Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Final version and POV tag

I think we can remove the POV tag once these two lines are decided on, as they seem to be the only ones under dispute. The following is my version which is open to stylistic but not major semantic modification.

Hitler gained popularity through his charismatic oratory, often appealing to German nationalism, anti-Semitism, and promises of economic improvement. Once in power, he applied propaganda along with para-military violence in public to establish an efficient totalitarian state with almost no domestic resistance.

What do people disagree with? Something substantial that has not already been proven wrong or unnecessary, please.-- Simonides 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a chill pill, Simonides. Wyss 00:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Your unused stock? -- Simonides 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 :) Wyss 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down, guys. I want to suggest the following rewording:

Hitler came to power in a Germany plagued by political and economic crisis, using his (political skills and) charismatic oratory, appealing to nationalism and anti-Semitism. He established a totalitarian state based on propaganda and coercion.
After the economy had recovered and the military rearmed, Nazi Germany started World War II and during the height of its power, Germany and her allies occupied much of Europe. The racial policies that Hitler directed culminated in an immense number of deaths across Europe, commonly cited as about 11 million people, including about 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust.

I am undecided on the "political skills" (though keen is overdoing it), as I am not sure what these skills are except for rhetoric, charisma, and playing va-banque. But never mind.

I removed the "effective", as the Hitler state was many things but not effective.

I also reincluded the economic issue (both as crisis and as recovery), but without sounding as praise. I also included the actual start of the war, as the former version just suddenly plunged and was in the middle of the war.

Any suggestions for making it more concise are of course welcome. Str1977 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

user:Raul654 has stumbled in and protected the page (along with reverting it to the cartoon/Indiana Jones version he seems to like). I don't think this was done under appropriate WP authority but I've little hope he'll ever agree with that. Either way, yeah, I guess there are folks who think AH had no political skill, no significant popular appeal and was into brutality and violence for their own sakes. I mean, why regard him as the frighteningly talented piece of human complexity and moral irresponsibility that he was, when one can avoid all those inconvenient and uncomfortable subtleties and sum him up as frickin' Darth Vader or whatever? Wyss 01:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems people don't really read the Talk page here, yet have the temerity to edit self-righteously . Repeating myself:
  • Good, so we can remove "schadenfreude". And Wyss, about "keen political skills", let's quote your own words - If it's so generally held, finding a suitable citation in a secondary source by a peer-reviewed author shouldn't be much trouble. (ie not just a handful of web pages.) As with charisma, it's not the inclusion that's being debated so much as its relevance next to other factors that are already mentioned and provide more specific information.
As for the use of the word coercion: "coercion" implies that people were being forced into doing something specific. In fact, apart from the public humiliation in which Jews were forced to clean latrines in front of crowds etc, people were not being "coerced" - they were being beaten up, deported or killed. That's why I used "violence." -- Simonides 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow. You mean Jewish people weren't forced to get in those cattle cars? Wyss 01:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Violence is a broader and more accurate category than "coercion"; it's like the difference between saying Hitler ruled Germany and Hitler ruled Bavaria. The analogy being that you want to insist that since Hitler ruled Bavaria, he couldn't have ruled Germany too. -- Simonides 02:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Truth be told I think coercion is the broader category. Lots of Germans complied (or, say, "adapted") because it was easier than getting one's head lopped off or starving to death in a Gestapo cell or concentration camp. The implied threat of violence is a much wider and more efftive tool than violence itself. Wyss 02:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)\
You wouldn't have so many semantic troubles if you actually knew something on the subject. There wasn't just an implied threat, there was a lot of documented violence, and it's an important aspect of Nazism. It's more important than unspecified "keen political skills" anyway so stop removing it. -- Simonides 02:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so we disagree on everything you've mentioned above. What now? :) Wyss 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
(Obviously they were violent btw) Wyss 03:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's start again

This was yesterday's version:

This is the current version:

  • Hitler gained popularity through his charismatic oratory and political skill, often appealing to German nationalism, anti-Semitism, and promises of economic improvement.

I think we can do better. Str made a suggestione above that I'm fine with though it needs to be slightly briefer as he himself admits. More suggestions please... -- Simonides 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For starters, you might want to have a look at WP:Civility. Wyss 03:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be much more useful to the article if you read a little scholarly material on the subject. -- Simonides 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm ok with letting other editors decide for themselves if my edits are based on the scholarly record ;) Wyss 03:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
They already have:
  • "Please mind what you revert Wyss. I have included "keen political skills", although i find them somewhat redundant... he term "keen political skills" is too vague, sounds too high-schoolish to me." - Minister of War
  • "Since Hitler's keen political skills consisted, for the most parr, precisely in his charimatic oratory and appeals to anto semitism, etc... adding it now would be a redundacy." - Lacatosias
  • "I am undecided on the "political skills" (though keen is overdoing it), as I am not sure what these skills are except for rhetoric, charisma, and playing va-banque." - Str1977
Yet you re-inserted the phrase several times. -- Simonides 03:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that means all his major biographers were mistaken. Wyss 03:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, his "major biographers" never bothered to keep harping on "keen political skills" without qualifying the phrase and after already mentioning obvious political skills in the same or previous sentence. -- Simonides 03:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is my contribution. Perhaps one or two things are salvageable...
Hitler rose to power amidst deep economic and political crisis by promises of economic improvement. He used charismatic oratory and propaganda to appeal to popular nationalist and anti-Semitic sentiments. Hitler terrorized and coerced the scant opposition he faced and quickly transformed Germany into a totalitarian state. Jbetak 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Sounds good (Hitler did not just terrorize the opposition by the way, mostly the general populace, and there was little organized opposition to start with). By the way this is the most recent version so please comment on what can be removed or kept. -- Simonides 04:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this:

  • the current wording leads the focus to nationalism, anti-Semitism and economic promises rather than on Hitler. Also, I think that saying these three were popular is too blunt a statement (apart from the fact that it seems to place the three on par, when they were not).
  • "with little resistance" is clumsy and ambiguous (resistance against his rise or resistance against his rule) and IMO unecessary.
  • The start of the war is left out again.

Str1977 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It says Hitler's nationalism etc... don't know what you have in mind, but please suggest something. As for the war - isn't it slightly simplistic to say he started it? He invaded Poland and war was declared later... -- Simonides 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
using the word "violence" is a POV. "propaganda" also sounds bad. --Haham hanuka 09:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hanuka, how is "violence" POV - I think the actions of the SA clearly constitue violence. Beating up (or worse) opponents, attacking rival party meetings etc. Propaganda may sound bad, but it isn't a derogatory term in itself, and in fact derives much of its negative connotation from the Nazis. But I am willing to discuss working alternatives. My objective was to include something that gave the substance of Nazi/Fascist rule - in Mussolini's case the two pillars are "consensus and terror" (though there was considerably less terror in Italy). Str1977 09:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Violence was widely used in the war on Iraq, so should we write on George Bush intro "using paramilitary violence" --Haham hanuka 09:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh not again, please read, re-read all the arguments and scholarly references above. This has already been thrashed out. Your analogy is also totally meaningless. -- Simonides 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro again

So this:

has been changed to this:

After the economy had recovered and the military rearmed, Nazi Germany started World War II. During the height of its power, Germany and her allies occupied much of Europe, but ultimately, Germany was defeated by the Allied powers in 1945.

My objections

  1. violence and coercion are both included. And all along people were trying to exclude one or the other because of excessive POV - can we just remove coercion?
  2. As for WW2, it's a bit simplistic to say the Germans "started" it as there is some debate over what was exactly the "start" of the war - the main article on World War II itself goes into that.
  3. It seems even longer than the earlier version.

And this is an observation - people kept arguing that Hitler was only portrayed negatively, yet by putting economic/military recovery in passive one downplays Hitler's role (I'm fine with that but I wondered why no one else objects to it.) I'll make slight tweaks and suggestions are welcome. -- Simonides 17:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the edit I made to make the intro more concise and sort of keep it line with chronology:

This is good, I would add one thing also - Germany's defeat by the Allies was a;sp directly attributatble to Hitler's style of leadership. Hitler ran a chaotic nation, in which he deliberately had his subordinates working at cross purposes and in competition with each other, to ensure Hitler remained at the top of the chain. If someone can think of a one sentence summation of that notion, it would be appropriate here. Something like

During the height of its power, Germany and her allies occupied much of Europe, but ultimately, Germany was defeated by the Allied powers in 1945. Hitler exercised personal control over major facets of the German economy, military, and government, by 1942 having supreme political power as well as supreme command of the Army. His style of leadership, encouraging subordinates to compete needlessly, and the chaotic reporting lines in the country led to an extremely inefficient economy which, coupled with Hitler's poor attempts at grand strategy and an effective coalition of overwhelming material resources by Germany's enemies, ultimately led to their defeat. The Second World War in Europe was ultimately "Hitler's War" for it was he who personally instigated the war, prosecuted the war, and shaped Germany's participation.

Michael Dorosh 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro still has problems. Use of the word violence in the context of a totalitarian dictator is redundant and unencyclopedic because it gives the appearance of PoV, even if bias is not actually present in the article. Second, the lack of any mention of AH's widely documented political ability (some editors may mistakenly believe that political ability is in itself a positive, admirable trait) is conspicuous in its absence and third, parts of the intro suffer from very weak syntax and style. Minor nitpick to Michael Dorosh's interesting remarks: To characterise the 1939-45 war as "Hitler's War" is tempting, however it is also speculative in the sense that we can't be assured a second world war in Europe could have been avoided if only AH hadn't been in power. Wyss 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully suggesting this replacement for the middle paragraph of the intro:
  • Hitler assumed power in a time of political and economic crisis for the German state. Through his use of charismatic oratory he appealed to the electorate, with an emphasis on the need for economic revitalisation, while urging the people to accept state policies that derived from nationalism and anti-Semitism. By way of effective propaganda and paramilitary violence, a totalitarian state was established by his party, with a view to creating the empire of the Third Reich under the leadership of a Fuhrer.
  • With the surge in economic activity under his leadership, and the envigoration of the military establishment during the mid-1930's, Hitler directed the German state's diplomatic relations, to the point of provoking the second World War. At the height of its power in 1941, Germany (along with its allies) occupied much of Europe, and parts of north Africa, the middle-east and west Asia.
  • Hitler took unusual responsibility in determining the strategy and battle plans of the state's army, but in 1945 Germany was defeated by the Allied powers. By then, the racial policies set by him had culminated in a great number of deaths - the figure commonly cited is of 11 million people, which includes the deaths of 6 million Jews in a genocide known as the Holocaust.
I hope this addresses all the points raised in debates going back three months (adding his involvement in military campaigns), but with a better flow than the existing paragraph in the intro. And I think all the links are good and useful. Any thoughts?--shtove 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Without implying any negative criticism of shtove's suggestions, I think the intro is far too long. Wyss 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, my thougts on Shtove's suggestion:
  • The general problem is, as Wyss said, that this version is too long for the intro, while the shorter version does the trick of conveying the same info as well.
  • "Assume" to me sounds to much like taking hold of an apple lying around.
  • The rest of the sentence is factually ok, but it is too long and offers explanations better left to the article itself.
  • "with a view to creating" is IMHO only elaborating on what "totalitarian state" means here.
  • the economic lines gives too much credit to Hitler (or seems to) while stating that Hitler directed diplomacy is stating the obvious. "Provoke" is inaccurate.
  • His stearing of the military is again stating the obvious and possibly connects his military decisions too close with the defeat. Though Hitler is often portrayed as a military dilitant, he was in fact quite well informed in the military field - his decisions weren't that foolish until this "forward strategy" ran adrift. What really caused the defeat were his political and not his military decisions.
Str1977 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually like the current version, though the "coercion and propaganda - totalitarian state" is missing, except for the "provoked World War II" bit. That sounds like Germany provoked others to start the war (as it did in 1870 with Napoleon III), when in fact it was Germany that started the war. Granted the war at the beginning was not a world war, only a German-Polish war, but with France and the UK entering the war after a few days it was a World war. Anyway, we are taking about one war here (WWII) which started on 1 September 1939. Hence I will change "provoke" to "start".

- This is what I wrote before, but it appears that I was looking at an outdated version. Here are some more comments on my edit and the current version:

I changed "Allied powers" to "Anti-Hitler Coalition", for a couple of reasons:

  • Avoid the repitition of the word "allied/s", which could suggest and identity. The wording "Axis allies" is awkward and shouldn't be used
  • I'm not sure whether the Soviet Union was part of the Allied Powers, but it bore a large burden of the war.
  • Anti-Hitler Coalition is a perfectly common term.
The proper terms are "Axis powers" and "Allies," the latter including the USSR by treaty, the Declaration by United Nations. Wyss 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I retained the following passage:

He established a totalitarian state through effective propaganda and paramilitary violence.

Is this passage intended to refer to Hitler's rise to power or to his governing the Third Reich. Paramilitary violence played a part in the former but not in the second case. Coercion or repression are more fitting in the second case.

Thoughts?

Str1977 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Paramilitary violence is problematic. First, the word is too vague. Second, the mere threat of violence had much sway in Nazi Germany. Third (as I've mentioned before) violence in the context of a totalitarian dictatorship is unremarkable. Use of the term is redundant and creates the impression of bias or emotionalism, even if these aren't editorially present. Wyss 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping to address the concerns of the reader of this article, rather than those of the contributors. Forgive me, but replacing Allied Powers seems a bit complicated, or recondite, for a WP article. The term violence (paramilitary or otherwise) is one of the bones (of contention) - (see, Adolf Hitler). I do know the current intro (2nd para) doesn't read well. This is a big subject - one of WP's most popular - so, let the intro be long and let it be readable. Better that than the disjointed thing we have at the moment. Let Wyss and Str1977 hack away at the suggested replacement - prolix and inaccurate as it may be - until they produce something that helps the reader who wants to learn about Adolf Hitler.--shtove 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Readers of whatever background or bias will inevitably be distracted by an intro that attempts to accomplish too much. In an extreme case, AH's b-d dates, political offices and acknowledged responsibility for the holocaust are likely enough. Once one starts to elaborate beyond that bare framework, the probability of bias, reader irritation, misleading word choices and spin (well meant or otherwise) approaches 1. Wyss 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I take one of your points. In my historical biogs I cite in the intro - name, DOB/DOD, station/rank/occupation - and then give a single sentence summary of what the subject achieved. It's the last part that proves a problem on this subject, with the lesser or greater degrees of elaboration that Adolf Hitler demands. My suggested replacement touches on all the "likely" areas, in a style that I consider logical. The reader of this article will have no background or bias - the reader reads. So let the intro be readable (so what if it's long?) and accomplished. And let the contributors relegate their conflicts to the talk page.--shtove 00:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but I don't think it's that easy. Wyss 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Shtove, I changed from Allied powers to Anti-Hitler Coalition (which is just as correct) for a couple of reasons, one being to avoid the repetition and possible confusion. The problem with using "Axis powers" is that does not clearly connect them to Germany and that "and its allies" was flowing better. Also, this change doesn't avoid possible confusion when suddenly "Allies" appear.
I agree with Wyss on the length of the intro.
Finally, could someone please actually address my question:
Is the passage
He established a totalitarian state through effective propaganda and paramilitary violence.
intended to refer to Hitler's rise to power or to his governing the Third Reich. Paramilitary violence played a part in the former but not in the second case. Coercion or repression are more fitting in the second case.
Str1977 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I suspect it's meant to apply to both his gradual rise, through his consolidation of power through the Enabling Act and straight through to the end. I also think it's incomplete and poorly worded to the point of being misleading. Wyss 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but that creates the ambiguity that others decry, especially in regard to violence. I am more in favour of including a statement about the actual regime, being based on consensus and terror. Str1977 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The word terror is too loaded to use, even here, though terror it was, and violence it was. Coercion can involve either applied or threatened force. Indeed, the force they applied wasn't always so violent, but usually effective enough. The term violent is vague and misleading. While I think the phrase coercion through paramilitary and police power since some readers seem to think that means a polite wink and meek request to clamber into the cattle car or whatever, why bother with it? The body of the article mostly does a very helpful job of explaining how he did all this. Why irritate and distract readers with a dodgy, over-long intro? Wyss 01:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Wyss. With "consensus and terror" I was only referring to principle I know from my studies of fascist Italy. I did edit the text to reinclude "propaganda and coercion". It use coercion exactly because it can involve either applied or threatened force. (Actually terror has that dual nature as well, as it refers to the fear caused, but unfortunately many associated terror with the violence itself and wouldn't distinguish, say, terrorist attacks from assasinations). Again I agree about the length. Str1977 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, for precise adjectives, the best I've ever heard applied to the SA (both in books and by people who saw them first hand) is thugs. Wyss 01:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Allies and Axis powers

This is all well documented, even in WP. The Declaration by United Nations in 1942 established the UK, USA, USSR and many other countries as the Allies. Germany was aligned and treatied with the Axis powers including Italy and Japan. Describing them any other way is non-standard, unsupported by the historical record and will chavel the article's credibility with any informed reader. Wyss 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss, I never disputed that the terms you use are standard. I was concerned for the flow and the possible confusion. But I won't push this issue. However, to say that "Anti-Hitler Coalition" is non-standard or unsupported or even that it would harm the article's credibility is, to put it bluntly, nonsense. Str1977 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense? I've cited the terms. Anyway you've now got the word power in that sentence three times and it'll never stick stylistically. Truth be told, part of the skill of writing these articles is using accepted terminologies in a smooth and seamless narrative flow. Please reassure me and say you didn't deliberately use the word 3x to make a point? One can call the Allies the Allies and find an alternate word for power, leaving Axis powers as the only instance in the sentence. Wyss 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, Wyss, read carefully not your terms are nonsense, but the dismissing tone regarding AHC.
No, I wasn't trying to make a point by using "powers" (I didn't count it, though I liekd the parallel structure Axis Powers vs. Allied Powers). I just think Allies, accurate or not, a bit too vague. It might be the official term but as such it was used by the Allies and the Allies knew whom they were allied to. "Allied Powers" makes it clearer that we are not talking about some allies but a specific group of that name. I wouldn't mind changing the first instance of power. Str1977 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Trust me, in the context of 1939-45, Allies and Axis powers have ultra precise, stark, standard and widely understood meanings :) Wyss 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Er, you don't have to trust me, click on the wikified cites above. Wyss 01:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I trust you and I know that these are precise. I was just concerned about the flow.
However, I don't understand what you mean by wikified cites. The articles on "Axis powers" and "Allies" (actually "Allies of World War II")? Or the link to the UN Declaration - I can't find the words "Allies" or "Axis" in there)?
Are these two actually the official terms of the alliances in question? Axis isn't really, as the Axis never was and never was intended as a formal alliance, rather Mussolini's surrogate for such an alliance while he was still contemplating. Is Allies an official term.
Or are these terms used by historians? I know Axis Powers are, and Allies are too, but I have also read Allied Powers. We should ask a native speaking historian, as my first language is German. There we'd have "Achsenmächte" and "Alliierte" (which doesn't creat the "Allies vs. allies" problem). Str1977

In Anglo-Saxon culture (English), these were and are the "official" terms. Newspapers and radio at the time used them, history books still use them, every biography of every person from that time I've read uses them and lastly, everyone I've ever known who was alive then and has spoken to me about it in English has used the terms... Allies and Axis (powers). I've heard and read variations in French and German but this is the En WP.

The article Declaration by United Nations explains the legal treaty that bound them (it was the genesis of the present day UN by the bye) and goes on to say that they were referred to as the Allies. The article Axis powers does a similar job (though after the essentials, towards the end, someone dumped in some incoherent machine translation gunk).

Yes, sometimes you will see Allied powers but not nearly as often.

In 40s era lit one will often see Axis used stand-alone. I think I've even seen this in comic books from the period (I'm a Betty and Veronica fan, Archie got his start in something called "Pep" comics during the era and I've seen several of them). Wyss 02:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand the argument here. "Allies" is a standard term, and if capitalized, can be understood to be a proper noun referring to the anti-German powers in World War II. That said, I think Str is right that the particular usage in question is a bit awkward. I'd prefer "Allied powers." "Germany was defeated by the Allies," with no context, just sounds awkward to me. I'd also make the side point that Wyss is most certainly wrong to say that any other terminology is "unsupported by the historical record." During World War II itself, the most commonly used term for the Allies was "the United Nations." For obvious reasons of ambiguity and confusion, this has not been used by historians. john k 05:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why they call them the Allies in this context. I'm not making this stuff up :) Wyss 14:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely not. But "Allied Powers" would further forestall confusion - is that term really so outrageous? Str1977 14:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This whole dispute sounds like a tempest in a teacup. I don't think the standard term 'Allies' is so vague that we need to invent a similar neologism like 'Allied Powers'. But 'Allied powers' sounds ok too. I could go either way, but without capitalizing Powers when talking about the Allies. Wesley 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Truly... the standard, widely understood terms in English for the two combatant groups of countries during the 1939-45 war are Allies and Axis powers. Wyss 14:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the term "Allies," but I repeat that it seems awkward in the particular context of the disputed sentence. What's wrong with "Allied powers"? john k 21:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)