Talk:Joachim von Ribbentrop

Fixes

Rienzo, why did you change my style fixes? Can you find a featured article that looks like that? That's not convention on the en wikipedia. Everyking 00:28, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Is it really convention to put birth and death year between ( ) ? Rienzo 02:26, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Sycophancy

Does this:

Ribbentrop told Hitler what wanted Hitler to hear about what was happening abroad.

...mean what Ribbentrop wanted Hitler to hear, or that Ribbentrop told Hitler what Hitler wanted to hear? Everyking 04:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Both. Ribbentrop told Hitler what Hitler wanted to hear such as his report in November 1934 that the vast majority of the British people and elite were desperate for an alliance with Germany and understood and supported Nazism. Ribbentrop also used these reports to enhance his position with Hitler since the regular diplomats of the German Foreign Office sent back reports saying that many people abroad were scared of what was happening in Germany, something that Hitler did not want to hear. Ribbentrop argued that the regular diplomats were cowards, fools, and reactionaries who were dead wrong in their assessment of Ausland (literally Outland; German for world outside Germany). By contrast, Ribbentrop argued that he really understood what people in Ausland were thinking of Germany. In 1935, when Ribbentrop was send to London to negotiate the Anglo-German Naval Agreement (A.G.N.A), Neurath predicated failure; indeed Neurath had Ribbentrop appointed to head the German delegation out of the hope that Ribbentrop's failure would discredit his rival in Hitler's eyes. Ribbentrop's success with bringing about the A.G.N.A did much to lower Neurath's prestige with Hitler, and lend credence towards what Ribbentrop was saying about British public opinion.

Ribbentrop claimed that if the Anglo-German alliance had not emerged, it was because the regular diplomats were not pressing hard enough for it. Later, when Ribbentrop himself was Ambassador, he first blamed Jewish machinations for his failure (he claimed that abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936 was a Jewish plot to derail the projected Anglo-German alliance). Of course, all this talk of Jewish plots against Germany was nonsense.

Then Ribbentrop argued from late 1937 onwards, that it was not possible for an alliance because the British were Germany's eternal enemies who one could never an achive alliance with. Thus, in 1938, when Prime Minister Chamberlain went out of his way to appease Germany, the Anglophobic Ribbentrop was arguing was that Chamberlain was being totally unreasonable and that his appeasement policy was some sort of trick to sucker Germany. Fortunately for Ribbentrop, Hitler was thinking along similar lines in 1937-39, and so Ribbentrop's words were music for Hitler's ears. However, one should not over-rate Ribbentrop's influence. Hitler always made the major decisions about foreign policy, and at most Ribbentrop was preaching to the converted with his reports. When Ribbentrop realized that his repors were out of tune with Hitler, he quickly changed them. Ribbentrop was opposed to the attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, but when it became clear that Hitler was dead-set on the invasion, Ribbentrop promptly did an U-turn and became the invasion's champion. At most, Ribbentrop was Hitler's preferred executor of his foreign policy. Ribbentrop's unhealthy emotional dependence on Hitler precluded him from every serious differing from Hitler.

Psychosomatic Illnesses?

There seems to be a constant need amongst many to portray every National Socialist figure as depraved, emotionally disturbed, or consumed with some kind of freudian psychosis. This is an encyclopedia. There is no evidence what so ever that this man suffered from "psychosomatic illnesses" when Hitler was unhappy. We don't even have definitive, objective definitions of psychosomatic illnesses, let alone objective evidence of Hitler's state of mind. Such statements look like smear tactics. There is obviously much to criticize about the Nazi hierarchy, but lets keep it to the facts.

Every Nazi WAS depraved, emotionally disturbed, and/or consumed with a psychosis. Just look at what they did. The very idea of "smearing" a Nazi is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:7D:31D5:5445:1455:9B0C (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Much of the above talk is highly subjective, with minimal historical evidence. It reads like so post-modernist authorial intent diatribe. unsigned comment added by 66.161.74.248 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Ribbentrop interview in Goldensohn's "The Nuremburg Interviews" hints that Ribbentrop was indeed generally preoccupied with his health, particularly his own sanity. E.g.: "[Ribbentrop] said that he wanted my frank opinion as to whether he had some disease of the brain or not. He repeated his oft-phrased opinion that there was something the matter with his vagus nerve..."; "He wondered ... whether he was developing the same type of mental weakness that Hess had"; he didn't go to court because "...he felt weak and had a headache"; he asks Goldensohn, "'Do you think perhaps I have a tumor up here?' [Goldensohn responds] it was doubtful and unlikely, since ... there were no other neurological manifestations"; "[Ribbentrop] seemed quite obsessed with [the false concept that venereal disease caused tumors]". Primaryspace 17:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the above attack on me, please remember to be civil. My dictionary defines "psychosomatic" as 1."Or or elating to phenomena that are both physiological and psychological" and as 2. "Of or relating to a partially or entirely psychogenic diesease or physiological disorder". According to Michael Bloch's biography of Hitler "And it is an an early example of a phenomenon which would recur frequently during the next eleven years and become a standing joke in senior party circles: whanever Hitler was angry with him for any reason, Ribbentrop would lapse into a state of acute nervous depression, often taking to his bed for days at a time" (Bloch, Michael Ribbentrop Crown Publishing, 1992 pages 51-52). It would seem to me that a man who takes to his bed whenever Hitler was unhappy with him with an undiagnosed illness that is usually described as nervous depression, but all seems to get miraculously better when he was back in Hitler's good books did suffer from a form of psychosomatic illness. My courageous friend, who takes swipes at my intelligence in an unsigned post (the internet by providing anonymity does so much to promote rudeness) is oblivious a wiser person then me. He or she knows I am "post-modernist", which is news to me. Actually, when I was a undergraduate, the problem my professors had with me was an anti-post-modernist. I came accused of providing "minimal historical evidence". For your information, I hold a Honours BA and MA in History, and since my courageous friend who does even see fit to sign his/her posts has not chosen to make known to the world what qualifications, if any they possessed beyond being merely rude and obnoxious, I believe my opinions on Ribbentrop should hold my sway then my courageous friend. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

ribbentrop's execution

streicher's execution was botched - not that of the former foreign minister who was hanged minutes before keitel. a short interval occurred between each hanging in tandem of about 10 minutes, but that of streicher was the only one that required the intervention of the hangman (presumably to pull down on the victim's legs to expedite the procedure, as with, say, a typical austrian 'short-drop' execution - of which, incidentally, ribbentrop's government had ordered thousands). the hangings were witnessed and filmed.

This is simply not true, as is clear from an interview that can be seen in the documentary "Hitler's Henchmen: Diplomat of Evil, Joachim von Ribbentrop." Former G.I. Joseph Malta, who pulled the lever to open the trap doors to hang the condemned men at Nuremberg, said on camera that he personally physically jumped onto Ribbentrop's legs and then reached up and broke Ribbentrop's neck with his hand when he saw that Ribbentrop's neck had not broken in the fall and he was still alive (these are the final words of the documentary). As one of the executioners at Nuremberg (along with John C. Woods), Malta should certainly know exactly what happened.

The most reliable biography on Ribbentrop by Michael Block notes: "The hanging seems to have been quite badly botched: accounts vary, but all agree Ribbentrop took at least ten minutes to die, some say almost twenty minutes" (p. 456). Beyond this, Keitel's hanging was botched so badly that blood poured out of his eyes, nose, and mouth before he died. I don't know where you got the idea that only Sreicher's hanging was botched. And the hangings were photographed (and the photos then confiscated by the government), but they were not filmed. Only photos of the men's dead bodies were released afterwards.Rmm413 (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A Royal Affair?

Could I please have some clarification on this point. The section begins by saying that many members of the British upper classes believed that Ribbentrop was having an affair with Wallis Simpson, and then goes on to mention US intelligence reports; but there seems to be no logical connection between the two. What do thsee reports actually say? Intelligence gathering of this kind can depend of small talk and malicious tittle-tattle. This is quite different, though, from saying that the alleged relationship was an established scandal. We have to be absolutely clear about statements of this kind, before rumour and gossip are turned into accepted fact. White Guard 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

An couple of points about the (mis)information in the section entitled “A Royal Affair”. 1) There were rumors at the time about some sort of relationship between Ribbentrop and Wallis Simpson, but these have never been confirmed. The best biography of Ribbentrop by Michael Bloch says quite clearly that there is no evidence of any affair between Simpson and Ribbentrop. 2) The FBI under J. Edgar Hoover was obsessed with collecting any sort of gossip about various people, so the mere fact that the F.B.I reported these rumors is in and of itself not proof of any relationship. Moreover, Hoover was a Anglophobe, so he was especially open to gossip that put the British in a bad light. 3) As someone has read much of the C and D Series of the D.G.F.P (Documents on German Foreign Policy), which is the complete diplomatic record of the Reich, I have read nearly everyone of Ribbentrop’s dispatches back to Berlin from the London Embassy, and I can assure you that Ribbentrop did NOT have any access to any sort of “important information”. Ribbentrop was in fact, very much clueless about what was happening in Britain at the time. Moreover, this article does not make clear what this “important information” supposedly was. 4) Since 1945, no evidence has ever emerged of any kind that the Germans had any sort of access to the British state secrets in the 1930s, thus invalidating the claim made in the F.B.I records from 1941 that the King had in effect been a traitor and a German spy in 1936. 5) In late 1937 and early 1938, Ribbentrop was in disgrace with Hitler over his failure to achieve the alliance with Britain that had been send out to achieve. Ribbentrop actually believed his career was over at that moment in time. 6) Ribbentrop’s elevation to Foreign Minister was only because of Baron Konstantin von Neurath’s opposition to the more aggressive foreign policy goals laid out by Adolf Hitler in the Hossbach Conference. Ribbentrop was appointed Ambassador to the Court of St. James in August 1936, arrived in London to take up his appointment in October 1936 and was appointed Foreign Minister in February 1938. Edward abdicated in December 1936. As one can see from this brief chronology, the period of Ribbentrop's Ambassadorship and Edward's reign was very brief, and moreover, it is hard to relate Ribbentrop's appointment as Foreign Minister to "secret information" supposedly obtained in late 1936. Ribbentrop was appointed Foreign Minister because of his fanatical Nazism and because of his subservient attitude to Hitler. Neurath disagreed with Hitler, so he had to go. Ribbentrop was incapable of serious disagreement with his beloved Fuhrer, and that is why he got to Foreign Minister, not because of vaguely defined "important information".--A.S. Brown 17:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

...the period of Ribbentrop's Ambassadorship and Edward's reign was very brief... Yes, but he'd been a Plenipotentiary before that, with many opportunities to mix with British high society. Valetude (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

While Ribbentrop is certainly pretty well-known, and the years given do imply it fairly strongly, it kind of bugs me that there is no direct reference in the introduction to the Nazi party or World War II. I'm a big fan of context. LordAmeth 00:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I trust that my newly extended lede will satisfy you on this point. 86.143.235.242 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement, but that's pretty long now. In general the lede shouldn't be more than 4 grafs. OK to cut some of it?Flyte35 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Some Minor Errors

Under the section on Ribentrop's role in the Nuremberg Trials, Goering is cited as saying that Ribbentrop should be hanged for his stupidity. This is an error. The true author of that remark was Hjalmar Schacht, another defendant. From Airey Neave's book on Nuremberg we have (p.83):

• In 1945, most people of my age would have been well aware of this frightened man who stood before me. Many would have enjoyed my position. Ribbentrop had for years been the butt of British newspapers and comic songs. He was particularly hated by diplomats and foreign correspondents. His allies were not polite. Mussolini told Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister, that Ribbentrop was "truly sinister because he is an imbecile and presumptuous". Schacht, the banker, the most arrogant man of all at Nuremberg, told Dr Gilbert: "Even Ribbentrop should be hung for his stupidity: there is no crime worse than stupidity".

A similar scathing attack on Ribbentrop DID, however, emanate from Goering - the following passage from the same book (p. 82) is illustrative of this:

• Today, I realise that Ribbentrop was a second-rate opportunist. He was more intelligent and less hysterical than Hess, but he had no standing in international affairs. Dr Gilbert has written an interesting account of a conversation he had with Goering in his cell on November 11th, 1945.
  • "Ribbentrop", said Goering, "was a boundless egotist ... he has neither the background nor the tct for diplomacy. I tried to advise Hitler to remove him for two reasons. First of all, he was persona non grata with the British and even Hitler wanted to keep on good terms with the British ... When he was presented to the King, he greeted him with the Heil Hitler salute, which the British, of course, regarded as an insult to the Crown. I was even able to make Hitler see that point. Suppose Russia sent a good-will ambassador to you", I said, "and greeted you with 'Long live the Communist Revolution!' Ha, ha ha ha!" Here, Goering raised his fist in the Communist salute and laughed heartily.

Later in the book, Neave goes on to outline, among other things, Ribbentrop's continued applications to have assorted titled persons and other figures from high society testify at Nuremberg upon his behalf, this being the subject of considerable amusement among the staff at Nuremberg, particularly when he applied, for example, for Lady Astor and King George VI to give evidence on his 'desire for peace' - this appears on p.230 of the Neave book, and p. 238 cites several other such applications including one for Lord Vansittart, who must surely have regarded Ribbentrop as the lowest form of political dilettante in foreign affairs - how interesting it would have been had that application been accepted and Vansittart had indeed stated in open court precisely what professional diplomats truly thought of Ribbentrop! However, that must remain but tantalising and amusing speculation. However, the above passages (which cross reference with writings from other persons who worked alongside Neave at Nuremberg, including the cited Dr Gilbert) contain sufficient to allow me to make a couple of edits ... agreed? Calilasseia 14:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Regarding the Ribbentrop/Simpson affair, it was reported in a published book that Ribbentrop was the control for Ms. Simpson and later for Edward/David also. A news article a few years ago reported with photographs that documents were found in a box in the attic of one of the less glamorous royal castles in Germany confirming the Duke and Duchess of Windsors's status as "spies" for Nazi Germany, and that one reason the Germans were able to breach the Maginot Line so easily is because the Duke and Duchess of Windsor had officially toured the Maginot Line and repoted its weaknesses to the Nazis. Also, in 1945, when Ribbentrop was captured by the Allies, he tried to purchase his freedom with 6 million dollars in gold he had at his main castle home, which had been requisitioned from an unfortunate Jewish merchant sent to a death camp. The Allies would not let him buy his freedom because he was a high-profile war criminal and internationally hated, but Ribbentrop eventually agreed that the money would be used to help save the lives of as many Germans as possible and he revealed the location to the Americans, and this gold was eventually used to fund the Berlin Air Lift when the Russians wanted to starve the Berliners to death. This was not the only large stash of gold Ribbentrop had on hand at the end of WW II in 1945, as he funded German spy networks all over the world operaing out of German embassies and had to have cash money on hand for this type of business. 68.211.85.31 05:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Mr. L. E. Phunt of Knockworst.- - - - - - -

But the Germans didn't "penetrate" the Maginot line. They outflanked it, then encircled it, and then reduced the strongpoints. Like any sane attacker would have done. I also seriously doubt that the duke and duchess of windsor would have been better spies than thousands of other people the germans could have used. The stuff about the berlin airlift is interesting, but placed with the obviously ridiculous claims earlier in your post is not that helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.182 (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Grave site

Where was he buried? --Mika1h 09:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Like all of the other defendants executed at Nuremberg, Ribbentrop was cremated, and his ashes dumped at unknown location in Bavaria, so as to prevent the site where the ashes of the hanged war criminals of Nuremberg rests from becoming a neo-Nazi shrine. Too bad the hanged war criminals of Tokyo have a shrine honoring them in the form of the Yasukuni Shrine, where everyday Shinto priests say a prayer for the supposedly “unjustly” hanged. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see it, the Soviets were sweettalking with him. In the end, it was the British who were responsible for the legal process. It was the British who needed to find a hangman and an incinirator. If he was to be handled by the Soviets, this is what they would say to him: "Please accept a death sentence, so we don't loose our face. Your family will have a grave to attend....promise!". --2001:4644:DC5B:0:E875:4EF4:B4C5:9A35 (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Early career - did Ribbentrop play Ice hockey in Canada?

This sounds like a story too tall to be believed: that Ribbentrop would have played ice hockey in Canadian National Team. Can anyone provide for some reliable sources of this astonishing information? -- Voice from Finland, 10. 5. 2007.

Answer: Von Ribbentropp did play for the canadian national hockey team.

The German national Museum brings this info in its biography of Joachim von Ribbentrop to be found here German Historical Museum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.219.167 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it's in German. Maybe someone else can verify this? OlEnglish (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, he did not play for the Canadian national hockey team. His friends in Ottawa testifed after WWII that he hated physical sports such as hockey, football and rugby. Instead, he preferred figure skating and was a competitor in the 1914 Lawn Tennis Tournament in Ottawa. the information from the German National Museum, if it in fact states that he was a member of the hockey team, is false. I should know, I have closely investigated Ribbentrop's life in Canada from 1910 to 1914. Robert Lawson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.16.126 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I followed up on this at the reference desk: Discussion. Also see this additional source to confirm that he did NOT play ice hockey but rather figure skating. -- œ^™ 02:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ribbentrop did mention ice hockey in his memoirs, "Zwischen London und Moskau." However, I don't think it is 100% clear from what he says, whether he enjoyed the sport as a participant or merely as a spectator. At any rate, he makes no mention of the national team, although he may have played the sport more generally at some point. On page 20 of his memoirs, Ribbentrop recalls: "So verbrachte ich zwei Winter und einen Sommer in Montreal und wurde mit dem Leben dieser groessten kanadischen Stadt nach jeder Richtung hin vertraut; mit der ernsten Geschaeftigkeit, den Vergnuegungen, den oft wilden Pokerpartien, dem Sport, Tennis, Rugby und vor allem dem beruehmten kanadischen Eishockey." My German is not the greatest, but I would roughly translate that as: "So I spent two winters and a summer in Montreal and felt at home in every direction with the life in this, the largest Canadian city; with its serious industriousness, pleasures, the often wild poker parties, the sports, Tennis, Rugby and above all the famous Canadian ice hockey."Rmm413 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@87.180.219.167 176.72.106.186 (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

From WP:RD/H

Ribbentrop, is it possible to say anything positive about Hitler's 'Bismarck'? If the Nazi regime was a disease then Ribbentrop was one of the symptoms. The comment you refer to, Captainhardy, came, I believe, during the course of his cross-examination at the main Nuremberg Trial in 1946. Under questioning from Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, Ribbentrop denied having bullied President Hácha of Czechoslovakia into accepting German occupation. "What further pressure could you put on the head of a country except to threaten him that your army would march in and your airforce bomb his capital?" To which Ribbentrop replied, "War, for instance." Hitler was always impressed by Ribbentrop's suave manners and social contacts, once telling Herman Göring that he knew Lord this and Lady that. Göring, who had little time for the Foreign Minister as a man or a diplomat, quickly responded, "Yes, but they know Ribbentrop." Even Hitler took the point.

Why was he ever appointed Foreign Minister? For the simple reason that Hitler distrusted the old establishment, represented above all by Konstantin von Neurath, the Foreign Minister he had inherited from the last stages of the Weimar Republic. Ribbentrop, moreover, was always keen to offer the kind of radical solutions that Hitler favoured. He won Hitler's respect by the two great coups of Nazi diplomacy: the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 and the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939. The first undermined both the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the whole concept of collective security supposedly embodied in the League of Nations, by allowing Germany to expand its navy in a bi-lateral agreement with England. The second allowed Hitler to go to war with Poland, free from possible repercussions by the Soviets. But in both cases Ribbentrop did no more than push at doors that were already partially opened. The agreement with the Soviets, moreover, undermined the Anti-Comintern Pact, another of Ribbentrop's triumphs, angering the Japanese, and thus doing much to ensure that they stood aside in any future German war with Russia.

I suppose, in the end, the principle reason Ribbentrop became Foreign Minister, despite being a complete failure when he was German Ambassador in London, was because he was a useful cipher. Hitler already had a programme: he simply wanted men in place who were able to fulfill his vision. But for Ribbentrop failure followed hard upon the heels of triumph. He had assured Hitler that Britain and France would not go to war over Poland; and when they did, the Nazi Bismarck's star slowly began to sink. In the last stages of his active ministry he attempted to play a degenerate form of the 'Great Game', not fully undersatnding that, for Hitler, rapprochement with Russia was but a temporary expedient. After the collapse of France in 1940 Ribbentrop worked actively towards the creation of a four-power pact against England, embracing Germany, the Soviet Union, Italy and Japan, while at the very same time Hitler was working towards Barbarossa. As the war progressed Ribbentrop had less and less to do, other than become one of the minor architects of the Holocaust. Amongst the Nazi elite he was treated with diminishing respect, and even Hitler encouraged Walther Hewel, a diplomat attached to the Führer's headquarters, to make fun at his expense. As a final insult he was replaced as Foreign Minister in Hitler's will by Arthur Seyss-Inquart, even though Ribbentrop, unlike Göring and Himmler, had been guilty of nothing but absolute loyalty.

The real answer to the question how such a man could become Foreign Minister of an important world power is, paradoxically, yet another question: how was a man like Hitler ever in a position to appoint him in the first place? Clio the Muse 03:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Cassiar Mining company

Very interesting article. Where did the reference to the Cassiar Mining company come from? How did you find out that Ribbentrop had been corporate secretary there? RL

I will not put in on the main page yet but it is something I recollect from reading this book.
I recall his working mostly in Montreal for a company that was engaged in mining development in
Cassiar, British Columbia. von Alvensleben was active investing in the same district at the same time
I would need to get another look at the book to make an airtight statement

John Weitz's "Hitler's Diplomat: The Life and Times of Joachim von Ribbentrop".
RichardBond (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Early Career

Ribbentrop was definately not a member of the Canadian ice hockey team. He was, however, a member of the Minto Six, a figure skating team in Ottawa and a member of the Rideau Tennis club, where he established himself as one of the city's best players.

False Information

I have removed the following as it is quite false. " When Kurt von Schleicher was ousted as chancellor the following January, Ribbentrop ______the former defence minister, who had held the top post for just a few months, and the appointment of Hitler as chancellor by Hindenburg on January 30, 1933. Ribbentrop, who was both a Nazi Party member and an old friend of von Papen, facilitated the negotiations by arranging for von Papen and Hitler to meet secretly at the home of banker Kurt von Schroeder."

"There is some speculation that Ribbentrop worked with Papen in the United States before Papen was expelled in 1915 under suspicion of sabotage".

To begin with, Ribentrop never served as defense minister, indeed until his appointment as Commissioner for Disarmament in 1934 had never held any sort of public office. Second, there was a meeting between Hitler and Papen at the home of Baron Schroeder in Cologne in early January 1933, but Ribbentrop had nothing to do with that meeting. All that happened at that meeting was Papen asked for Hitler's support to make him Chancellor whereas Hitler demanded the same for himself. All that was argeed to at the Cologne meeting was that Papen and Hitler were to keep on meeting; the subsequent meetings between the two were held at Ribbentrop's house in Berlin. The Cologne meeting was supposed to have been secret, but unfortunately for Hitler and Papen they were photographed by a freelace photographer (what we would today call a paparazzo) going into and out of Schroeder's house, thus making that location quite unsatisfactory as venue for secret talks. It was not until the second half of January 1933 that Papen finally conceded the Chancellorship in his talks with Hitler, and that concession was made at Ribbentrop's house. In other words, the sequence is wrong. Hitler and Papen met at Schroeder's house in Cologne first, and then held subsequent series of meetings at Ribbentrop's house in Berlin. Third, as soon as World War One broke out, Ribbentrop left Canada and headed straight back to Germany. The claim that Ribbentrop was involved in sabotage with Papen in the United States has been totally discreditd by historians. Ribbentrop's total activities in the U.S. in August 1914 comprised no more then booking a journey back to Germany, and anyhow, Ribbentrop first met Papen in 1918 in Turkey, so he could not have possibly been engaging in sabotage with Papen in the Unitd States in 1914.--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I have removed the following:

"The importance of this pact was that it allowed Adolf Hitler to attack Poland using the methods of Blitzkrieg (lightning war), while also being unafraid of fighting "a war on two fronts". This term refers to fighting a war against two different enemies at the same time. In this case, Hitler, after Ribbentrop signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact, could guarantee that he would only be fighting Britain and France from the East, and not the Soviet Union from the West. Ultimately, the pact left Poland open for Hitler to attack without fear of defeat.". First off, this all seems like an unnecessary exposition of the importance of the Non-Aggression Pact. Second, and even more importantly, it presumes that Hitler knew that the result of attacking Poland would be a war with Britain and France. This is simply not true; Hitler let himself be persuaded (not the least by Ribbentrop) that if he attacked Poland, London and Paris would do nothing, thus making the above information quite incorrect. Ribbentrop's status as the alleged British expert plus the supposed statement from Georges Bonnet in December 1938 that France recognized Eastern Europe as within Germany’s exclusive sphere of influence gave Ribbentrop's statements in 1939 that Britain and France would do nothing in the event of a German attack on Poland a degree of creditability that was in fact not warranted. The results of the Non-Aggression Pact was to allow Hitler to fight a one-front war against Britain and France, but that, however, was not the intention behind the Non-Aggression Pact. The intention of the Non-Aggression Pact was to deter Anglo-French intervention by reaching an understanding with Moscow, and at most, creating the preconditions for a one-front war was a very secondary consideration for the Non-Aggression Pact. Results of actions are not always the same as the intentions behind the actions. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Another bit of false information to have emerged in is this article is the claim that Ribbentrop was involved in sending Jews to the concentration camps. This is not true. During the Nazi genocide against the Jews, Jews were deported to extermination camps or Vernichtungslager. Concentration camps (Konzentrationslager) were places for political opponents and others that the Nazis considered "socially undesirable" were sent to; Jews were not deported to concentration camps because the purpose of those camps to inflict suffering on those held within their walls, not to kill them. The purpose of the death camps was to kill those sent to them. What is correct to say is that Ribbentrop was involved in sending Jews to the death camps. --A.S. Brown (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Bloch354" :
  • Bloch, ''Ribbentrop'', page 354.
  • Despite the often fierce rivalry with the SS, the ''Auswärtiges Amt'' played a key role in arranging the deportations of Jews to the death camps from [[France]] (1942–44), [[Hungary]] (1944–45), [[First Slovak Republic|Slovakia]], [[Italy]] (after 1943), and the [[Balkans]]. Ribbentrop assigned all of the [[Holocaust]]-related work to an old crony from the ''Dienststelle'' named Martin Luther, who represented the Foreign Ministry at the [[Wannsee Conference]]<ref>Bloch, ''Ribbentrop'', pages 353–354.

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of these voluminous if not redundant references could be consolidated using the {{rp|nn}} Reference page template. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Article just a tad too long?

Does anyone else think so? OlEnglish (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just thinking that. A bit over-detailed. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it reads like a biography, not an article. Could be cut in half and still be useful. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem less monolithic if it were split into more sections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very well-written (I'm not a contributor), but way too long for a Wikipedia article. It could practically be republished as an extremely short book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

To anyone interested in improving this article, I've requested a Peer review from the Military History WikiProject and have received some excellent suggestions for improvement. I'm confident this article can achieve GA class, but am probably going to need some help in implementing some of these suggestions. The review can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Joachim von Ribbentrop. Thanks. -- œ^™ 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hoax on the family tree

When I read the names of the so called descendants of the Ribbentrop family, I cannot help suspecting of a hoax or some kind of prank: check the names like Munchhausen, like the character in the famous german tale, and other people whose appearance is totally irrelevant. Could some german speaking person check this ? --Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities may be able to help. -- œ^™ 13:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead too short

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section): "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." As of this post, the lead paragraph is only 2 sentences long and desperately needs expansion. -- œ^™ 14:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the lede was much too short for this exceptionally long article, and on 7/1/13 I inserted a new one that was more in proportion. I do not see why Flyte35 should have felt it necessary to edit it down (26/1/13) unless there was a plan to shorten the article itself. I also can't make anything of Kelisi's cryptic comment 'No Excuse' (24/1/13) 109.154.26.148 (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I edited it down because the lede you wrote was too long. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. It should contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." I believe the new lede fully provides an overview of the article. If you think more is needed in the lede to summarize the article, that probably means the article is too long.Flyte35 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

removal of photo of body

please see my comments in the Julius Streicher article's talk section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm2007 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This photo documents an objective historical fact. It demonstrates not only that the subject of the article was executed, but also that the Allied Powers insisted that the body of the subject be photographed after the execution to remove any doubt that the subject has been executed. It should remain in the article. Your objection is subjective based on your own sense of what is disturbing.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lacks subheadings

One may or may not agree that this great, informative article ought to be shortened. But what is definitely true is that if you are going to have sections as extensively long as 'Travelling diplomat', 'Ambassador to Britain', 'Munich Agreement ...', 'Pact with the Soviet Union ...' and 'Relations with wartime allies', you should add subheads. Contrast these with section 'Foreign Minister of the Reich'. There, subheads make not only for visual organization, but much easier reading.

While yer at it, knock down upper 'D' to lower in 'Munich Agreement and [D]estruction of Czechoslovakia'. Inconsistent. --Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Albert Pierrepoint

was he hanged by Albert Pierrepoint and if yes it should be in the article--70.162.171.210 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

removed anonymous IP neo-Nazi fringe Wiki violation of Talk Page HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He was hanged by the official executioner, an American surnamed Woods, at Nuremberg. Pierrepoint executed other notable Nazi war criminals on behalf of the British legal system. Pbrower2a (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence

Some have described Von Ribbentrop as an imbecile and "the most stupid in his class, full of vanity and very pushy". Yet he was a successful businessman, and scored very high on an IQ test. Can he have been both am imbecile and intelligent? Or should we give more weight to the scientific (IQ test) and objective (business successes) evidence than to the subjective (the comments of political opponents)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Judgments by classmates below the college level about general intelligence are to be taken for what they are -- grossly subjective and unprofessional. Vain and pushy? Imprecise, but such is consistent with his character as Ambassador to Great Britain and Foreign Minister of Nazi Germany. "Stupidity" may have referred to him being full of himself and to not being receptive to the teaching that others received with little resistance.

His IQ (129 as tested at Nuremberg) was above average for the general public (100), and such served him well as booze-dealer. As was said of him, he could get French prices for German wines (really, German wines can be very good, but they were long underrated). He had been a lieutenant in the German Army, and he was good at languages. That is well above the typical IQ for a laborer -- more typical of a business executive or a research scientist. But he was substandard for a diplomat (think of him giving the Nazi salute to the King of England), let alone a Foreign Minister. Hitler chose him for his subservience and for fanatical loyalty, both of which mattered far more than did a brilliant, flexible mind.

He was never going to be a Henry Kissinger -- that was certain.Pbrower2a Pbrower2a (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)(talk) 15:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Professional Diplomats involved in the "Final Solution"

The statement that Curt Prufer was "highly involved" in the Final Solution looks to be a stretch based on the cited article. Does this belong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.121.252 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Adopted by his aunt?

I find it interesting that Ribbentrops aunt was called Gertrud von Ribbentrop. If Gertrud von Ribbentrop was born von Ribbentrop her father must have been called von Ribbentrop. But if that is the case Gertrud von Ribbentrops father was also Joakim von Ribbentrops grandfather which would mean he would also have been called von Ribbentrop already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.108.6.114 (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The name is Ribbentrop, the title is "von". The name passes to all family members, but the title probably passes only to the oldest son. Otherwise, we'd have thousands of "kings" of England. Rklawton (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Normally the "von" is passed to all members of the family. It is not a title in it self but shows that you are a nobleman. Also in Germany and Scandinavian countries a title like Baron is very often passed to all children not just the eldest son. If I remember correctly all the flying brothers von Richthofen were Barons. Manfred von Richthofen was of course the Red Baron in WW I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.108.6.114 (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to simplify. Yes, the "von" signifies nobility. And nobility usually passes to the oldest son. Hence the "von" may have passed only to the oldest son in this case. If we can find a source that explains this, it might be interesting to add it to the article. As it is, we have reliable sources indicating his aunt adopted him so he could take on the "von" - so obviously he didn't have it before his adoption. Adoption to inherit nobility, by the way, was pretty common and is still practiced today. Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband, Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt, makes a good (bad) example. Rklawton (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the relevant article, though I'm not sure it clears things up: German nobility Rklawton (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's my guess. His father wasn't the oldest son and so he didn't get the title (pre-1918) and therefore didn't get the right to use "von". Post 1918 (1925, specifically), Joachim gets adopted. He doesn't get the title either because it's been abolished by then, but he does get the last name with the "von" in it - because titles were converted into last names in 1918, and it was in his aunt's legal last name. So (maybe) pre-1918 the oldest son gets the title. In 1918 the title gets converted into the last name. After 1918 all future generations get the fancy last name just as anyone would get their father's last name, but they don't get a title because they've been abolished (never mind that there's an organization that tracks all that as if titles still existed). Rklawton (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This sounds a little unlikely. Why would the aunt be callen von then, she was certainly not the eldest son :) But the thing is: even pre-1918 all children of "von Ribbentrop" would have been called "von Ribbentrop". I am not disputing the fact that he was adopted, or even that it was by his aunt. What I find interesting is how was this possible? One possibility is of course that the aunt was actually his mothers sister who had by chance married a "von Ribbentrop"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.108.6.114 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You're betting your whole argument on the notion that the title passed to all children, but you have no evidence for that. On the other hand, we see that his father doesn't have the title - so clearly you are mistaken. Rklawton (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well from the link you provided: "Nobility and titles (except for most reigning titles) were always inherited equally by all legitimate descendants of a nobleman." so please believe me: if a man is called von XYZ all his children would be called von XYZ. That is just the normal German way. So the aunt problem is still not entirely clear. It could be that the aunt had married a von Ribbentrop, or it could be that he wasn't adopted by his aunt but by a more distant relative whose father had been made von Ribbentrop which some other sources suggest. 109.108.6.114 (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.108.6.114 (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Acclording to https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joachim-von-Ribbentrop

"Thereafter he persuaded a distant ennobled relative to adopt him so that he could affix “von” to his name."

The explanation to this aunt version is that in the original German text she was referred to as Tante, which means aunt, but can also be a more informal version of Frau. 84.248.106.55 (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

New intro section

I recently supplied an extended intro section, as requested by Wiki.

For some reason, this section often fails to appear when you log into the article, and only comes up when you return to it after viewing others. Is this a glitch at your end? 86.181.213.189 (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'your end'? Is your question addressed to any particular individual? - BorisG (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Good summary. No, the problem is at your end. Need to clear cache or something. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that my new extended intro section has been deleted along with my other re-drafts, which were supplied in response to requests that can still be seen on this page. As the intro section was described as a good summary, you might feel like replacing it. 86.178.157.135 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I am having a second shot at inserting my extended lede (as still formally requested by Wiki), which was deleted for reasons unknown. I trust this will not pass as vandalism. 86.164.55.251 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Von the move

I propose moving this page to Joachim Ribbentrop. He wasn't entitled to the "von" & WP shouldn't be endorsing the falsehood. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. Going the other way, removing the Von would just be endorsing that POV. -- œ^™ 06:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm frequently of the opinion the common name policy is stupid, & I don't see how accuracy is POV. I do expect to be the only one to think this move is a good idea. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ribbentrop leagally had his name changed to "von Ribbentrop." Whether you like it or not, that was his actual name. You are correct that he was not an actual noble, but "von" was legally part of his name and that is how most people know him (and search for him) as. It would be patently ridiculous to remove the "von" from this article, when the history books and books about him all use it. 68.56.183.221 (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

He was certainly called von Ribbentrop. The problem is that it is extremely unlikely that he was adopted by his paternal aunt because then his father and he would already have been called von Ribbentrop. The von isn't a title it is just added to your surname and becomes the family name after that. All other serious sources say that he was adopted by a distant relative and probably paid for this service. To state that it was his aunt without providing the source for this statement makes the entire article quite unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.202.107 (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been disputed for a long time. But it was traditionally expressed as "he's not entitled to the 'von'". In other words, we all know him with 'von'. There was a similar problem with (von) Paulus.

I created his page at the IMDb around the same time that I set up the IMDb pages for Lenin, Stalin, Goering/Göring, Goebbels/Göbbels, Gandhi, and so on, and had the same issue of combing through reference books to try to determine which possible name variant I should adopt.

Since that was in the 1990s I can't remember now whether I arrived at von or no von. Probably von.

IMDb Top Contributor, Varlaam (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Religion?

The article says he is a Protestant (infobox) and a Catholic (category). Varlaam (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

British English

When you edit the article, it announces it is in British English.
That is not absolutely correct; the article is in the Oxford flavour of British English (i.e., it's very much like Canadian English).
That message should read Oxford for clarity, but which tag is controlling that message?
Varlaam (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The template is {{English variant notice}} and it's at Template:Editnotices/Page/Joachim von Ribbentrop. Edit that page and change as you see fit. -- œ^™ 07:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That's subtle. I was blissfully unaware of that. Thanks.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Vielen Dank, mein Herr. Varlaam (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ambassador to the United Kingdom section edits

This entire article is too long to be easy to read. I've started in this section, which is tagged for needing improvement, by removing what strike me as essentially trivial details. It's not that many of these things aren't interesting, but this isn't a small book about Ribbentrop; it's an encyclopedia article. He held the position for less than two years. Is it really useful to provide 14 paragraphs, describing things how he treated his tailors? I've just gone ahead and removed what strikes me as excessive, but another editor reverted the changes.Flyte35 (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The article probably is too long. WP:SUMMARY is the solution, not outright removal of the content. Everyking (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean, I see what you mean, but would the section on his period as ambassador to the U.K. really be improved by splitting the section up? I see no natural breaks for this that make sense. I don't understand why we aren't better off just removing the trivial details.Flyte35 (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean splitting it up; I mean create a new article about this period in his career, including all the "trivial details", and then cut the text in the original article back substantially. Readers who are particularly interested in his stint as ambassador can click to read the separate article. I do think the story about Ribbentrop giving the Nazi salute to the King should stay in the article regardless, though; that foolish episode might well be the best remembered moment of his career. Everyking (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean, I guess if you want. It doesn't seem he was really there long enough for this to merit a separate article. Some of the other, even longer parts below this one (like the subsections under Foreign Minister of the Reich) woud work very well as separate articles.Flyte35 (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Vincent Churchill"

The letter on his person when arrested as indeed addressed to "Vincent Churchill", but obviously intended for Sir Winston Churchill. Whether such was mockery or a result of ignorance or being out of touch with reality is unclear. The link is amended so that one reads "Vincent Churchill" but connects to the Prime Minister.Pbrower2a (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Interrogation at Nuremberg as source

This is his interrogation at the IMT in Nuremberg: https://archive.org/details/VerteidigungsredeJoachimVonRibbentropBeimNuernbergerProzessIMT / It gives info on his political carreer. I would like to add this as a source. Any objections or suggestions? --197.229.144.192 (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing here that's uncited so it doesn't seem necessary or beneficial. Flyte35 (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Update

On the advice of a friend, I will spend the next week significantly improving this article with the purpose of bringing it to GA-status. Stay tuned! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Have decided to wait until July. Hope people understand. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

German Embassy in London

In the article it states:

---

At his wife's suggestion, Ribbentrop hired a Berlin interior decorator named Martin Luther to assist with his move to London and help realize the design of the new German Embassy that Ribbentrop had built there (he felt that the existing Embassy was insufficiently grand).

---

This passage has a number of odd inaccuracies.

1.) Ribbentrop did not build a new German embassy in London. The German embassy in London remained the same, 9 Carlton House Terrace (by the Duke of York Column, and now part of The Royal Society's headquarters).

2.) Ribbentrop had parts of the interior of 9 Carlton House Terrace gutted and remodelled between August 1936 and June 1937. (By law, exterior changes to the building were not allowed .)

3.) It is generally known that Albert Speer, Hitler's architect, designed Ribbentrop's interior changes to 9 Carlton House Terrace. 145 German craftsmen and 130 British workers were employed. Cost of renovations: 5 million Marks.

Source --

Nazis in Pre-War London, 1930-1939: The Fate and Role of German Party Members and British Sympathizers, By James J. Barnes, Patience P. Barnes, Sussex Academic Press, 2010, pages 92 - 93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2CDF:F6AB:863:BDBA:D66:F054 (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Joachim von Ribbentrop as ambassador to the United Kingdom.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy

The lede says that the secret meetings of January 1933 were held in Ribbentrop's Austrian castle Schloss Fuschsi. The main article says they were held in his house in 'Berlin's exclusive Dahlem district'. Valetude (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Comintern Pact

1) Under "Anti-Comintern Pact" I see:

The Anti-Comintern Pact in November 1936 marked an important change in German foreign policy.[57] The Foreign Office had traditionally favoured a policy of friendship with China with an informal Sino-German alliance that had created by the late 1920s.

Would it be better to state:

"... a policy of friendship with China with an informal Sino-German alliance that had been created by the late 1920s?"

2) Under "German threat to Poland and British guarantee" I see :

... Ribbentrop's bullying behaviour towards the Poles destroyed any faint chance Poland allowing Danzig to return to Germany.

I suggest:

Ribbentrop's bullying behaviour towards the Poles destroyed any faint chance of Poland allowing Danzig to return to Germany.

3) Under "Turkey" I see:

Ribbentrop believed that Turks were so stupid that one had to shout at to make them understand.

I suggest:

Ribbentrop believed that Turks were so stupid that one had to shout at them to make them understand.

4) Under "Pact with Soviet Union and outbreak of World War II" (3rd paragraph) I see:

... and just as in Germany, nothing appeared in the British press that the its did not want to appear.

I suggest:

and just as in Germany, nothing appeared in the British press which the British government did not want to see.

ThaniosAkro (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Was Ribbentrop for or against Hitler declaring war on the US?

The article has:

"Ribbentrop worked for the failure of the Japanese-American talks in Washington and for Japan to attack the United States.[1] He did his utmost to support a declaration of war on the United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor.[2] From 1941 onwards, Ribbentrop's influence declined. "

I found this article because I was watching Episode 5 of 'Apocalypse World War II - The Noose' on Curiosity Stream.

The episode mentions that Hitler waited four days to declare war on the US and that Ribbentrop tried to dissuade Hitler, but that Hitler thought that declaring war on the US might get Japan to put pressure on the Soviets in the East.

The Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States has:

"Hitler and Ribbentrop had been urging Japan to attack and take over Singapore from the British, on the theory that doing so would not only hurt the UK, but would also serve to help keep the US out of the war.[3]"

and also:

"According to the terms of their agreements, Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Japan if a third country attacked Japan, but not if Japan attacked a third country. Ribbentrop reminded Hitler of this, and pointed out that to declare war against the US would add to the number of enemies Germany was fighting, but Hitler dismissed this concern as not being important,[3] and, almost entirely without consultation, chose to declare war against the US, wanting to do so before, he thought, American president Franklin D. Roosevelt would declare war on Germany.[5][6][7]"

So what is the case? Was Ribbentrop for or against Hitler's declaring war on the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.25.224 (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The Nazi leaders were mediocre personalities who got badly out of their depth. Ribbentrop was big and brave in telling the Japanese to attack British and US interests and assuring them that Germany would join in, but he had an 'Oops' moment when it came to the crunch. This would not relate to actual geopolitics so much as German 'court' politics. As a courtier of the Fuhrer, dependent on his imperial favour, Ribbentrop thought he'd better point out the risk of making an enemy of the US when Germany was already embroiled on two fronts with the Soviet Union and the British Empire and not doing terribly well. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Other people in the photo??

Does anyone know the names of the other people in the photo contained int he article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_von_Ribbentrop#/media/File:MolotovRibbentropStalin.jpg

I don't think it should be included in the article, but I've been trying to identify the rest of the people for some time. I recognize Molitov, Stalin, and Ribbentrop, but who are the others?? 60.250.123.226 (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"No appointment needed"

I find it unrealistic to rely on a wartime source to substantiate the assertion that Ribbentrop could waltz in and see Hitler at any time. It sounds like his own pomp Billsmith60 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Lininco

where is a "mixed town of Lininco", reportedly in Poland? Never heard of. BTW, in 2/3 this article needs to be rewritten from scratch, as it degenerates into article on Nazi foreign policy. And mixes key, second-rate and marginal issues. And gives extravagant - to say the least - theories as widey accepted, e.g. that Britain was tricked to offer 1939 guarantees to Poland by the Romanians. 2A02:A317:2144:1A80:844D:A9E8:3858:A1CA (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "not a honorific; excessive intricate detail & unsourced WP:OR". The latter is in reference to the unsourced list of awards. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Support for German declaration of war on the United States | Proposed edit

I recognise that there was a 2022 post to this effect but I'm not completely satisfied with the way the topic is covered in the lede:

"He did his utmost to support a declaration of war on the United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States

It's very clear that Ribbentrop pushed for Japan to draw the United States into the conflict but his support for a German declaration of war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbour is slightly more ambiguous. As mentioned in the above-linked article (and the 2022 post), the ultimate decision to declare war on the U.S. was principally driven by Hitler and Ribbentrop ended up getting cold feet, pushing back on the idea.

My suggestion for an edit that more accurately portrays this reality (while also qualifying this with his earlier policy) is:

"Despite initially having aimed to keep them out of the conflict, he agreed to join a Japanese declaration of war on the United States in light of the changed strategic landscape and perceived importance of maintaining the Tripartite Pact." 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:CC93:4AB4:2907:6A3A (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I'll go ahead and make this edit since I expect people to agree with me that what's there at the moment is misleading and counterfactual--let me know if I've misinterpreted. My point is that the responsibility for the ultimate declaration of war should be placed upon Hitler. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:CC93:4AB4:2907:6A3A (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)