Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 30

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

Totalitarianism and Fascism

I notice that, at the moment, neither "fascism" nor "totalitarianism" is to be found in the intro. This is fine with me. On the other hand, later on, the article rather blandly states that Hitler was trying to establish a totalitarian state, with no sense that the word's meaning is problematic. At the same time, the only mention of the word "fascist" or "fascism" in the article is with respect to Italy. I don't really have strong opinions on the intro specifically, but I think that, in general, any use of "totalitarian" or "totalitarianism" needs to be problematized (that is, the narrative voice of wikipedia should not simply be saying that Hitler's regime was totalitarian - it should say that it has been described as totalitarian), and that there needs to be some mention that the National Socialist movement and the regime which it established have been described as fascist. This is all. john k 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think fascism should be in the intro and that totalitarianism has no place here, except I'd be ok with using this loaded term if its used in an non authoritative manner, i.e. as one being described as totalitarian. Its important not to give credence to a disputed theory. Fascism on the other hand has no such problem. As has been shown the majority view holds that Nazism is one variety of fascism, a supercharged one at that. MikaM 03:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with the intro as it is, too. I've no problem with succinct, objective references to the important nuances in the terms fascist and totalitarian as used by historians and I'm all for qualifying language in this context, (described as, etc) as mentioned by John Kenney. For example, I have zero problems with the body of the text mentioning that Nazism has been described as fascism and so on. Wyss 22:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

While the tot. vs fasc. debate was quite unproductive and in my opinion, unwarranted, removal of either from the header and the inclusion of weasel words/evasive language/etc reintroduces POV and silliness. Was Hitler a dictator or not? Undisputedly. If you can't find other words to describe his dictatorship, then throw the latter in. If dictatorship is not your cup of tea, keep making the rounds with a tiny thesaurus. All this hyper-political correctness, where it isn't even accurate or necessary, is highly absurd. -- Simonides 00:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Your PoV and emotion are showing :) Wyss 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel the same way, I think the whole fascist/totalitarian issue was forced by Giovanni33 (talk • contribs)'s trolling. I ran a quick Google search (see below) and both terms seem to be used with about the same frequency. In absence of an agreement, removing the term from the intro might be best. Even though this leads to hyper-political correctness (see the comment above), it's tough to imagine how else a consensus could be achieved.
Yes, I forced the issue but this is because of a desire for improving the article, and has nothing to do with "trolling." That's rather insulting. Giovanni33 10:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Wyss, its not accurate or fair to describe Giovanni33 as trolling. I suggest you stop that. Please review the civility policy and then practice it. He has argued along with other editors well about the appropriate use of the word fascism to describe Nazi Germany, and at the same time gave good reasons to avoid totalitarianism. Even your search below, contrary to your claim supports his argument and does not give an almost equal frequency. Clearly fascism comes up about twice as much, clearly way in the lead over others. Its not a matter of being politically correct it's about of being accurate and reflecting the modern scholary consensus on the term. MikaM 03:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Search term
# of hits
Hitler + totalitarian
800k
Hitler + fascist
1.6m
Hitler + "totalitarian state"
100k
Hitler + "fascist state"
70k
--Jbetak 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No, raw Google word searches are unscientific in terms of historical accuracy. Moreover, interpreting them is original research. However, although the presumption of using Google is false, I agree with the conclusion in that the intro can do without either term. Wyss 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this was merely an attempt to show that it would not be surprising, if the body of editors was evenly split on the issue. The whole discussion has been quite wasteful. Jbetak 01:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
We do agree and I know you weren't trying to be scientific. I also, sadly, agree that some serious trolling and wiki-revenge tactics have been at play here. Wyss 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
To remove mention of Hitler's dictatorship is unhistorical, POV and unacceptable. It doesn't matter what word precisely we settle on, so long as it is mentioned. -- Simonides 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. The term dictatorship is undescriptive, misleading and potentially PoV. Beacuse of this, the term is unscholarly and unencyclopedic. WP is not a blog. Wyss 01:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hitler wasn't a dictator? Whatever next? This is one of the most batty things I've ever heard. How many "scholars" would suggest that Hitler wasn't a dictator? Bonkers! Camillus (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting result - twice as many hits for Fascist as totalitarian. I'd be content to see a discussion of both terms in the body of the article, mentioning, even if briefly, that Hitler's ideology has been characterised as a Fascist, and his regime as totalitarian, with appropriate links - eg. link to section in the Fascism article where the differences between Nazism and Fascism are discussed. I agree with Simonides comment above. Now I see that Wyss is asserting that Hitler wasn't a dictator. "What Next?"
I feel it's rather sad when Wikipedians call others "trolls" when they dare to disagree with them. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of trolling. Camillus (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As wonted, Camillus does what he can to distort my posts and be confrontational.

  • AH was a dictator. He was also (forgive me) a lunatic fucking asshole. Neither term is scholarly or encyclopedic. Understood?
To use one of your favourite (rather quaint) words : Codswallop. Every reputable scholar who ever put pen to paper calls Hitler a dictator. So how can it not be "scholarly"? I would suggest that you won't find a reputable encyclopedia that doesn't call him a dictator, so how can it be "unencyclopedic"? LFA, on the other hand is definetly unscholarly :) Camillus (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Raw Google word searches are not scientific, not even as Internet word counts. Interpreting them is original research anyway.
  • I did not call Camillus a troll, I do not think Camillus is a troll. Camillus, please stop conflating my remarks about unhelpful editing behaviour with yourself, thank you. Wyss 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to JBetak's characterisation of the whole debate about Fascism and Totalitarianism as a result of G's "trolling", while I feel it is a perfectly reasonable point of discussion. Camillus (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Camillus, Giovanni33's recent activity has been more then problematic. If I call that trolling, that does not mean that I think that Giovanni33 (talk • contribs) is a troll. Even if that's what you have inferred from my comment. It might be helpful, if the discussion was a bit less heated. Giovanni33's behavior has unfortunately not helped here. He's a relatively new user, so I guess he'll be forgiven. --Jbetak 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Jbetak, the accusations of sockpuppets are false, therefore nothing I did was problematic from my actions. Rather its raising these accusations here where it has no relevance this is problematic. I don't see how you can call my activity trollling, either. I will assume good faith and say that the well has been poisoned as I don't recall much interaction with you or seeing you around. It's ironic that you say the discussion should be less heated but you bring up this heated subject which I could reasonably interpret as an unprincipaled attack. Also, saying that I have not helped here, that is a matter of your Pov. If the goal is to keep things as they are, I'd agree---I certainly won't help to do that. If its to make this article more accurate and NPOV, then I disagree as I'm the one forcing the changes, as you say. Lastly, I don't need for be forgiven because I never did anything wrong. But, Ill forgive you, if you stop this negative bias against me. Giovanni33 10:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Jbetak, I looked on your page and found the logical basis that explains your comments directed against me---my secular Pov at the Christianity article that is the basis for these attacks. I note on your page your affinity with user AnnH who write: "Hi, Jdavidb, I'm really here to wish you a happy Christmastide...thank you for bringing me to Wikipedia. I think it was you, wasn't it, who posted something on some blog last April, appealing for people to come to Wikipedia...and I know that to you, at least, I don't have to say "Happy Holidays". A Saviour is born for us. Alleluia! AnnH (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)"
[1] These connections explains it all perefectly. Mystery cleared up. Giovanni33 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Jbetak, I must apologize for confusing you with a similar named user. You do not have that connection with AnnH, who has been hounding me with false accusations and biased interpretations and speculations, which I firmly believe stem from our Pov disputes. Desite her other comments, she does correctly point out that the user in question is Jdavidb, not yourself. Please accept my apolgies for linking you with AnnH. While I do object to some of what you said here, and that this might still stem from the defamation being spread against me, I will assume good faith that you are not pre-judging my behavior based on such talk. Giovanni33 11:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Giovanni33, thank you for your follow-up. I'll reply on your talk page as soon as I get a chance. We don't have a common edit history and I hope that you don't see me as prejudiced. Let me make a quick comment, if I may. Most of the editors I have met on this page struck me as quite experienced and pretty level headed. AH is a high-traffic article with high levels of casual vandalism; it's difficult to edit. Any unusual activity around it makes it even tougher and I'm sure everyone involved appreciates a sensible tone and approach. I don't think anyone can hope for perfection the way Wikipedia is set up, but we are all doing our part and the project will hopefully evolve and get better over time. Best Jbetak 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Jbetak. Your comments about me have been negative (trolling, not much help here, he will be forgiven, prolbematic), but I will assume good faith and not think you are biased against me. The Pov conflict I've been having with AnnH may not be related to you, even though you two are related, and she has been making a concerted effort to get me banned, it would seem, as a result. I agree with your comments that everyone should adopt a sensible tone and appraoch. From the record, though, I have. Thanks (p.s I worked for Macromedia in SF before it got bought out by Adobe.com. You seem to have worked there too?).Giovanni33 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Giovanni, you are jumping to conclusions. I have absolutely no relationship of any kind with Jbetak, and have never, to the best of my knowledge, sent him a message or received one from him. You are obviously confusing him with Jdavidb, who posted a message on my talk page this evening, to which I have responded. I have a lot of respect for Jdavidb, as a very courteous, balanced editor, who respects NPOV, and does not edit war. I have never met him outside of Wikipedia, but I did read a message he posted on some blog asking people to join Wikipedia nearly a year ago, and I joined partly if not wholly as a result of that. There is a big difference between on the one hand two independent editors meeting at Wikipedia and later discovering as a happy coincidence that one of them arrived in response to what might be seen as an "ad" placed by another, and on the other hand an editor running out of reverts, getting his wife to join and revert to his version, and sending camouflage messages to her talk page to give other editors the impression that they had never met, while suggesting that Str1977 and KHM03 were sockpuppets, that I was a meatpupptet, and using the words "sneaky" and "hypocrisy" about me. For the record, while I think highly of Jdavidb, we hardly ever edit the same articles. His appeal on a blog can not be compared to the comedy that you and Belinda played. AnnH (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • While I'm at it, personally, I also think AH was clinically paranoid, delusional and neurotic, by the book, DSM, totally. However, that is original research. Moreover, I'd work to remove a published citation saying this (or something similar) because psychiatric diagnosis through historical records is not considered by serious historians or psychiatrists to be at all reliable. Wyss 01:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm unaware of any incivilty on my part, and I wouldn't say you've been uncivil to me. We just have some differences of opinion, but I don't count "Codswallop!" or "Bonkers!" as incivility. Can you give an example of my incivility? Camillus (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)$
Hey Camillus, that response works for me :) Wyss 02:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So should you, by the way. -- Simonides 01:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lebensraum

Another point that gets reverted constantly by some:

"Hitler commenced an aggressive imperialist foreign policy he justified as Lebensraum"

That is not correct. Hitler did not justify his foreign policy, whatever you may call it, as Lebensraum (which is semantical nonsense) or by the need to gain Lebensraum. Hitler did pursue expansion into Eastern Europe to gain Lebensraum. That was his objective and not merely a justification. As justification he used the unfairness of the Versailles treaty (1935-1939), right to self-determination (Sudeten), ethnic similarity (Austria), Hacha's "request for protection" (remaining Czechia), Polish "provocations" and "a Soviet plot to invade Germany" (1941). He did not go around calling for Lebensraum, not on the international scene, not among the German populace, not even in his speeches. Str1977 09:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Its true that Hitler used a variety of excuses to justify his imperialism but the concept of Lebensraum was a central ideological justification, and it was used as a popular slogan in Germany referring to the unification of the country and the acquisition of colonies, as per the English and French models, originally coined by Friedrich Ratzelin the late 19th century, and adapted from Darwinian notions, ofcourse a perversion of them. The term is still used correctly in some areas of science, such as biology. Perhpas the wording "justified as Lebensraum" is not the best one but imperialism is accurate and precise for explaining the nature of his expansionism. Like the term fascism, its a point that reflects the maintream of scholarhip on the question. Do I need to present the arguments and evidence again? Giovanni33 10:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Presenting it (again?) wouldn't make it right, Gio.
The Lebensraum concept wasn't an excuse it was the actual motivation of Hitler's policy. To justify his moves, Hitler didn't use Lebensraum, but the revision of the Versailles treaty (which was popular among all German parties), (staged) outside provocations (Poland) or prevention of outside attacks (Russia). Lebensraum wouldn't have convinced a populace that was unenthusiastic about another war.
Popular slogans were Revision des Schandfriedens, Wiederherstellung der Wehrhoheit, Heim ins Reich, Alle Deutschen in ein Reich, Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker, Jüdisch-Plutokratische Weltverschwörung etc. Lebensraum was not among them.
The problems with Imperialism I have already stated.
Fascism is being worked out at the moment. Str1977 10:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I agree its the actual motivation; the excuses were a refered to your list. There were many. Lebensraum was a popular slogan, that pre-dates the Nazi period and influeced their extreme imperialism, and helps to explain the great risk and cost they pursued it. You have not made a good case against imperialism. The objections were that its linked to colonialims (which is accurate!), that its a loaded term giving an example of non-accurate uses of the term, i.e. Lenin's imperialims (or are you refeering to this development of an understanding of imperialims as the last stage of capitalism?)--which is also accurate since fascism is capitalist. Also that a word is loaded and may not be used correctly in other places is no reason not to use it correctly here. Its an accurate description of the nature of the expansionism. I have a lenghty defense with references, and will do so again, if need be. Giovanni33 11:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Gio,
I have taken the liberty to correct a recurring typo that was unintentionally funny.
No doubt there were discussions about Lebensraum in some circles but the wording that was in the article was wrong. Properly worded LR might be mentioned in the intro (and certainly has to be mentioned in the article), but remember that we have to be concise.
Re Imperialism - I would use even a loaded term if I couldn't find an alternative. But we have an alternative.
However, there is no way we will include a term based on an approbation of a misguided Leninist theory. Fascism as a counterrevolutionary form of captilism is questionable even in regard to actual Italian Fascism (Mussolini did come from which party?), it is completely inaccurate regarding Nazism and Hitler's policy. That's not to say there were not those pursuing a "traditional" (Whilhelminian) imperialist policy in German leadership (Göring comes to mind, maybe Neurath), but that wasn't Hitler's bent and his was decisive.
Re your "Lengthy defense" I will quote a German proverb: "In der Kürze liegt die Würze".
Str1977 11:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss' vandalism, absurdities, or user:Simonides violation of WP:NPA

  • The term dictatorship is undescriptive, misleading and potentially PoV. Beacuse of this, the term is unscholarly and unencyclopedic. WP is not a blog. Wyss

This should be enough to disqualify Wyss from editing an article on Hitler and all the numerous Hitler-related articles she obsesses over. -- Simonides 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (reinstated THIRD TIME)

Note, there were server problems and some comments got deleted accidently. Wyss 02:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Wyss is right here - there were definetely server problems yesterday. Camillus (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I regard user:Simonides insistence on the above section title as a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA, never mind negligence in assuming good faith. Wyss 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is false. Wyss is deliberately removing my comments as seen here and here

There were server problems. I regard user:Simonides misrepresentation of this event a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA, never mind negligence in assuming good faith. Wyss 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, here are some other unscientific Amazon book searches:

And my favourite,

Please take unscholarly discussion to a blog or something, ok? Wyss 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My links amply demonstrate that precise, scholarly/ encyclopedia use of the word dictatorship is fully justified. Your response, on the other hand, only reveals your PoV and your emotions. You may also want to review WP:Civility. -- Simonides 02:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Dictatorship is accurate but fascist is more precise and encompasses dictatorship.MikaM 03:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Truth be told, my links amply demonstrate that your links are, scientifically speaking, codswallop :) Wyss 02:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Wyss deletes another user's comments. -- Simonides 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there are server problems. I've been getting error messages, backing up and trying to save again and so on. I haven't knowingly deleted a thing. Wyss 02:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think this was Wyss' fault. Camillus (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(reinstated) Only problem with your "list", Wyss - Simonides result comes up with reputable, "scholarly" books, while your "Hitler saved the world" gives in the top three:
2. Operation Fortitude: The great deception operation that fooled Hitler and saved the Normandy landings
3. The man who stopped Hitler: The history of Dimitur Peshev who saved the Jews of an entire nation

and then peters out into books not even related to Hitler. Camillus (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation misinterpretation of the search results, see below. Wyss 02:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In what way? I got bored searching through your lists for any titles which suggested that "Hitler saved the world", or that Hitler was a saint. Camillus (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
He didn't qualify his statement like that, so I used the same methodology and got lots of hits for hitler saved the world. Anyway I don't like being tag-teamed. I'm taking a break. Wyss 02:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? Which part of these summaries did you miss? Quoting verbatim:
  1. 46 results including the work of every major biographer and scholar of Hitler - Bullock, Kershaw, Trevor-Roper, etc. Even David Irving, a Holocaust denier and Hitler apologist, calls him a dictator!
  2. 33 results including, once again, Kershaw etc - Domarus' multi-volume compilation of Hitler's 'Speeches and Proclamations' is subtitled 'The Chronicle of a Dictatorship.'
  3. 28 results starting with 'The Nazi Dictatorship : Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation' edited by Kershaw etc., followed by various histories/accounts of the regime. -- Simonides 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Readers are invited to click on hitler saved the world 274 for themselves. There are dozens of scholarly and/or reliable titles, including Kershaw. Following your logic, does this mean it's ok to assert that Hitler saved the world in the intro? Wyss 02:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I challenge you to name a single book from any source which claims that "Hitler saved the world". Which book by Kershaw? Camillus (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
But not a single one (as far as i could see) that suggested that "Hitler saved the world" - in fact, the opposite, they all seem to be about how the world was saved from Hitler. Camillus (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that my results are pertinent. Never mind - you're simply blathering, and the only time that I've come across more nonsense on Wikipedia is in all the Israel-related articles where criticism of Israel is deemed anti-Semitic by some nutjobs. -- Simonides 03:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Any other encylopeadia or major, mainstream reference source describes Nazi Germany as facist. Our German language Wikipedia adds Hitler to the "Faschismus" category. Britannica calls Hitler a Fascist, Encarta calls him a fascist, etc.
To paraphrase, the reluctance those to describe Nazi Germany as fascist makes me suspect a potentially misleading PoV. MikaM 03:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey MikaM, are you pretending to be me :) ? Camillus (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we please be reasonable and stop bickering?

Now, I reverted back to the last version before the latest back-and-forth as we haven't reached consensus yet.

I agree with Wyss that dictatorship is utterly indescriptive, merely one notch above he was a bad man. Why not build on John K's suggestion?

Str1977 08:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There are too many personal opinions expressed here with no basis in scholarly work. Any number of reputable books describe Hitler as a dictator - where's the basis for saying otherwise? Camillus (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Camillus, please don't twist my words. Of course, Hitler was a dictator. And his regime was a dictatorship. Only this word is far too indescriptive for my tastes. This pushes the article into a journalistic democracy vs. dictatorship dichotomy - this article doesn't deserve this. Let's put in something meaningful or nothing. Str1977 11:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not about your "tastes" - it's about what can be backed up by scholarly examination. Camillus (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Draw a line

Let's move on from this back and forth about "dictator" - let's wait until the question actually comes up as to what to put in the article. Too much heat, too little light. While i find some of the views expressed here quite barmy, or even "codswallop" (such a quaint old word!), I am going to try to refrain from responding unless they actually impinge on the article itself. Camillus (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll

How about a simple poll and RfC?
Let me try - it is unhistorical and objectionable, if not absurd, to avoid mentioning that Hitler's rule was dictatorial. Whatever the word chosen to describe his dictatorship - the latter term being precise enough to be widely in use by every respected scholar of Hitler and Nazism - some reference to it is required in the header, to avoid POV and/or misleading characterizations of Germany under Hitler. Agree/Disagree below. -- Simonides 11:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that the above is not meant to be included in the article. I agree in substance, but to just state "Hitler establishe a dictatorship" seems to me a platitude. Dictatorship here merely replaces regime or authoritiarian. For me this is a question of wording, not of whether dictatorial is true (it certainly is).
PS. "a regime that supressed minorites" sounds clumsy to me.
Str1977 13:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy and given my experience with this topic, the results of an RfC would be cordial but random. At the moment we were approachng consensus, Simonides has returned to disrupt the discussion and begin a sub revert war for a wording which he alone supports. His use of terms such as absurd and ridiculous, his false accusations, constantly bolded text and other shrill tactics have been unhelpful and IMHO show a lack of understanding both of WP editing practices and encyclopedic writing. Wyss 17:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a bad idea. I'd prefer use of the term "authoritarian regime," for instance. The real problem that I see with the intro is that it states that the foundation of a "totalitarian regime" was a simple fact about Hitler, which is highly problematic, for reasons I have previously discussed. I'm fine with linking somewhere to totalitarianism, and the article on Nazism should discuss why Nazism has been called totalitarian (as well as why it is usually seen as Fascist). But we can't just say that Hitler established a totalitarian regime. john k 17:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Only to be clear, I do agree that even Hitler established a totalitarian regime would mislead in an intro, one reason for this being that he was financed and aided by industrialists and politicians who were actively looking for someone to replace Weimar with what they imagined as a stable authoritarian government. However, I have supported it because it has been the least misleading of other options proposed. Wyss 18:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is less misleading than "Fascistic totalitarian regime," which I agree is stupid. I am not sure what other options have been proposed that are more misleading - I think that "established a totalitarian regime" is highly misleading, and unacceptable. john k 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thinking through all possible alternatives I withdraw my objections to "authoritarian regime" (without any further qualifiactions re. F. or T.), as it is probably the best possibly compromise, better than saying nothing. Though Hitler's regime is not properly covered with the word authoritarian, it was authoritarian among other things (and IMHO more important things). I uphold my stylistic concerns about the "that persecuted minorities". Str1977 23:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, if the government must be characterised at all in the intro I prefer totalitarian government but I'm ok with authoritarian regime or totalitarian regime. Wyss 23:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
To state that Hitler established a totalitarian regime is pov pushing of the disputed concept of totalitarianism. While a fringe view disputes that Hiterler's regime was fascist, we need not to give deference to fringe views. Calling it fascistic is even worse. Dictatorship and authoritarian regime are both accurate and a fascist regime encompasses both concepts while being the most precise. MikaM 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks like its just Str1977 and Wyss who are the only two holding to the fringe view of wanting totalitarianism over fascism. I think these two editors, while I respect that they hold to this view, should give way to the conensus of editors here, and pay deference to mainstream scholarhip of Nazi Germany. "Totalitarianism" is a highly disputed theory because it stems from a distinct ideological committment that is mostly rejected as a useful model by the mainstream. Fascism does not have this problem, and its widely accepted. Infact, can you show any major Nazi historians who endorse totalitarian model for Nazi Gemany over the fascist description? I doubt it. Having said that I am perfectly willing to accept the language "established an authoritarian regime that most scholars of Nazi Germany term fascist." Giovanni33 11:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
While working out compromises with contructive editor, I will give you this: You want scholars (please don't say "Nazi historians" - you know what that implies!?):
  • Hannah Ahrendt
  • Karl Joachim Friedrich, historian
  • Karl-Dietrich Bracher, historian
I am sure the list could be continued
Totalitarianism theory is controversial, I grant you that, but a major reason for this is also ideological, as it was linked with a certain phase in the cold war (and certainly some exagerations occured) and because later some didn't want to put "purely evil Nazism" into one box with "good at heart Communism". The Tt doesn't equate the two but only observes some similarities (and BTW, a proper Fascism theory would do the same, while those simply equating F. and N. are not worth the paper they write on). The main compoment of Totalitarism is that it doesn't want its subjects' obedience - any state demands that much, even the most liberal democracies - but that it demands its subjects' full identification and internal agreement with the regime and its ideology (whether it achieves that is another question).
Str1977 11:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you want to refer to Dennis Mack Smith and Gilbert Allardyce, who suggest that the various movements and regimes subsumed under any generic definition are much too disparate to form any catch-all categorisation. According to this interpretation, the only regime which should be termed ‘fascist’ is the original self-styled Fascist regime of Mussolini. ‘…..Fascism is not a generic concept. The word fascismo has no meaning beyond Italy…’ [G. Allardyce, 1979 p. 370] This is a fringe view. A much more influential sceptical positions emerged from Karl D. Bracher and Renzo De Felice, but who are still in the minority--but I note that they do not deny that generic definitions can be constructed, only remain somewhat suspicious of their wider application and usefulness. [Bracher, 1979, 1984; De Felice, 1976, 1977]. I acknowelege the view but these represent a fringe view. Hannah Ahrendt and her assistant, historian Karl Joachim Friedrich (both who use non-materialist/intionalist analysis) are were controverial and today their work here is not widely accepted either. Also, they don't say state the preference of one term over another but worked together on the theory of Totalitarianism. There are scholars who even disagree that totalitarianism is even possible in a strict sense, outside of works of fiction. I share this view. Most would say approximations in some ways, best left understood in relative, rather than absolute terms. The Nazi state was massively authoritarian, but was less than ‘total’ in its control. The structuralists/functionalists (essentially a materialist) analysis of historians has largely replaced the more idealist Great Man theory of history outlook, and with some scholars even seeing Hitler as a comparatively weak dictator. While I don’t agree, I do think these methodological approach is more accurate and useful, instead of the almost cartoonish picture that absolute totalitarianism. Even Stalin’s totalitarianism in the Soviet Union was not absolute. I think its best left in fictional accounts of Oceania in 1984. character, although possessing totalitarian aspects.
The work by Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, following that of Arendt, was a model was quickly seen as inadequate, and there’s been a number of serious objections were raised to the applicability it’s criteria to any regimes, fascist or not. The term totalitarian proved to have even more considerable theoretical difficulty than fascist. And today Totalitarianism remains a vague and largely untestable hypothesis, hotly disputed and contested, much more so than fascism itself. To quote, ‘.. the very best that Friedrich and Brzezinski offered was a partial and primitive taxonomic scheme and some schematic accounts of some of the seemingly necessary and contingent conditions for the manifestations of some of the species, or subspecific, properties with which they were concerned… we neither know which traits of totalitarianism might be “essential” or “necessary,” nor can we argue with any confidence that the shared similarities between totalitarianisms mean anything “significant.” …. What we do not have is a general theory of Fascism (much less a general theory of totalitarianism). (A. J. Gregor, 1998, pp. 216-219 and 226-237). But, this step backwards has not stopped a post-cold war resurgence of right wing Eastern European writing on the totalitarian theme – most of which remains as speculative and unproven as were its 1950s predecessors. Long ago Frederic J. Fleron Jr. remarked that it has become little more than negative label on a for a “bad”system of government’. - examples of which include Sparta, the Empire of Diocletian and Calvin’s Geneva. (cf. ‘Soviet Area Studies and the Social Sciences: Some Methodological Problems in Communist Studies’ Soviet Studies, 19/3: 1968, p. 313.) Arendt’s picture of totalitarianism was far too simplistic and she eventually concluded that her definition could not apply to the Soviet Union, which she ultimately referred to as a ‘one-party state’. Arguably the most devastating single attack on the totalitarian model of fascism came from Wolfgang Sauer’s article ‘National Socialism: Totalitarianism or Fascism?’ (American Historical Review, 73:2 December: 1967). In anycase 'Totalitarianism' not a clean’ scholarly concept, serving instead as an ideological instrument; its impossible to treat it as 'neutral' scholarly analytical tool. Giovanni33 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the libery to make an edit, which I hope won't lead to another round of edit waring and 3RR violations. The text reads, "to establish an authoritarian regime that most scholars have termed fascist." If we dont agree lets keep this there and work out further issues here. Totalitarism has been out there too long and its embarassing. Giovanni33 11:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pic

Image:Helga-Adolf.jpg
Helga with Hitler

Why it was removed? --Haham hanuka 09:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it included? We already have Hitler and a girl in the article. That the girl here is Helga Goebbels does not make it any more relevant to the Hitler article. How about including it into Goebbels? Str1977 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is already included at Goebbels children. Str1977 09:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What does the picture add to the article? Camillus (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
i've the same question as Camillus. Wyss 13:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Pictures don't have to add more information. What's wrong with this picture. By the way why does the link to Hitler Hisorical Museum was removed? --Haham hanuka 18:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Truth be told, pictures do have to add more information in the sense that they help illustrate the text. This article is already very long and Hitler's relationship with Helga's mother, along with Helga's tragic murder, are covered in the related articles. Wyss 18:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
so it helps to illustrate Hitler's relationship with Helga. --Haham hanuka 19:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
...which is not discussed in the text and is so granular that it is best dealt with in the related article. This is not a full length biography, it's an encyclopedia article. Part of the skill of writing them is to be both succinct and, in summary fashion, historically complete. That involves making appropriate choices. Why do you really want this picture included? Wyss 19:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Server problems continue

Please leave a few minutes between posts to allow the server to catch up. Comments are still being zapped. Camillus (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon Quote

Just to lighten things up: "Geschichte ist Lüge, auf die man sich geeinigt hat. - Napoleon Bonaparte"

History is a lie that people agree upon.

Agathoclea 14:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I dispute this! ;-) Str1977 14:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I insist on scholarly and encyclopedic lies arrived at through sound academic methodologies :) Wyss 17:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was Napoleon speaking in German? john k 19:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Who knows :-) maybe because the quote came from the German Wiki History page Agathoclea 19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he has misunderstood what Goethe (Faust II, 6771) said: "Im Deutschen lügt man, wenn man höflich ist. (In German you lie when being courteous)", and reimagined it into: "When lying, speak in German". ;-) Str1977 00:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinion requested on unprotection

Generally, an article should not be protected too long. However, a person who shall remain unnamed (see edit history) who roves from IP to IP appears to be insisting on reinitiating edit wars as soon as the article is unprotected. Opinions on whether the article should be unprotected? --Nlu (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So long as you know who keeps trolling and swapping out the photo, I think sprotection is within WP policy. Moreover, most if not all of the straight vandalism, which happens many times a day, stops cold when the article is sprotected (allowing registered users to continue their revert wars undisturbed). Wyss 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

OK kids, maybe we need to go over this. The WP:3RR rule is not an allowance. It is a guideline. And it applies to a 24 hour period. Some of you warning others over 3RR violations are guilty yourselves. The best thing to do right now is to sit here and discuss. If the revert war continues, I will protect the article on the and force y'all to discuss before mindlessly reverting. --Golbez 22:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this (given that we try to assume good faith and all) but most of the revert warring seems to have been provoked by a gaggle of red-linked users which have stalked User:Str1977 here from Christianity for the purpose of wiki-revenge and badgering. At least one of these red-linked users has been check usered and been found to be a sock. Given this and going by the talk pages involved, in my humble opinion, there is a palpable likelihood that one or two other sockpuppets are reverting here. Wyss 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss, you have been violating WP:3RR. Resorting to desperate accusations of other users will not deflect away from the valid point made by Golbez. Stop edit waring and violating the 3RR rule. Wyss accusations of "stalking and badgering" is ridiculous and I consider that a personal attack on me since I'm one of the "red-linked" users she no doubt is slandering. Please review the civility policy and assume good faith. MikaM 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, who's sounding desperate here? :) Wyss 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You are. MikaM 02:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: Although Camillus and I have our disagreements, my above comment has nothing to do with him and I don't think Camillus is using a sockpuppet. Moreover, my mention of him here shouldn't be construed that I think he's been displaying unhelpful behaviour as an editor (even if he does have more faith than I do in the helpfulness of Amazon keyword searches in discussions about word choice :) Wyss 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Only when Simonides list gave a lot of books which backed up his choice of words, while yours didn't give any books which backed up "Hitler is a saint" or "Hitler saved the world" :) Camillus (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've already addressed that objection but it's really not going to influence the discussion since the whole technique is unscientific. Wyss 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"This isn't an argument - it's contradiction. No it isn't". Name one book from any source that says that "Hitler saved the world" or "Hitler was a saint". Name an encyclopedia or scholarly work that suggests it's unscientific to call Hitler a dictator. Camillus (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

The I am sorry for the trouble I have caused in drawing them/him here. I don't know whether anyone here reads Talk:Christianity, but Giovanni has been caught in flagranti of sockpuppeting, as can be shown by this edit: [2]. Good night, Str1977 23:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That not true, Str1977. Freethinker is no socketpuppet, as you well know (or at least know the full story. I think its shameful that you felt the need to slander me while you knew I could not respond. I see the Wyss and Ann, along with yourself, have all taken to this. I will just repeat what I told Wyss. Its rather distruptive, and diversionary, and thus begs the question that this is not based on not being able to properly argue your POV on the substance and merits of the arguments, so personal attacks, on other users, dragging this sad affiar here, serves the despicable puprose. In a way, I guess, it's fitting for this to happen in article on Adolf Hitler! I hope it stops. Giovanni33 11:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm familiar and active on the Christianity article and Str1977's characterizations are extremely biased, and an attack on Giovanni who is currently blocked. It appears that Giovanni and his wife were both editing. I assume good faith that they are two people, and therefore not socketpuppets. The attacks against others who agree with him seem to me (and others) to be motivated by POV disputes. The incident Str19977 uses is deceptive in what it does not tell you: that user Giovanni used his friends account while at his friend's house to respond on his talk page while still signed in Freethinkers account. He then corrected it. Allegations of sockepuppets are greatly exageraged and being used an an abusive tactic undermine good users both old and new. Those who engage in this tactic, are IMHO, violating Wiki policies of Civility, and Assuming good faith. MikaM 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Please note that MikaM begins by immediately attacking User:Str1977. I stand by my assertion that the evidence points towards MikaM being a sockpuppet of blocked User:Giovanni33. I've been trying to assume good faith for some time now but the mounting evidence makes this problematic at best. Wyss 00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Please note that Wyss describes my correction of events as an attack on user User:Str1977. Also, note this implies that user Giovanni would attack user Star1977. This follows a pattern of deception by user Wyss. For examples see: [3]. MikaM 00:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Er, yawn :) That's a nice shade of blue you've got on your user signature all of a sudden. Did my remark about red-linked sockpuppets have anything to do with the quick redecorating work... or what? Wyss 00:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup, although I like red, since you seem to think that is a problem, I easily fixed it. I'd hate for any other new users to run into you. Heaven forbid they should still have the color red! heheMikaM 01:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
How strange that MikaM should copy Giovanni33's most common mannerism. hehe. AnnH (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
How strange that you know I've used "hehe" before, that MikaM uses it and that you only minutes later jump in to give this tell tale clue! One could eqaully specuate that MikaM is your socketpuppet, Anne, who you created in an effort to make it look like I created one for myself, and thus attack me. Sorry MikaM, I think you are a genuine editor, but I a just making a point about how I can equally speculate along these lines, which is just as wrong as what AnnH is doing. Giovanni33 11:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
How unstrange for you come in right on que with another snide remark in your witchhunt against Giovanni and new users who support his POV. While I never saw Giovanni make his "common mannerism" (must not be that common), I have seen others use it. In anycase, I'd appreciate it if you would stop these attacks. Your vendetta against Giovanni and those who share his POV is disgraceful.MikaM 02:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
My educated guess is that Giovanni is still here, reverting away, using at least one or two red-linked user names (see the article history). This gives the impression of a revert war when in truth it's noise caused by only a couple of disruptive users editing in a high traffic, emotion provoking article. Wyss 23:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that was your ignorant guess, by definition since you lacked knowelge, and infact are wrong. I do have knowlege about where I was and what I was doing, and reverting away was not one of them. You are best to your "educated" guesses to yourself in this matter. If I sound uncivil, then I apologize but reflect on how inflamatory your false accusations above are. Giovanni33 11:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You guess is not very educated. Are the arguments made by myself, Giovanni, and John K., Camillus, all only "noise?" MikaM 00:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't try to conflate helpful WP editors like John K and Camillus in this. I'm not talking about them at all. Wyss 00:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Be careful about making "educated guesses". Firm evidence should only be used to back up allegations of sock-puppetry. Camillus (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Camillus, really, but I'm pretty sure and if I'm wrong, a sock check will sort things out. Wyss 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

User:Giovanni33, a blocked revert warrior here, has already been shown to be the owner of sockpuppet User:BelindaGong. The evidence is building rapidly that User:Giovanni33 is now using sockpuppets User:Kecik and User:MikaM to continue this disruptive revert war. I think a sockpuppet check would be more than helpful. Thanks. Wyss 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

These are false charges that have the effect of harassing people and disrupting good faith discussion. -- 68.6.73.60 03:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. Ask at WP:RCU if you suspect anything. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 00:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
So request one. --Golbez 00:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I have. Wyss 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Wyss, a second user check was requested by Tom harrison (talk • contribs). The user currently in question, MikaM (talk • contribs), seems to be editing from T-Mobile hotspots. If that's the case, it isn't a good sign. Jbetak 00:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what T-Mobile is, and why that isn't a good sign, but in any case, if you look at the RFCU that you've just quoted above, you'll see that it's Kecik who may (only may) be editing from that, not MikaM. They both ran out of reverts and then had the reverting continued by IP addresses. I've asked both to clarify. MikaM refused, and Kecik ignored my request for clarification. But the IP address that you are referring to was one that appeared after Kecik had run out of reverts. It may or may not be his. AnnH (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that even these bad faith speculations with all their harmful effects are mixing up various users with each other. I don't think you will get much cooperation AnnH with this inquisition. Its just wrong. Giovanni33 01:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Although I think it's likely User:Giovanni33, there's another possibility, I can be emailed if need be. Wyss 01:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way both User:Kecik and User:MikaM are currently in violation of 3rr on this article. I've listed User:Kecik, I won't bother with User:MikaM since so many people seem to be on this now. Wyss 01:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not true, Wyss, but I see that in your report of the violation you engaged in your pattern of deception. I think this is going to backfire on you. MikaM 01:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Naw, that was a copy paste error. I've fixed it (and thanks for pointing it out :) Wyss 02:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please continue this on the relevant WP:RCU article, rather than here? I'm pretty sure that everyone's aware of it now, so that page would seem to be the best place to carry on the investigation. Thanks. Camillus (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So long as suspected sockpuppets are posting here I think it's relevant to discuss on this page. Wyss 02:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, because its distracting from the real work of editing the article and its a form of personal attack against good users such as myself. Simply because you don't agree with me is no reason to attack me as an editor. You are way out of line and acting in bad faith, esp. when an admin posted on your talk page that I was already checked and the results came in negative. MikaM 02:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Quote:
By his admission, BelindaGong is Giovanni33's wife. A person's wife is, by definition, not the person's sock puppet ("A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name"). -- 68.6.73.60 04:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with MikaM that Wyss is out of line and continues to defame other editors in an attempt to garner support for her questionable edits or reverts. -- Simonides 02:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Time will tell. Wyss 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Time has told. You are acting in bad faith. -- 68.6.73.60 03:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, something's up. Meanwhile I'll take the flack for sticking my nose out to find out what. Wyss 03:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is rather distruptive, Wyss, but I suspect its diversionary given your not being able to properly argue your POV on the substance and merits of the arguments, so personal attacks, on other users, dragging this sad affiar in, serves your puprose here. Well, I guess its fitting in an article on Hitler. Giovanni33 11:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Your sockpuppetry with User:Freethinker99 has already been established. Meanwhile there are at least ten experienced editors reverting your version to one I'm ok with. You talk about consensus and revert-warring but you revert war against consensus and you clearly followed User:Str1977 here from Christianity to edit "against" him. Flame as you like, the contribution histories and other verifiable elements will invariably lead us to the truth about why all these new editors are making identical reverts. Wyss 14:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Freethinker is a seperate person who I know. I did not follow Str1977 here, and certainly not to edit "against" him. You sure make a lot of unsubstanciated allegations and present them as proven facts. I hope this doesnt reflect your thought process when it comes to editing on Wikipeadia. Giovanni33 00:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This edit of yours speaks for itself. Wyss 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No it doesnt alone speak for itself. Sometimes half the truth can be used to create a BIG LIE. Again, apropo for this article's subject. We see theory in practice. Giovanni33 01:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
So why did you write Giovanni33's sockpuppet denial while logged on as Freethinker99 then apparently log off and log back on to change the user signature to Giovanni33 1-2 minutes later? I mean, I'm sure you can understand that the simplest explanation for such an edit sequence is that you forgot which sockpuppet you were logged on as, saw your mistake after hitting save, then quickly changed the signature hoping nobody would peek at the edit history. Wyss 01:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
If you were really intrested to know, instead of just trying to attack me with your bad faith interpretations on this page that is suppoed to be about Adolf Hitler (did Freethinker ever even edit here?), then you would have done so on my talk page, which explains exactly what happened in what s really a simpler and more logical explanation--that Freethinker is NOT my socketpuppet. I suggest you stop your distuptions here so we can focus on substance of this article. Giovanni33 02:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this exchange on your talk page. You say User:Freethinker99 is a friend of yours who you introduced to Wikipedia. Sometimes you visit his place (which happens to have the same IP) and when you were visiting there one time you went ahead and wrote an edit denying accusations that you had sockpuppets and saved it but all the while your friend's PC was still logged on to WP with your friend's username User:Freethinker99 and when you realized this you naturally logged on as User:Giovanni33 and changed the signature.

Is that a reasonably accurate paraphrase? I'd like to make sure I understand your explanation because I'm truly interested. Thanks. Wyss 03:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

May I add that Gio, logged in as FT, has "for the record that these users are not in any way associated with me, present or past". [4] Thanks, Gio, the record is now here. While you were staying at your friend's house you denied that you were in any way associated' with him. Now, that you're found out you claim you introduced him to Wikipedia. So, even if you were not one and the same person, you did lie about your connection. So much to who actually created bad faith on these pages. But I agree with Camillus that this page should be about discussing edits to the Hitler article, hence I propose the trustworthy editors should do just that. Str1977 10:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not lie. You lie here by spinning it in this manner. As you very well know my comment was a reference to a list of users asked of me by KH03, which did not include Freethinker. When I saw that Freethinker was later added, in a second line, I edited that to stated honesty that I did know Freethinker. The addition of freethinker in another edit was made by KH03 before I initially responded but I did not see it until after I composed my response to his initial list. I have already explained this before and for you to bring it up proves that you are also using this as bad faith attacks. If you agree with Camillus that this page should be about discussing edits to the Hitler article why are you attacking me when I've been doing that? Is it because your and Wyss Pov is losing, and now that Wyss is blocked for her edit warring here, you've taking up her role? I hope not! Giovanni33 11:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, Gio, you now resort to the "I didn't see FT mentioned above", and I grant that that's possible. But is it plausible? In fact you are misrepresenting the events here - you did not, after you saw FT included, return and state that you in fact were a friend of his. You first changed the signature (without any explanation) and without saying anything about FT. Then FT stated on your userpage that he logs on from different locations [5](again nothing about the signature change or you - or was that again Gio logged in as FT?) Only after you were found out (via the signature change) [6] did you respond to sockpuppets accusations by calling FT your friend [7]. Indeed you repeated your mistake by having FT answering to a question posed to Gio [8].
According to the history it took you, Gio, one minute to change the signature but another 23 minutes to "come clean" on your connection to FT, and that only after you were found out.
Now this all might be coincidence and your story might be true but it is more likely that you indeed either sockpuppeted or lied or both. Str1977 12:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm glad you have backed off and changed your original comment that I lied as a matter of fact, to accepting that my version of events in your words, "I grant that's possible." And, "...your story might be true." Thanks for allowing this possiblity and thus refuting your earlier statement of fact that I lied as a matter of fact, when no such alleged fact is proven, nor exists as a true statement. As far as what you think is more probably that, I think, is up to you to guess, and speculate, but I don't think it has any place here, esp. since it assumes bad faith, and is just your speculation doubting my version of what I know for fact happened, and which you must admit may be the truth. I rest my case. Now, can we work on the article, or are you going to continue with the personal attacks? I strongly suggest the former is more in keeping with what we are supposed to be doing here. Giovanni33 13:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not backing off, just stating possibilities and likelihood. In my book it is much more likely that you either lied or sockpuppeted or both. Str1977 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your speculations about what you think is likely. I will note that it's quite different than stating as a fact that I lied. To me that is a backing off of your original statement (wisely done). Are you lying when you now say you are not backing off when to me it seems based on the facts that you are? Well, I don't know for sure if its a lie, but I will say that is only a possiblity, although in my opinion, it's the most likley possiblity. Giovanni33 14:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. This discussion is futile and unproductive. -- Simonides 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler?

Sorry, but I thought this was the discussion page for Adolf Hitler? Can y'all take your arguments about sockpuppetry, who knows who etc. to your personal talk pages? Thank-you! Camillus (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Giovanni33 02:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, G, you immediately followed this post by another one on the sock-puppetting allegations. Give it a rest, eh? Camillus (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making the allegations, Wyss is. I'm only defending myself from her personal attacks, and trying to focus this back on the article. Giovanni33 03:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion is highly relevant to the editing process of Wikipedia's entry on Adolf Hitler at this time and feel all interested editors should be able to read it without having to search out threads elsewhere. Wyss 03:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that your're blocked I think we can make more progress without this kind of distruptive tangents that serve no good purpose. Giovanni33 11:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Locked

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. This article (IMHO) is not very far from being worthy of Featured Article status. I suggest that we put issues, accusations, etc... aside and settle what seems to be a dispute over a couple of words in the article.

*deep breath* let's do it! —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-18 04:48Z

  • This article has been under a lock and now there is suddenly an unusual silence. This is not helpful.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-18 07:08Z

Sorry, who are you, exactly? With the silly user name and uninformative user page, its hard to tell - were you the one to lock the page? I think it reads fine now. Leave it locked unless someone makes a strong case to include something else and can get a consensus of editors to agree.Michael Dorosh 07:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please review the previous content above. Thanks in advance! —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-18 07:51Z
Sorry, I still don't know who you are - are you the one to lock this page? I don't need to read the stuff above - I've read the current version of the page and feel it reads fine.Michael Dorosh 07:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I did not lock the page and I am not an administrator. This section was started in the hopes that personal attacks would stop and productive conversations would start. This has occurred below and it is my sincere hope that it will continue.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-18 19:26Z
Michael, That Guy, From That Show! is, to the best of my knowledge, an administrator. I don't entirely support the protection but it's unreasonable to claim that no grounds exist for it, given that the article has undergone almost daily revert warring for several weeks. I am not sure why you think user names or pages are indicative of credibility, as you tried to use the same point against me before - perhaps you missed this section on what Wikipedia is not; further, you yourself have flaunted a history degree but never produced any meritable sources or arguments to support your points here. Perhaps we can avoid being so hostile to every newcomer on this page, and use the break to focus on other pages. Let's not forget it's high traffic and that the constant disputes that everyone, including the two of us, engage in are not productive. -- Simonides 09:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversions and consensus

Users are reverting on the basis that 'their version' has/had some consensus and/or that the 'other version' has none. I think we're all being disingenuous here, because we forget:

  • No version here ever had any clear consensus, only some agreements to 'leave things alone'.
  • No Wikipedia article is meant to reach a permanent, final state where changes are not welcome.
  • No editor/s should take on the role of unofficial article guardian/s

I think Giovanni brought up some good points, even if I disagree with him on some things and/or his methods. I think we ought to be a little more open to valid points and changes of phrasing made in good faith, that are brought forward by others. Harassing other editors is indecent and counter-productive.

There is basically just one point of contention here - whether or not the intro is POV. As User:Lacatosias tried to suggest before, we should look at some of the examples set by other encyclopediae to judge just how critical of Hitler an article can sound before it is judged unsuitable. In my opinion, all quoted articles suggest that our current intro is far from being overly critical, and would be so even with Giovanni's edits, so if the others could briefly make their opinions on this clear, it might be useful. -- Simonides 10:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Restored some valuable comments about ongoing issues that were archived a little too soon

These are mostly comments by John K., who writes succintly and accurately, reflecting the mainstream scholarly opinion on the issues currently still in contention. I think we do have a pretty good consensus right now with just Str1977 and Wyss holding to the minority view. I suggested a compromise wording, to accomodate their objections, and I think its reasonable to go forward with it. That is, instead of saying "fascist regime," (which is accurate and fine), I proposed "authoritarian regime that most scholars have term fascist." Totalitarianism can be mentioned later in the article but properly qualified per John K.'s comments below. The other issue we need to work out is imperialism vs. expansion, which is being worked on right now with Str1977 above. We shall see if we can get get conensus with this issue as well, soon. Giovanni33 11:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Totalitarianism" just isn't a neutral, descriptive word. Use of the word means that one is endorsing a particular ideological viewpoint, which states that Nazism and Stalinism are essentially similar. As Str has noted, there are some scholars who hold this viewpoint. But it is very distinctly a minority viewpoint, and it is particularly so among scholars of Nazi Germany - I can't think of any major currently working historians who endorse the totalitarian model. That is to say, totalitarianism is a word which is used by a small minority of scholars and represents commitment to a particular ideological model of what Nazi Germany is. Fascism, on the other hand (with a small "f") is mostly agreed upon by historians as a useful model for understanding various European political movements of the interwar period, and the regimes they established, most notably in Germany and Italy. There are numerous useful scholarly works about the phenomenon of European fascism in the interwar period, and every single one includes Nazi Germany. Some scholars don't like to use the term, but I don't think that fascism studies can be said to represent a single ideological viewpoint in the way that "totalitarianism" does. In terms of broader meanings, I would dispute that wikipedia should concern itself with that, especially if we are giving a link. If we say "totalitarian," we are going to link to the "totalitarianism" article, which is a particular theory which is mostly rejected among scholars. The popular meaning of the term is simply a derivative of the scholarly theory, and it seems to me that it's impossible to assert a clear decision between the two meanings. With "fascism," on the other hand, I agree that it has become something of a pejorative, and that, if the popular meaning is intended, it could be misleading. Fortunately, though, a link to the fascism article would clarify matters. I would accept, though, if we were to agree to use neither term in the intro, although fascism should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the article. john k 16:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to reserve the term "fascist" for Mussolini's regime, but I'm not convinced. But if any other regime is to be described as Fascist, it is the Nazis. Hitler and Mussolini's regimes are generally considered to be much more of a kind than Mussolini's and Franco's - there is considerable dispute as to whether "fascist" is an appropriate term for Franco's Spain. Fascism with a capital "F" is a term which probably should be limited to Mussolini's Italy. But fascism with a small "f" is a term which most definitely includes Nazism. Any kind of comparative study of fascism starts with Italian Fascism and German National Socialism as its initial starting points, and a) tries to identify the commonalities between them, which are generally seen as a kind of fascist minimum; and b) tries to determine what other regimes and movement shares these features Every major study of fascism has included Nazism, and indeed has assumed that the term "fascism" includes the Nazis. This is not to deny that there are differences between Hitler's regime and Mussolini's, or between Nazi ideology and Italian Fascist ideology - notably, the racialist aspect of Nazi ideology is not found in Italian Fascism. But it is to say that there is a pretty solid scholarly consensus behind using the word "fascism" to describe Hitler's regime.

On the other hand, the alternate word preferred, "totalitarianism," is a highly controversial term. Most historians of Nazi Germany and most historians of Stalin's Soviet Union tend to avoid the term, which is generally seen to a) obscure the very major differences between Stalin's regime and Hitler's; and b) to be a highly politically loaded term, as it is frequently seen as a term used primarily by the right as part of an effort to identify Nazism with Communism. There is no way that the intro should use the term "totalitarianism". john k 05:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My comments about Facism here (long): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hitler/Archive_28

Just wanted to endorse everything that Giovanni says, and just repeat for emphasis that all generic studies of fascism are essentially based around discerning the common elements between Nazism and Italian Fascism, and that, thus, Nazism is almost definitionally defined as a "fascist" movement, and the Third Reich as a "fascist" state. Obviously, the term fascist has been overwhelmingly overused. But, other than those who say that, because of this, we should only use the term to refer to Fascist Italy (who are, I think, in the minority), I have never until now heard anyone dispute that Nazism should be seen as fascist. In terms of totalitarianism, I would just like to note that I can't think of a single historian of Nazi Germany who has found the totalitarian paradigm particularly useful for discussing the Nazi state - my understanding of the consensus is that most historians of Germany feel that the term obscures the essential dissimilarity between Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. The term has always been one which has mostly been used as a way to understand the Soviet Union. As such, it seems inappropriate to use a term which actual scholars of Hitler would not use in the intro to his article. john k 16:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This would also be acceptable to me: "...establish an authoritarian regime (classified both as fascist and as totalitarian)." I'd like to see what others think, though. Giovanni33 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarian, authoritarian

I would prefer totalitarian government as the most descriptive and least misleading for the intro. I have zero problem with referring to the Nazis as fascist in the text of the article if this is succinctly qualified. Authoritarian regime also works for me, although "regime" is a bit over-used and could inadvertantly give the impression of PoV to some readers. I understand the argument that Nazism is often discussed in the context of fascism but calling Hitler's government fascist still ignores a basic, documented difference between Nazism and fascism: Hitler's government exhalted a people (or a concept of volkishness - a sort of race oriented nationalism) while fascism put its leading emphasis on the state itself. It is misleading to characterize the Nazis as fascists without careful qualification which is only possible in the body of the text. Wyss 23:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I heartily welcome your proposal, Wyss, which seems to me to go a long way to addressing the rival "consensus" versions - I agree with "totalitarian" in the intro (we can now debate over regime/government), and an aknowledgement of the similarities/differences between Fascism and Nazism in the body of the article - this doesn't have to be at all long-winded, as it can easily link to the relevant discussion in the Fascism article. Then the reader can make up their own mind about whether Fascist is appropriate - which I think is the whole point of NPOV - present the arguments, link to further reading, the reader can do the rest. I hope your proposal will be accepted, and we can end this edit-warring (although I have never beeen guilty of edit-warring :)). Good on you! Camillus (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Me neither :) Anyway do you have a problem with government and if so why? Wyss 01:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
My preference is for "regime" - although the Nazis came to power in a democratic election, I think it is well documented that they quickly moved to suppress all opposition, and to establish a one-party state, with tentacles into all aspects of life. Hitler made no bones about his disdain for multi-party democracy, collective leadership etc. "Government" suggests democracy to me, a system that could be changed peacefully - Hitler wanted to create a New Order, a Reich that would last a thousand years. Although it can be argued that "regime" is a "disparaging" term, one could equally argue that "Nazi" is a "disparaging" term - for me (and I believe it can be backed up by reputable sources), they're just accurate terms. Camillus (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Government doesn't imply democracy to me at all... and democracy isn't mentioned anywhere in this Oxford dicdef. I'm ok with regime but is it possible for me to convince you that calling the Third Reich a government doesn't imply it was a democracy? Wyss 02:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, but try the same dictionary for regime, which describes it as "a government, especially an authoritarian one", which I think you'd agree is more accurate (you've said you accept "authoritarian"), and also note, that it doesn't mention any "pejorative" connotation. I also contend that these dicdefs show that "regime" is more appropriate, as the Third Reich was intended to be more all-pervasive than merely "governing" people, but to actually change "men's souls". Camillus (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a slight "pejorative" connotation, bringing to mind juntas and coups and other starkly illegal power grabs. Remember (like or not), AH had the support of tens of millions of Germans before they found out he was a nut (forgive the unscholarly term, this is the talk page). As far as they were concerned, they had a government, one that might even save Germany and, in German nationalist terms, "the world." As I've said though, even if I'm willing to bicker about this more in the hope of swaying editors, I'm ok with regime :) Wyss 02:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually "totalitarian" is the least descriptive, the most disputed, and least scholarly term, per the above reasons already stated. If you are going to the mke case that this term is the perfered term used to describe Nazi Germany then please cite specific sources that support this claim.
Regime is better than government as it connotes more than simply an passing administration but ties to a phase rigid phase in the history of that State that is clearly demarkated Hence is association with dictatorships, which also is an accurate word. Its not more "pov." Authoritarian regime is also accurate and thus fine with me but it's not as good as fascist regime, which is most accurate and in keeping with the mainstream view.
Your understandings of fascism are wrong, I think. The concept of volkishness is part of fascism, as its linked to such populist notions, esp. this mystical type. There are differences, notably the racialized theories of the Nazis (only a matter of emphasis) with that of Fascism proper by not think this makes it not fascism is to lose sight of the forest for the trees. As I said before some do insist that the ideology is limited to Italy under Mussolini alone but his is a fringe view and therefore should not take precedence here. It more appropriate to an article on the ideology of fascism.
Most scholars agree that it is sufficient to capitalized the term as Fascism when it refers to the Italian movement specifically, but define fascism broadly to include many movements (including Neo-Nazis), but in particular included Nazi Germany as a prime example and source of study. The fact that fascism isn't necessarily Nazism does not mean the mean that Nazism is not a form of fascism. Ofcourse there are differences between Italian Fascism and Nazi Germany, esp. noted are the latter's racialized theories. Infact it’s a study of the differences and similarities of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany that inform an understanding of fascism, and that has resulted in the modern consensus of the generic use of the term as fitting for both. Any study of fascism involves an understanding of the Italian and German fascist parties, their movements and regimes in historical and comparative perspective. It identifies and analyzed the key political institutions and groups that supported Fascist and Nazi rule in the movement, party and regime phases; by enumerating the key structural and ideological mechanisms which sustained Fascism and Nazism in gaining and maintaining power, and it assess the theoretical debates concerning the development a heuristically sound and analytically useful concept of generic 'fascism'. Nazism is central to this. To shrink from seeing that Nazism is a varient of Fascism is to obscure an understanding of the nature of fascism.
For details see the works of S. G. Payne: A History of Fascism 1914-1945 UCL Press (1995). R. Griffin: The Nature of Fascism Routledge (1993).
Again, there are differences, no one disputes that. Besides the racialist differences in emphasis, Italian Fascism produced a less effective, less repressive, and, hence was less socially destructive. The Italian army never enjoyed the unique position nor gained the reputation for efficiency that the German army has. Add to these social differences the industrial capacity of the German state, the effectiveness of its bureaucracy,the sense of national frustration over defeat in the world war, and the differences in the real power and the public attitudes existing in both countries and we account for much of the differences, notwithstanding the same essential political programme that is best described as fascism.
I also want to say that its no accident that those who are against a generic broader use of fascism also embrace the theory of totalitarianism, because just as fascism serves to illustrate an understanding of Nazism, totalitarianism serves to mask it, by invoke comparisons with authoritarian “communist states". I think this betrays a lack of understanding of fascism, and at best represents a minority conservative view distincted assoicated with Cold War era scholarhip. The commonalities can only be seen on a very superficial level that ignores the opposite historical intellectual foundations for the respective movements.
Fascism was a reaction to the social theories that formed the basis of the 1789 French Revolution. Best known for crystallizing these in modern theories being Rousseau, challenging social theories generally accepted since the days of Machiavelli. These enlightenment intellectual conceptions produced modern liberalism, democracy, Marxism, socialism. That is why fascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, share varying degrees, the same hallmarks (I need not list them here, again). Giovanni33 02:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Giovanni that "regime" is a sufficiently neutral term. Yes, it has a bit of a negative ring to it but this ring "isn't very loud" and only fitting, given the nature of the regime we are talking about. It also avoids the ambiguity of "government" which refer to a system, as well as the executive branch. It doesn't however, and Wyss is right in ssying this, denote democracy etc.
I must disagree with Gio that "totalitarian" is undescriptive - it rather forcefully denotes most (if not all) features of the Nazi regime (no wonder, since the term was defined based on this and another regime's similarites). But I am willing to compromise and include the whole range of views on F. vs. T., as it is a valid debate - though I am quite certain where I stand in this debate (is this POV pushing now?) - on the provision that the F. we are talking about is not the actual F. but an umbrella term created by scholarship to classify various movements and regimes - just like T. is one. So it's not N. is F. or N. is a branch of F. but N. is classified as F.
I also must disagree with Gio on "Volkishness" being a part of Fascism. There is no Volkishness in Mussolini's Italy. Under Mussolini, it was the state that defined nationality and when you lived in Italy you were considered Italian whether you liked it or not. For those who dared to disagree the regime had some "means to persuade them", e.g. the South Tyrolians. In Nazi ideology it was completely different: "blood" was what counted and Hitler set out to change political borders along these ethnical-racial boundaries. Fascist Italy did pass anti-Jewish laws quite late, after it had been allied with Germany, and many see this as a break in the Fascist State (caused by Mussolini's hunger for a second revolution).
There are also other differences, e.g. the position of the supreme leader (ever heard of a Supreme Nazi Council that could oust Hitler?) and he local leaders (similarities in that regard where destroyed by Hitler after 1925).
Last but not least, Fascism & Nazism (meaning the actual movements) certainly was not a reaction against the French Revolution on the whole but only against part of it. Other parts of it are roots of the F/N/T complex, especially nationalism and the political theories of Rousseau, the father of Totaliarianism. N & F did no less challenge old traditional social structurs (F in the long run less than N), but intend to reforge the nation to make it stronger in order to stand in the competition of nations. Mussolini, the former socialist, changed from "Proletarians of all nations" to the "Proletarian nations", by which he meant those cheated by the Versailles treaty ("the mutilated victory").
The denial of any validity of the concept of Totalitarianism, I must say, is closely linked with a refusal to acknowlegde the "evil core" of Communism (and I can say that it took me the long road to understand this) - that's not the reason for any individual to outright reject it but it is the intellectual root from which this rejection springs. Not speaking of the abusive usage of the F. term by the Communists, as in anti-Fascism. Kurt Schumacher was right on the mark on this.
This can lead to quite strange views: as N. is F. and as N. is the "ultimate evil" (and it is thus far), F. by extension is the ultimate evil. And since C. is good at heart, F. is much worse than C. which is is preposterous when comparing the actual regimes in Fascist Italy and Soviet Russia.
Str1977 10:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Imperialist

Imperialist foreign policy has been the other "stealth" word in the back and forth. I have so many issues with imperialist. The two most important are a) its Latin etymology, which strongly implies a monarchy but even more nettling and misleading, this word has been used in communist propaganda since the 1920s to describe virtually any geopolitically successful non-communist government and has thus lost its meaning to the point of chavel. I strongly believe that using the term imperialist will polarize the article for many readers as being written from an unacceptable point of view (the identity of which I'll leave to the reader's imagination for now). As an aside, the last western government I could likely bear seeing described as imperialist would be that of Napoleon but I'd still cringe because of the 20th century misuse.

I'm very ok with aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum and triggered World War II, since spot on, that's the tactic he took for what he was after. I think triggered is accurate because AH had successfully bluffed his way through so many territorial acquisitions through the late 1930s and his ambitions for Lebensraum were in the east, all the way to Ukraine, not in France and England who as a result of their treaties with Poland finally did declare war in September 1939. Wyss 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "aggressive expansionism" (with a link to Lebensraum, which did seem to get some "consensus". "Aggressive foreign policy" doesn't work for me, because it doesn't cover the main plank of Nazi foreign policy - that of increasing the living space of the German people, by "diplomacy" or "advocacy" (Austria/Czechoslovakia) or by military conquest (Poland, expansion into the East - Ukraine/Russia). Camillus (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I can support aggressive expansionism (with the mention of Lebensraum we've both suggested) since as you say, it does likely cover both tactics more succinctly for most readers (I see foreign policy as encompassing military solutions but your wording would cover that notion well enough anyway and it's neutral). Wyss 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm for imperialism as the best and most accurate descriptive term of the actuality behind the motivations of labenstraum. It has nothing to do with monarchy. The fact that its used in communist propaganda does not make it untrue. Imperialism is real, and Nazi Germany's expansion is a perfect example of one form of it. I don't have time to make the full case here at the moment as I'm running late for a Philip Glass concert! It will have to wait until later. Ciao! Giovanni33 03:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Editors, please follow the thread's chronological order by posting at the bottom of each exchange, thanks. Posting in the midst of someone else's comments can create much confusion and interrupts the discussion flow. Wyss 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

the last western government I could likely bear seeing described as imperialist would be that of Napoleon but I'd still cringe because of the 20th century misuse. - Wyss

Once again Wyss posts a ridiculous yet bombastic comment and applies some dubious reasoning (etymology is never a reliable indication of common or terminological usage or a sole criterion in definitions, as any lexicographer will tell you) to back it up. Imperialism is simply defined as the policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force - this applies as much to the Soviet Union and its creation of satellite states, as to U.S. actions as recent as the Iraqi invasion, and to every attempt to retain colonial power by European nations in the 19th or 20th century - whether it's Indochina, Africa, or any other region we are talking about. There is also such a phrase as 'cultural imperialism'. It's used in daily parlance, in newspapers and other popular media and applies to such things as Hollywood, McDonald's and so on. That it was used in Soviet propaganda is irrelevant. We should then be careful about the use of 'democracy' as found in American propaganda, because it could mean 'we'd like to invade your country and bomb several thousand civilians to bring you a voting system and no reliable infrastructure run by corporations who profit from all this.' Following Wyss' argument we also have to beware of the use of any word that betrays Old French, German, Latin, Anglo-Saxon or Greek connotations that aren't implied, which rids us of most of the English lexicon. It's quite amusing to learn that Wyss cringes at others on account of her own pseudoscholarship, but that should have no bearing on our choice of words for this intro. -- Simonides 07:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Simonides, for supporting my comments about word usage so succinctly :) Wyss 07:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
(User:Simonides responded here, among other places.) Wyss 08:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The link takes one to my reports on your disruption of Wikipedia, which other users need to be aware of.
I didn't respond to your comment, because, as usual, you have no defence for your laughable proclamations on history and take refuge in disruption and distraction again. -- Simonides 09:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, please stop personal vendettas or at least take them somewhere else. Thank you.

To list my problems with imperialist (and what they are not)

  • Imperialism is linked with colonialism, which was not part of Hitler's plans (notwithstanding the Wilhelminian camp in the 3rdReich leadership).
  • At the time, there were other Empires in existence (British, French) and to use the term in regard to Hitler makes it seem like he was only trying to emulate them. (This true for Mussolini, but not for Hitler).
  • Imperialism is also used in discussions about other hegemonial powers such as the US (whether Teddy Roosvelt or George Bush), which are too unlike Hitler.
  • Imperialism is (because of the above) to weak, while appearing specific.
  • Its usage by Communists, based on Lenin's theorizing.

I do not object because of an alleged connection to monarchy: although the WP article on the Roman Empire misuses the term (and might be a misnomer), the Roman Empire was not the rule of the Roman Emperor but the Empire of the city of Rome, regardless whether it was ruled by a King, the Republic (Senate and People), a set of competing Emperors (Civil Wars) or a sole Emperor (Principate). The first appearance of the term in Livy occurs under the reign of Romulus. Of course that's looking back but it indicates what the Romans themselves meant by Imperium.

I support agressive expansionist with a proper mentioning of Lebensraum (not merely a link, not the icorrect sentence about being a justification or excuse, but one that says that it was his intention and aim).

Str1977 11:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lebensraum was his volkish intention and aim... Wyss 11:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)