome and a useful addition to the article.

-- (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[]

Given no movement on this since August 2017, I went ahead and just removed the sentence. Its absence does not substantively hurt the article and its inclusion could be misleading. Feel free to re-add and clarify if you disagree/add sources. Buffs (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[]

A new book :

The Skorzeny Papers Evidence for the Plot to kill JFK

Ralph P. Ganis


ISBN : 978-1-5107-0841-9

This book is based on Otto Skorzeny's archives.

According to the author (Ralph Ganis), there was a link between Otto Skorzeny and Guy Weber in Katanga. It may interest you to learn that Guy Weber was the assistant of SACEUR Lyman Lemnitzer (see "Operation Northwoods") when the SHAPE moved from France to Casteau in Belgium. Then Guy Weber worked for king Leopold III in Argenteuil. King Leopold III was a friend of Lyman Lemnitzer.

It should also be stressed Otto Skorzeny was a close friend of Leon Degrelle in Spain. The well-known terrorist Stefano delle Chiaie and Junio Valerio Borghese had to leave Italy after the Golpe Borghese ( ) and went to Spain where they met Otto Skorzeny and Leon Degrelle. They are most probably deeply implicated in "black terrorism" in Europe (together with SHAPE).
Also interesting to know that Otto Skorzeny met Dr. Lawrence Levy who created " Allied Research Associates Inc. " in 1961. Dr. Lawrence Levy worked with Lyman Lemnitzer (SHAPE). The main location of " Allied Research Associates Inc. " was " MECAR " in Belgium.

-- (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[]

Nansen passports did not exist after WWII[edit]

Article says Shortly afterwards, with the help of a Nansen passport issued by the Spanish government, he moved to Madrid, but the article Nansen passport says they were issued by the League of Nations after WWI and were not issued after WWII. Maybe he was issued travel documents by Spain. A source and citation is needed. (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[]


Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Nearly everyone at his funeral was young: ( (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[]

With reference to your edit summary, please note that previous consensus is that YouTube is not a reliable source, while The Daily Telegraph newspaper is.
Thanks for linking to those to books. Are you able to please add details of what they say on this topic to the article with citations? This is more helpful than removing content.
Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Ah, I now see that those books are footnotes from an unrelated discussion above. I'm reluctant to revert this content again without further discussion - does anyone else have any views on whether support from The Telegraph is sufficient for the content removed in this diff? Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[]

I've edited article based checks of the haaretz and pri sources, both of which are reliable. I couldn't verify the Tele article, so I tagged it. Not sure where the granular detail about his death and funerals/family plot location come from, so cn tagged that bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[]
@Peacemaker67: The Telegraph says "At his funeral former SS colleagues openly gave the Hitler salute and sang Nazi songs, unaware the man they were mourning was also an Israeli agent." Nothing about "Hitler's favorite songs" and that sounds like newspaper gloss. I propose we follow the Telegraph's wording. Zerotalk 03:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[]
That sounds fine, just link the actual UK Telegraph, not the dab page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[]
The Telegraph is wrong. Nearly everyone at the funeral was young. There were no SS men giving Nazi salutes. Just because a right-wing newspaper reported something doesn't mean it's true. The videos of the funeral show what actually happened. ( (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[]
Assuming you mean the video linked above, no Nazi salutes in that 1:40 min clip does not mean there were no nazi salutes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[]
I was at the funeral. Nobody gave a Nazi salute. ( (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[]
Then you can use your experiences to write a book, a blog, etc, but not a WP-article, see WP:ISAWIT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[]
"The Telegraph" is very far to the right and not a reliable source. ( (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[]
You are welcome to believe this, but Wikipedia operates on consensus, and existing consensus is the The Telegraph is a reliable source (see link). Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[]
The Telegraph is extremely biased in favour of the Conservative Party. It is far from being an impartial or a reliable source. ( (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[]
Take it to WP:RSN if you think the Telegraph isn’t reliable. But the same or similar info is reported by Haaretz and PRI, claiming you were there yourself is irrelevant, no-one cares, you are not a reliable source for inclusion of material on Wikipedia. Further edit warring will get you blocked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[]