Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 26

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

Historiographical methods

The only interesting thing to have emerged from the above sections is that historiographical methods are themselves indicative of a stance and open to question, not just among a bunch of anonymous editors but also among serious historians.

To say life under Hitler was "relatively benign" (ex. Michael) or that it's not up to us to decide who was the "average" or "good German" (ex. Yooden) may both be statements that reveal no POV for or against Hitler (the subject of the article) but have disturbing repercussions for the documentation of the subject itself as one of the views appears to unintentionally buy into the ideologies behind what constitutes "normality" and consequently exclusion.

Similarly, "terror" (which I only favour over the contextually meaningless "coercion", but not on its own terms) can be interpreted as widespread physical violence, or something in combination with psychological oppression, or mostly repression with the threat of violence, and the exact nature of its extent will continue being under debate - especially with Nazism, where there are at least two well-known views, ie that there was not much 'terror' in Germany because 'mainstream' Germans themselves took the initiative in repressing minorities, and the more 'official version', ie without the rise and rule of the Nazi party, the minorities may never have faced as much suffering as they did.

There are a large number of books with a variety of views. Any historical period is complex and no one can sum up that complexity in a few phrases, much less one word. There is clearly no neutral point of view, anyone who insists otherwise is being extremely silly and/or ignorant.

However, my objection all along has been and continues to be that without mentioning the many documented, violent atrocities against Germans of whatever background in the days of Nazism before the war, one is doing a disservice to those victims and since they were of sufficient number to deserve mention in the header, the word chosen needs to at least reflect the gravity of the situation and the specific nature of the atrocities instead of deflecting them to vague bodies ("paramilitary", etc). It's much more crucial than say, explaining the origins of WW2 which has its own lengthy article.

So here we go again... -- Simonides 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Then find a way to mention them specifically in the intro. The atrocities against Jewish people in 1930s Germany are widely-documented and not at all disputed among serious historians. Meanwhile, the current use of the term terror is wholly misleading. Wyss 00:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
We are trying to find a way, here. Terror is not misleading so much as not being informative enough, but as a vagary (since Michael and you both agree that vagaries are sufficient) it is a much better one than either "paramilitarism" or "coercion", with perhaps less of the connotations of "violence". Since the discrete nature of the events versus the generalisations of chosen words bothers us, we could perhaps settle for "acts of ... (violence/terror/brutality/etc)". -- Simonides 00:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, but I think terror has been the least helpful choice yet. AH did not ride into power in D on a wave of terror and violence. Yeah, there was some beerhall thuggery and violent Jew-baiting but they aren't characterised as such in the intro. The problem is that to keep the intro both precise and balanced, it could turn into a small article of its own. I say it's already too long. Wyss 00:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with saying "acts of terror" instead of just "terror"? If concision's important, why do we still keep an explanation of WW2 that we were fine without before? -- Simonides 00:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The acts of terror were by and large deliberately focused against Jewish people and took place mostly after the Enabling Act. The intro implies he got into office through terror which is not historically supported. Personally, I don't think any summary of WW2 is needed, the briefest mention would do (for me), perhaps as prelude to a mention of his suicide. Wyss 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Misleading into what? How could this possibly be misunderstood? --Yooden
I explained that above. Wyss 00:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

One thing to bear in mind, though: The reference to the Holocaust is IMHO spot on and belongs "as is" in the intro. This, combined with the existing reference to anti-semitism which you've added (and which is a bit of a spin- most of the eletorate grew up as anti-semites anyway), could give readers the false impression that AH was given power in Germany in order to embark on a crusade of destruction against anyone and everything Jewish and that is not a supported view. Wyss 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse the cliche, but let's not open a new can of worms. The talk of economic need, crises and oratory are a sufficient counterweight. If readers get the impression you say they might, an unlikely interpretation then becomes the responsibility of the reader, not ours. -- Simonides 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it had best be opened. The intro is somewhat misleading now and is steadily degenerating into a summary which would be more suitable for Adolf Hitler's anti-Semitism, for which, with a tweak or two, it would not be "degenerated" at all. Wyss 00:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I seriously don't think that the anti-Semitism can be overstated, and that the intro is long enough. -- Simonides 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Here, Simonides, is where we disagree so starkly. While I recognize the importance of aggressively and plainly describing the horrors of the Holocaust, AH's rise to power was not based on his anti-Semitic appeal. Indeed, most educated people thought he was laying on the anti-Semitism a bit too thickly, and mostly for rabble-rousing propaganda purposes. One way or another the camps came as a shock to most Germans, even given the nominal anti-Semitism most people grew up with then. Wyss 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. I never wrote that his rise to power was based exclusively on his anti-Semitism, but I did say it was very important, and few would deny that.
  2. It is not true that the camps came as a shock 'to most Germans' (perhaps to many, but "to most" is arguable), which is something recent works have tried to show, and this is something I've tried to explain further below. -- Simonides 07:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Wyss that anti-Semitism certainly was not the prime factor in Hitler's appeal and hence I have consistently relegated it to the end of the trias economics, nationalis, a-S. Str1977 12:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I've said the same myself so we all agree. My only caveat being that the anti-Semitism cannot be understated. -- Simonides 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The reality of the camps indeed came as a shock to these Germans that were forced by the allies to see the camps (as in Buchenwald) or that saw them in the cinema. That doesn't mean that they couldn't have known before. There's an interesting saying: "People didn't know all but they knew enough that knew that they didn't want to know more!" So, in a way, a non-invincibly ignorance. Str1977 12:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your saying pins it down pretty fairly. -- Simonides 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say most Germans learned about the camps in 1945. Wyss 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the importance of anti-semitism in Hitler's rise to power, I think it's not right to suggest that anti-semitism was a principal cause leading people to vote for the Nazis. It just wasn't - the Nazis' miserable failure in the 1928 elections shows the very limited appeal that straight-up anti-semitism, in the absence of any other appealing program, had on the German electorate. That said, anti-semitism always remained an extremely important, if not central, aspect of the Nazis' own program (although it was somewhat played down in the 1930-1932 period). john k 21:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nuremberg Tribunal and questions of 'legality' in Hitler, Kaas and related Wikipedia Articles

Forgive me breaking in , but I refer good editors to the Indictment made against the Nazis and other parties as totheir Conspiracy or Common Purpose. There have been numerous attempts made directly to me, and directly within the Wikipedia presentation of the overall Nazi History, to claim that Hitler came to power legally, that he was voted into power legally, that he had an accession to power. This informs everything from Holocaust downwards so , since a User, a usual User, managed to set a Wikipedia Archiving record of precisely six minutes to separately Archive the relevant Nuremberg Indictment covering the so called accession to power, may I leave this link to that sourced Indictment? It is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_Kaas/Archive2 ,[[1]]. To reduce it to its pith, others were incited to join with the conspiracy towards the paragovernmental organisation, the conspirators possessed themselves of the machinery of the German State, and theyreduced the Reichstag to a body of their nominees. There was no legality in the possession nor in the reducing, and statements as to legality of Hitler's achievement of power should not be supported in the Articles, nor those others incited allowed the assumption of legality and such good faith as this and other Articles maintain, even by omission. EffK 00:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And thereby the Article entry of AH establishing power is utterly un-historical, and kind. If you wish to be kind to Hitler, by all means be so, but know what you do by remaining with this, in effect, disinformation. No disrespect intended to these above editors, who are presented with the earlier dis-information. EffK 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is hindsight semantics. The force of law was convincing enough to the establishment at the time. There is a legal problem with the Nazis having coerced the exclusion of socialist deputies from the Reichstag, but at the time even this was "justified" through sundry emergency powers rationales. The constitution itself was (deliberately) flawed in 1918 and the flaws were for the most part cleaned up in the post war Bonn constitution. Wyss 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back Wyss. Establishment ? Indeed it was Arthur Rosenberg who delineated the flaws within months, which is hardly hindsight. And it is rather more hindsight to characterise it all as legal and brought about by the powers of oratory, what? EffK 09:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
EffK, the illegality of one element/action/event does not mean that the government suddenly is no longer the legal government. Str1977 12:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Terror and the Intro (normal service is resumed)

  • The use of the term terror in the intro is open to the same criticism as the current use of the term War on Terror. Terror is the state induced in the victim, and not the politically-motivated means by which that state is induced, the term for which is terrorism - but would terrorism (rather than, say, paramilitarism) be appropriate in this article? Perhaps police intimidation and paramilitary brutality gives the right combination.
  • We've had it out before on the length of the introduction. Most are agreed that the inclusion of Holocaust is appropriate, but it seems to me that this justifies the inclusion of other aspects of Hitler's career, leading to over-accomplishment. I suggested an even lengthier intro (Intro again section above) - for the sake of readability - but if the intro is to be brief, then it should be confined to - Name/DOB-DOD/parents/education/war-service/party leadership/chancellorship/caused (or provoked or started) WWII/defeat. In other words, a standard WP histroy biog intro. It is simple, after all!--shtove 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This is more or less my take on it, too. With this article, IMHO, less is more for an intro. Wyss 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The daunting appeal of AH

  • Snubbing the treaty of Versailles
  • Germany stabbed in the back by November criminals
  • Volkish pride, appeals to German cultural superiority - nationalism
  • Fear of Marxism, anarchy
  • Economic insecurity (inflation at times had been several hundred percent per week)
  • Government widely perceived as ineffectual after Wilhelm's abdication
  • AH did exploit the common, nominal anti-Semitism people had at the time by casting "International Jewry" as the cause of many troubles. He apparently believed it (it's the final thing he mentioned in his last politcal will hours before he killed himself), but in 1933 this was background noise to the German political brokers and industrialists who supported him.

Through adroit political skill applied through years of risky effort and with the support of large swaths of the German establishment, AH got himself appointed chancellor, used the Enabling Act to achieve dictatorial powers, then set out to "save the world" in his image. Few people understood until it was far too late that whatever his beliefs, charisma, leadership skills or other talents, he was a stark raving mad lunatic.

The pith of his incompetence, which many (but not all) of his closest supporters came to accept, was that he left Germany (and Europe) in ruins with millions of Germans dead and even more with shattered lives. Then we ponder the tens of millions more who died, the notion that civilization (such as it is) was set back perhaps a generation.

The intro would be unhelpful if it emphasizes any of these things out of their true proportions. Wyss 01:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This issue is more complex than you paint it, and that's something I tried to explain when speaking of "methods". To sample the variety of opinions on the debate, simply go to Amazon.com and look up some of these authors: Kershaw, Gellately, Peukert, Dawidowicz, Bartov, Hilberg, etc to name a few. As some historians will tell you, Hitler's anti-intellectualism, anti-Marxism, and especially anti-Semitism were certainly not just "background noise", and while it may not have been of tremendous importance in 1933, its drastic escalation was only possible for a web of reasons that no scholar has explained away in absolute terms; secondly, some historians will also tell you that much of what you attribute to Hitler could also be attributed to the Nazi platform (not shaped entirely by Hitler) and to Goebbel's unprecedented propaganda (which, obviously, sought to create an image of Hitler that had little to do with Hitler the person); thirdly, there is no specific set of reasons/origins/etc that all historians/biographers agree on, so someone who diminishes Hitler's role in every aspect (as Bullock does, by trying to show Hitler as an ambitious but hateful and otherwise not very exceptional man who serendipitously ended up with as much power as he did) may also diminish the role of his particular anti-Semitism (by highlighting the responsibility of the general populace, as Gellately does), and someone who tends to vaunt Hitler a bit (like Shirer) may also keep emphasizing the importance of Nazi anti-Semitism, and so on - there are many reasons for Hitler's appeal, but there is no standard opinion on what constitutes the "true proportions". -- Simonides 06:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with the lack of a "standard" take or opinion. The pith is that the intro should show a full sweep of qualities and circumstances, nor none but his political offices, b-d dates and a reference to the Holocaust. Wyss 19:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure any relevant qualities are being left out. We don't want to start discussing his fond relations with some friends and colleagues. -- Simonides 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Beg pardon,And Mowrer publishing in 1933 was quite clear about the 'background'appeal and 'perish the Jew' facet. Again, why does the 1921 Program not appear , which explains a great deal?EffK 09:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
EffK, I am sorry to say but you appearently have no clue what the discussion is about. A journalist in 1933 can write about his observations and perceptions but he certainly cannot give a fully and comprehensive picture. Neither can a book from 1936, regardless how hard it tries. That's why the debate goes on, that's why books are still published. There is no one easy answer to this. If you want the manifesto to appear then include it. We don't have all the time in the world. Str1977 12:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This is so true. Have you guys ever read microfiches of newspapers from the era? The general perception then was much different from the one we have now (since historians have had access to so much that wasn't publicised then, never mind the benefits of hindsight) and often, much more sympathetic to AH btw, mostly since nobody yet knew tens of millions would die because of his amazingly inept actions. Wyss 19:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Nobody knew millions would die, but the latter, rather obvious fact doesn't illuminate much on the degree to which racial theories etc. played a role. One more time, no one here has argued for the centrality of anti-Semitism, anti-intellectualism and so on, but they were always worrisome aspects of Nazism. That they ended up causing a shocking number of deaths doesn't mean that everyone was placid or clueless till they realised the full extent of the crimes. -- Simonides 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Earlier, Simonides wrote, I seriously don't think that the anti-Semitism can be overstated (Disclaimer by me: The anti-Semitism must, IMO, always be stressed and highlighted, though)
  • I never said people were "placid" or "clueless," nor do I think they were.
  • For example, millions died for AH's notions of Liebensraum. Wyss 01:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems you don't care much for historical subtleties. That the anti-Semitism cannot be overstated is perfectly consistent with saying it was not something central, and I have stated the latter since I began participating here. Let me rephrase: a) there are no quantifiable scales of how serious the anti-Semitism was in terms of their overall traumatic effects; b) anti-Semitism was not the only platform of the Nazi party; do you see how the two are compatible statements?
The anti-Semitism was legislated and rather traumatic for Jewish people who didn't (or couldn't) get out of the way. Quantifiable? He came close to wiping out the Jewish population of Europe. However, in 1933 it was not at all clear he would actually attempt to do this. Wyss 01:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Wiping out a population is not merely about numbers, and anyway we are not talking about the later systematic genocide but the general anti-Semitism before the war. Secondly, you keep repeating this meaningless line about what people knew (or did not) in 1933, which I already replied to above - the short answer being so what? What people "knew" or "predicted" about the final outcome is no indication of the degree to which anti-Semitism played a role, a topic on which - one more time - there is no clear consensus among scholars, but they all agree it was significant - and which, although it was not the main or only cause of Nazi popularity, and no one claims the latter cannot be ignored in any short summary as redundant or 'background noise'. -- Simonides 05:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The summary starkly mentions that AH appealed to anti-semitism and that this culiminated with the Holocaust. There's no need to add anything more. Wyss 14:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Wyss. Michael Dorosh 20:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
So what are we arguing about then? I never wanted to add anything extra about anti-Semitism, I thought you wanted to remove the first mention. The acts of terror being discussed apply to a broader section of the public and that's a separate issue, if that's what you mean. -- Simonides 20:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Angela Merkel today

"Looking back to German history in the early 1930s when National Socialism (Nazism) was on the rise, there were many outside Germany who said 'It's only rhetoric -- don't get excited'."

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, Munich, 4 Feb 2006

Wyss 21:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That quote reveals nothing of historical importance. There were also many inside Germany who said the same, and there were also many both inside and outside Germany who thought otherwise. Let's keep our citations germane. -- Simonides 00:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think a citation containing something said a few hours ago on this general topic, by a woman who holds AH's old job title, is relevant enough for mention here on the talk page and certainly at least as relevant as anything any editor here has to say. Wyss 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Following your logic, a quote by George Bush on how the US "saved" Europe would also be a relevant quote for WP editors on the history of World War 2, I assume? -- Simonides 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Hitler-Bush Rule

At this time I would like to propose a variant to Godwin's Law, the Hitler-Bush Rule, whereby it has been observed that, during the presidency of George W. Bush, as any conversation having to do with Adolf Hitler progresses in time, the probability of Mr Bush's name being invoked approaches 1. Similarly, I respectfully propose that whoever invokes Mr Bush's name automatically concedes the discussion and the thread ends. Wyss 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Simonides was simply reverting to sarcasm as he seems to do frequently. His manner of "debate" - sarcasm and personal attacks - are off-putting. Thanks for hanging in there, Wyss.Michael Dorosh 20:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Page clutter. -- Simonides 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

Since Wyss and perhaps some other editors are terribly concerned about an unavoidable POV slant this article may take on within the first few sentences, which I personally think is a small concern given the subject, why don't we all channel our efforts towards cleaning up articles worthy of the cause, such as this long compilation of POV sources, right-wing distortions, and even utter nonsense (with the exception of the section "Criticism") : New Anti-Semitism? I was an early editor on that page and tried with others to get it deleted, but unfortunately there is a very heavy-handed group of ignorant and zealous editors who will obstinately erase or reshape any attempt at objectivity on that and all related articles. With the exception of one or two points, most of the energy expended on this Talk page is wasteful as we seem to agree on generalities but quibble over the choice of words; future editors may even settle for a header without a summary of any sort. -- Simonides 05:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that neo nazi groups still exist. But I am also surprised that neo-commie groups seem stronger. You don't see a lock for vandals on those articles. This is quite an issue not because of the lock, but because there are no vandals there! More of a societal observation. JHerdez.

Triggered or started WWII?

This has of course discussed already, but I think that triggered is undisputed and started is somewhat doubtful because the English declared war on Germany after Germany invaded Poland. "Triggered" is a fact, while "started" is an interpretation and moral judgement about repsonsibility which I think is unsuitable for the summary. Andries 14:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I first tried triggered. Not only is there a moral judgement involved with "started," but it's not clear he thought England and France would honour their treaties with Poland and go to war over it. He'd been successfully bluffing his way through big territorial acquisitions for years. Wyss 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest "triggered" as more accurate. It takes two to tango. On a technical note, war didn't exist in a declared sense until Britain declared war...so I think "triggered" is much more correct. Michael Dorosh 20:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I was uncomfortable with "started" as I wrote quite a while back and I was fine with "triggered". I don't know who put it back in there. -- Simonides 20:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I don't think that "started" involves a moral judgement, Wyss, except we probably all agree that war is bad, and this war in particular. But that is our common judgement and not what the world actually says.
As for accuracy, to say that Hitler didn't start the war is quite outrageous. Yes, Britain declared war on him after he invaded Poland, but that only widened the war. The war didn't start with the Bristish declaration. I don't know why anyone should think that. Granted, had Britain and France not honored their treaties we wouldn't be talking about World' war II but only about the Germano-Polish war 1939, but it was a war nonetheless - a war that came to be called World War II. Str1977 21:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It is clear that Hitler did not declare war. Triggered is a metaphor, and Started is not accurate; a while ago I suggested Provoked - it connotes culpability without offending against the legal definition. Acceptable?--shtove 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Concision

The word count of the second para, the one constantly under debate, was at 105 words as of Wyss' last edit yesterday, and after wikification, adding persecution and a rebuilt economy, is at 91 as of my last edit today - 14 words less with more information (comparison here - it only looks longer because of the Wiki links). I see the need to make it shorter, but let's not aim for concision by removing phrases or information that have just gained some 'stability' in the header. -- Simonides 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

PS about the rebuilt economy - we are saying "Hitler's tot. regime rebuilt... etc" not that he did it single-handedly. And technically, Germany did not declare war, Britain and France did on Germany, making 'triggered' slightly more suitable. -- Simonides 21:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. But it's still misleading. Two factors contributed to the economic recovery - the international economic situation and Hitler's deficit spending, largely for military or proto-military projects. Hence the part that can actually be attributed to Hitler is already contained in the armament.
And, please, Simonides, how long do I have to listen to this. A war is war and not a declaration. Whether Hitler declared war on Poland or not - he started the war against Poland. What England or France did is completely irrelevant to the question "war or no war". Str1977 21:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please understand Str1977, that I am not arguing for the sake of argument - just want to point out two things. Yes, there were other factors in the economic recovery but there is a sizeable section later on in the article attributing the improved industries to Hitler's restructuring, and I thought something about that should be mentioned (particularly with Wyss' demand for rounding out Hitler's political appeal); and two, as you already know, Hitler also annexed part of Czechoslovakia and Italy annexed Albania, neither of which "started" WW2 - just trying to maintain technical accuracy here. And can you please re-add the Wikilink for Lebensraum to 'expansionist foreign policy'? -- Simonides 21:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Re the economy: This is why I suggested a passive contruction a while back.
Re the war: Hitler annexed Bohemia and Moravia but this was under the cloak of legality and hence there was no war. Had the Czechs fought the invaders, there would have been a war. Italy is not part of the whole situation. The war we call WW2 is the one that started with the German invasion of Poland.
Re the link: I botched up the last edit. I have now done what I actually wanted to do last time, including the link. I have also included the economy again, albeit in the passive. Unfortunately the persecuted minorities passage is now "hanging around in the open air".
Str1977 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You made some typos in your haste too, I'll try to clean it up and put "started" in the passive. I also think we can do without "aggressive" as it's editorial. -- Simonides 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Current form

100 words. It's a lovely round number and includes everything everyone here wants to say - can we please, please leave this alone? -- Simonides 23:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's amateurish.

  • Michael Dorosh, Andries and myself agree triggered is the more accurate term.
  • Persecution of minorities is already explicitly covered in the Holocaust sentence.
  • There were two very serious garblings/typos.
  • Word count means little, the intro must be balanced, succinct, accurate, non-redundant and free of blatant spin. Wyss 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
1 I prefer triggered as well. However, by saying the expansionism started WW2 is passive and accurate enough.
2 Persecution of minorities (including homosexuals, gypsies, Communists etc) under the regime needs distinct mention from the systematic genocide during the war.
3 I corrected the typos before you edited the article.
4 Word count is just an indication.
5 The above paragraph is balanced, succinct, mentions everything under the sun that's significant, but admittedly has an awkward phrase or two. However, anyone who finds "blatant spin" in there probably needs a serious psychological evaluation.
6 Editing's about compromise. If someone doesn't want to compromise, I suggest they start a blog. I think the current paragraph, unless it can be made to sound better or briefer without losing any information or adding any editorial language like "aggressive", is a suitable compromise among all of us.
7 If we can't agree, let's vote on keep vs delete for the above version.-- Simonides 23:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Started is not accurate, triggered is close.
  2. This is covered under racial policies, redundancy distracts and wontedly creates an impression of (emotional) slant/bias/PoV.
  3. There was an editing conflict, the typos aren't important here.
  4. Yep, let's drop that.
  5. There is a specific WP policy against inferring any presumed psychological state of other editors, please don't do that again. Please review WP:Civility and WP:NPA, thanks.
  6. You're lecturing me about compromise? Let's drop that too, I'm trying to be circumspect and cooperative here. Please don't unilaterally revert and then cover your actions by accusing others of unilateral reverts.
  7. WP is not a democracy, however it is a collaborative project which ideally attempts to adhere to encyclopedic principles as discussed in WP policy. I'm willing to continue to work with all editors who are watching and/or participating on this page. Since it's so high traffic, some of these editors show extreme restraint but do express themselves often enough. I'm ok with being patient about this. Wyss 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, both Str1977 and I were discussing and editing accordingly despite our disagreements, before you made a couple of reverts and then joined the Talk page after being specifically requested to. I'm not interested in this tit for tat game - the point is that there is a deadlock and the above passage is either a compromise or something very close, and your involvement, once again, is only breaking it up. Nothing you have suggested since the start of your debates on the header has been constructive and, in my opinion, has only created polarisation where none existed (see the whole redundant section on Anti-Semitism above in which you were busy attacking some strawman and others chimed in.)
It's true WP is not a democracy. However, votes commonly decide some issues on WP and on this high-traffic article it makes sense to agree on a final header so that our collective efforts are better spent on preventing vandalism, improving other articles, and adding to other sections on the same page. -- Simonides 00:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Str1977 isn't the only other editor involved here. I think you're aware others have mentioned your behaviour here has not been generally helpful. Given your repeated remarks about other editors, I must say your tone is consistantly judgemental, arrogant, shrill and emotional. IMHO your edits have been deliberately designed to emphasize a personal agenda and have tended to slant the introduction towards unsupported and misleading interpretations. Other editors have plainly addressed these issues too, see above. Wyss 00:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm the only one so far to cite scholarly material and encourage others to refer to the same, as opposed to your exaggerated or illogical ranting; but don't stop, the rest was amusing too. -- Simonides 01:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Certainly I am not the only editor around here. My proposal is the following:

Hitler gained power in a Germany facing crises. He used charismatic oratory and propaganda to appeal to economic need, nationalism and anti-Semitism and established a totalitarian regime. After the economy had been rebuilt and the military rearmed, Hitler commenced an expansionist foreign policy that triggered World War II. By 1940 Germany and the Axis Powers occupied much of Europe, but they were defeated by the Allies in 1945. By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in a genocide now known as the Holocaust. The death toll is commonly cited as about 11 million people, including about 6 million Jews.

  • I agree that the persecution is already covered under Holocaust, and that currently it looks clumsy.
  • I am willing to yield on the word "started" but not to the arguments used around here. It is the plain hard fact that Nazi Germany started the war on 1 September 1939. It is as accurate as it can get. But I am willing to consider a version of "triggered" or "led to", if you guys finally concede the accuracy of what I am saying.

Str1977 01:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Between you and me, on this talk page, yeah, he started it but in encyclopedic terms the word triggered implies that Europe was already primed for war and provides a more helpful context for the successful bluffing strategy he had been employing, along with leaving open for the reader the distinct possibility he thought he might get away with it one more time (which is to say, again skirt England and France declaring war on Germany). I also agree with Andries that started carries an unencyclopedic implication of moral judgement (let the reader do that). Wyss 01:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Since Str1977's proposed paragraph is largely in agreement with the comments offered by four other editors (including myself), I've copy-pasted it verbatim into the article. Wyss 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Provoked rather than started or triggered - accurate and connotes culpability. A Germany facing crises is plain awkward, as is appeal to economic need (the appeal was to those suffering in the conditions, not to the conditions). On the death tolls, the word about is otiose. I'm inclined to the earlier view of Wyss, that the intro should deal with the essentials of the man's life: otherwise, the argument is prone to flare up whenever an opinionated user first encounters all the opinion in the intro.--shtove 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In the article, the section is currently in italics. We don't need to be that "verbatim".:)
  • As I repeated in this section it is important to note the arbitrary terror/persecution/violence etc against everyone the Nazis disliked, such as Communists, gypsies, Jews and so on (over a period of six years between 1933 to 1939) versus the more intensified and a lot more systematic genocide that more or less started with the onset of the war. I would appreciate if we could agree on some phrase to add in the header that would reflect this long and rather disturbing period under Nazism.
  • I am fine with triggered, but I also think Shtove's proposal of provoked is a reasonable compromise. Whatever the word chosen - no strong opinion either way - "triggered" certainly has none of the extensive connotations that some editors conjure up.
  • 'Economy rebuilt' sounds very awkward.
-- Simonides 02:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the italics which I accidently carried over. Wyss 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
As as been pointed out repeatedly above by at least three editors, I believe, the general persecution is already handled in inroductory form through the "racial policies/Holocaust" sentence. Wyss 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I prefer triggered, would prefer even more a much briefer intro but I'm ok with what's up at this time. Wyss 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The Economy rebuilt wording in that sentence IMHO does need minor tweaking, only as to syntax and word forms. Wyss 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I've just made the necessary edits.
The "racial policies" phrase, once again,
  1. suggests nothing about other marginalized groups such as homosexuals, Leftists of various stripes but especially Communists, and so on.
  2. The six year period before the war is not generally considered part of the Holocaust, the latter referring more to the systematized killing rather than the domestic persecution. In any other country or era, six years of such persecution would warrant mention, but in this case they are simply (unfairly) being subsumed under the later atrocities due to their scope.
  3. It's a bit of a historical simplification if left out. There'd be no insight into your own repetitive badgering on how the Germans had "no idea" what the ultimate consequences were, and suggests that Nazism went straight from mere prejudice to the extermination of millions. -- Simonides 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Simonides, you have changed rebuilt to recovered. I don't think recovered is accurate and gives AH and the Nazis too much credit for fiscal responsibility, since the economy was rebuilt largely on aramaments spending financed by deficit spending and massive borrowing. Wyss 03:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not "restructured" as per the article? Feel free to insert your own version. -- Simonides 03:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Restructured, IMO, works. Wyss 15:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Another try: With a restructured economy and rearmed military - I forgot to Wikify however. -- Simonides 03:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note: "provoked" is utterly unacceptable. It implies that Hitler teased others until they started the war, when in fact Germany was the first to march. Str1977 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Provoked is what it is - no implication of teasing. Hitler provoked other states, to the point that they declared war - and it was a justified war.--shtove 14:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't like provoked either, mainly because it implies an accusatory moral judgement, liked started. IMO this conclusion is accurate, but not an appropriate one to assert in the intro to a long and detailed article like this.
For what it's worth, I'm ok with the intro as it's worded now. Wyss 15:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)