Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

reference for speculation

This caption on an image

Hitler in a prayer-like position, which he used often, probably to boost his influence with the Christian population of Germany.

Does it have a reference or citation for this speculation? Otherwise it falls under WP:OR--Crossmr 02:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

i just get the impression that there is more to the story than what is told by our pro-jewish media.

Reference Addition

I wish to add source material for reference in this article. I have already included the circumstance by which Adolf Hitler entered the Bavarian Army at the outset of WWI, however the source for this inclusion is not listed in source materials. ("The Rise and Fall of Adolf Hitler", by William L. Shirer, c1961, Landmark Books / Random House, First Printing) How exactly do I add to the footnotes section, and reference the footnote in the body text?

68.127.232.228 20:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind. As I read farther into the process, I'm getting the idea. I'll be submitting the reference after I test it in Sandbox for the desired results... 68.127.232.228 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Circumstances of The Beer Putsch

There is a section in this article that has a contrary series of circumstances and events to what other source material says regarding the "Beer Putsch" that took place on November 8th, 1923. In William Shirer's book, "The Rise and Fall of Adolf Hitler", he states that Gustav von Kahr, General Lossow and Colonel Hans von Seisser had organised the political rally at the Buergerbraukeller, which was attended by supporters of the Bavarian government. He goes on to write that "...Kahr was in the middle of his speech when a revolver shot was heard in the hall. Hitler had jumped up on a table and to attract attention had fired his pistol at the ceiling." Further reading of this chapter reveals that the three organisers of the rally were herded into a back room, had a loaded pistol held to their heads, and demanded that they join his revolution.

The Wiki article states that at that time, they were ALREADY party to Hitler's plans, which would contradict what Shirer states in his work.

Does anyone have source material that supports the historical version written here? If not, then I suggest that, since Mr. Shirer was decidedly an authority on Adolf Hitler and the history of Nazi Germany's rise to power, that the writing of the event be changed to correspond with William Shirer's accounting of the circumstances.

68.127.232.228 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, they later denied it (during the trial) and were never convicted, but Kahr, Lossow and Seisser had tried to use the force of all these Völkisch groups for their own counterrevolution. However, as the proposed coup approached, they wanted to postpone it, thinking that conditions were not ripe, and told Hitler during this meeting. Hitler disagreed and interrupted Kahr's speech as described above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! Sounds like you have it dialed in, what is the source material for that though? (Don't tell me it's Shirer, if so then it must be an update to the first printing of his book!)

Edit Centric 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal

I have created Portal:Nazism but do not know enough to get it up and running, perhaps someone could help out or weigh in on whether or not such a portal is viable. I made a comment on the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism about the fact that it may be cannibalizing the target audience, i.e. it will turn into one of those portals that sits on a shelf if the main person (me) stops contributing to it because no one else cares enough. What do you think? Romperomperompe 06:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

I was just wondering, shouldn't this page be protected? There are many vandalizations on this article. Aeneiden-Rex 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Wikipedia is becoming more popular by the week. Hitler is probably the most hated person to ever walk the earth. The only reason I think it has no protection is that everyone hates him -with the exception of a few neo-nazis and other radicals- opposed to having supporters and opposers battle-ing it out on the article. --Dboyz-x.etown 00:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but still, the article is frequently vandalized so it would be good, so you don't have to revert stuff every single second. Aeneiden-Rex 09:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Colbert Report

On his show tonight, Stephen Colbert claimed that most Americans loved Hitler during World War II and his interviewee claimed he must have read that on Wikipedia (another jab at this site's sometimes shady information). Sure enough, some people have been adding that fact to the article. Should it be temporarily protected from unknown edits like the elephant articles were? --mobo85 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank god he mumbled it and Colbert spoke over him. Should minimize the damage.... I hope. JDoorj a m Talk 06:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess many Americans did admire Hitler - but that fact, even if it could be verified, is not relevant to this article.--Shtove 08:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we stick to serious sources? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the Lutherans...how do you say "dance, monkeys" in German? Colbert knows...YIKES. His fans are getting worse than Rush Limbaugh's...Michael Dorosh 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be "Tanzt, (ihr) Affen!" Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some truth to Colbert's statement, although it wasn't "most Americans," it was just "some Americans." Many "White" (Caucasian) Americans WERE actually quite sympathetic to Nazi Germany, at least in the early years (1930s mostly: 1933-1939/40) -- this 'admiration' was especially prevalent in places where many German-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, British/Scottish-Americans, and other "Aryans" were settled such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other parts of the Midwest (and also the American South due to the rampant racism and 'White Power' attitude common in that region). I've actually read before (though I forget which book) about quite a few German-American families that emigrated BACK to Germany between 1933-1939 simply because Germany's economy was booming due to Hitler's effective economic policies (and also because of all the money the Nazis seized from European Jews that they "detained"). While America was still in mired in the Great Depression all throughout the 1930s, Nazi Germany's economy was certainly very strong during the 1930s-early 1940s due to rearmament, public works/infrastructure projects (autobahn, etc.), high-enthusiasm and good morale in the general public, and like I said because of all the money that was gained (i.e., stolen) from the Nazi seizure of the industries that were traditionally Jewish-dominated (department stores, diamonds/jewels/precious-metal trade, banking/finance/money-lending, films/newspapers/media, precious art trading/selling, etc.) in Europe. So yes, MANY Caucasian ("White") Americans were admirers of Hitler at first, mostly those of Central and/or Northern European extraction (and these Americans were usually Protestants, though there were many Catholics due to the Mussolini factor and because of Bavaria's centrality in the Nazi movement). Anti-Semitism was also very high in America during these years as it was during most of the country's history; basically, whenever the economy is bad, people are more openly Anti-Semitic. Still though, I've never been able to figure out WHY Hitler declared war on the USA when he didn't have to; historians always say it was because of the Japanese alliance, but I don't know about that. I guess it was because he thought that he had the USSR whipped in the Winter of 1941, and surely defeated by the Spring of 1942, so in the long run the USA (once the USSR was crushed) would be a non-issue because then they would only have to contend with the UK (excluding Ireland), who would have probably just surrendered if the USSR had been beaten -- but who knows?! --Pseudothyrum 04:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

While somewhat irrelevant to this argument, it should be noted that The Colbert Report, similar to The Daily Show, is a parody news show AKA "Fake News." Colbert is playing the character of an ignorant journalist, who chides his interviewers. Although I have not seen the episode in question, I am sure that it was a "joke" to spawn a reaction from his interviewee.

Not only is it fake, it's utterly irrelevant to this encyclopedia article. DJ Clayworth 02:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ernst Rohm

I'm new at this so excuse my lack of etiquette, but under the section "The rebuilding of the party" The final sentence states that Ernst Rohm emigrated to Bolivia. Bollocks. He was killed in 1934, in Germany. I've been editing that sentence out but it keeps getting reverted back. ~~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myee (talk • contribs) 15-August.~~

—Except that it appears to have been made by 58.107.132.246 (talk • contribs) [1]. Luna Santin 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know what was happening there, probably some sort of semi-automatic reversion due to your anonymous status. Hitler was referred to as Adolf Legalite, but I don't know who coined the term. Paul B 23:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- I'm the editor who reverted your first edit. Your second edit was reverted by someone else, but being a comment, should probably have been directed to the talk page. Just went to remove that line, now, but I see Paul beat me to it. All I ask is that you understand: this is one the most vandalized articles on Wikipedia, and edits which remove content without using an edit summary are almost guaranteed to be reverted. But, that's fixed. Thanks for your time, and I hope this little experience hasn't put you off editing -- you've apparently got a good eye for it. :) Luna Santin 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone should be careful about assuming to know it all, especially if one is a new editor, instead of calling a fact "bullocks". Röhm indeed emigrated to Bolivia, worked as a military consultant and then returned to Germany after Hitler couldn't handle his SA all alone. Röhme then assisted Hitler in his rise to power but became too powerful (and unpopopular outside the Nazi Party), resulting in being murdered by Hitler in 1934 (which BTW is covered in the article).

58, there is no shame in not knowing this but one shouldn't be as aggressive about one's own ignorance.

It is also not very appropriate to paste fake signatures of users that don't exist.

Anyway, I have restored the passage, restricting it to its actual main content, the name of "Adolphe Legalité". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's religious beliefs - Hitler and Darwinism

In the section on Hitler's religious beliefs in the first paragraph, the article says:

"young Adolf was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and Darwinism and began to reject the Church and Catholicism"

I would like to know of a source of Hitler’s influence by Darwinism, since compared to Pan-Germanism I haven’t seen it mentioned in the very many English accounts of Hitler. Hitler himself never mentioned Darwin in his many writings and speeches, so the amount of influence his theory had on him could not have been very great. The only source seems to be Michael Rissmann - Hitler's Gott - a book entirely in German, and AFAIK not translated into English. Since this is an English wiki, I think we should restrict ourselves to using English sources or official translations - just so that sources can be verified by the reader.

A second point - compared to Pan-Germanism (who's wiki article is precise in it's definition), the definition of Darwinism is not clear. One doesn't know if Hitler was influenced by evolutionary/biological Darwinism, or the various 'Social Darwinist' theories - the wiki article on Darwinism mentions both and a host of others lumped together. If possible the it should be made clear which Darwinism Hitler was influenced by.

Third point - I'm not sure of the link between Hitler’s influence of Pan-Germanism and Darwinism and his religious beliefs. Certainly an influence by Pan-Germanism or Darwinism sentiments can not be taken as a de facto cause of Hitler’s rejection of the Church and Catholicism, since it is perfectly possible for Catholics to accept both, and still remain Catholic or a member of the church. A such I would recommend changing the line to read:

"young Adolf while still in school began to reject the Church and Catholicism, protesting against being confirmed by the bishop."

At least until further light can be shed on the reasons for Hitler’s rejection of Church and Catholicism. 09:00, 19 August 2006 User:24.82.91.241

Dear 24..

Discard a scholarly work on language ground is unacceptable IMHO (and yes, I would prefer to use an English translation too).
Hitler talked quite a lot about the "fight for survival" between different races, up till his last hours, holding to social darwinist views ... which were (rightly or wrongly) developed from Darwinism (not by Hitler himself of course, he wasn't that of an original thinker).
Hitler himself stated he used to annoy the RE teacher by quoting the biology teacher. Hitler isn't such a special case of someone perceiving a contradiction between the Genesis account and Darwin's evolutionary theory and losing faith over this.
Finally I see now that someone has changed the wording on the confirmation, now misrepresenting facts a bit - I will fix that immediately. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Dear Str1977

I am not saying we discard the work, just that we search it's replacement by an English Language source, since at current the vast majority of readers can neither confirm or deny if the source/citation is accurate. Given that the article is already too long, and this is a very well researched topic - we should restrict ourselves to points that have been widely researched and disseminated.
Hitler might indeed have held Social Darwinist views, - if so, I would argue to change 'Darwinism' to 'Social Darwinism' to be clear, if it can be shown he was exposed to these theories while in school. The article already states that Hitler had Social Darwinist views a few paragraphs down. I have no problem with that, but don't see any definitive link between these views and his moving away from Catholicism.
If Hitler did lose faith because he perceived a contradiction between biology and Genesis, he would probably have mentioned it at some point. He doesn’t, and of all the failures of the Church and Catholicism he espoused - it's failure to be compatible with Darwinian evolution was not one of them. Even if we accept that argument that evolutionary theory caused Hitler to lose faith - this is not borne out because Hitler never lost faith in a 'supreme being or divine entity'. If Hitler moved away from Catholicism, but still retained his views on divinity adn the Creator– I’m not sure how Darwinism (social or otherwise) can be seen as a particularly important influence on this.

User:24.82.91.241

Well, 24..

Up there you were arguing for removing the book and you still seem to argue in that direction.
Yes, the article is too long and the "religious views" section should definitely cut down since we have a main article on this.
Hitler "might not have held Social Darwinist views" - he did hold them undisputably - but your proposed change would be utterly wrong as the sentence in question does not talk about Hitler views but the influences on him in his schoolboy days.
Finally, Hitler lost faith because (among other things) the evolution issue ... the faith of course being the Christian faith, the Catholic faith, and not "faith in anything", which is not only a strawman but also actually impossible: everyone has faith in something.

Please, sign your posts. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Str1977,

My argument is only that we seek a confirming source in English, since the vast majority of english wiki users (me included) have no way of verifying the source. Since Adolf Hitler has been extensively researched in English and the point in question does not deal with official German/Reich documents or even German first-person sources I see no reason why we should rely solely on a non-translated German source for this claim.
I never said Hitler did NOT have social Darwinist views (on the contrary). Please read my discussion. My proposed change would not affect this.
The argument that Hitler lost faith in Catholicism because of influences in Pan-Germanism and Darwinism is not convincing. I would prefer to simply the claim but sticking to the factual - Hitler lost faith in Catholicism while in school or while young. Since I cannot verify the source I am hamstrung in attempting to see how it was claimed that Pan-Ger or Darwin in particular influenced his loss of faith. As i have mentioned:
- Neither Pan-Germanism nor Darwinian evolution is incompatible or at odds with Catholicism.
Secular evolution by natural selection in particular has no reference to a divine creator. For Hitler to retain faith in a Creator implies that whatever influence secular Darwinism had on him could not have been very great. It seems strange that Hitler would retain this aspect of Catholicism if Darwinism was a primary influence.
Hitler's move away from Catholicism or Christianity could have been influenced from a variety of sources - Physics, Chemistry, Geology, history, etc. Biology was not the only branch of education which seemed to contradict traditional religious views of the world. Hitler was probably influenced by a wide variety of views while in school. I see no reason to specify two in particular, especially since the source cannot be verified by the majority of users.
I never said Hitler lost faith in "anything".

Cheers - (.24) 5:30 EST, - August 20 2006.

24,

I have no problems with including other books ... just with the removal of a state of the art book just because it has not been translated yet.
I didn't want to imply that you doubted Hitler's adherence to Social Darwinism ... but chaning the wording in this instance would still be wrong.
You might find the argument unconvincint and it certainly isn't the whole story, but these two were factors and Hitler himself voiced this connection.
No, PanGermanism and Darwinian evolution are not per se incompatible with the Catholic faith,but
- various elements that were (and are) voiced together with Darwinian evolution are and you cannot deny that various evolutionist themselves have claimed such a imcomptability: Dawkins is not the first of his kind ... and though his thoughts are pretty much without substance, they still are believed by some. It was the same in Hitler's day.
- PanGermanism in Austria at that time was anti-Catholic, directed against the Catholic dynasty, against the Catholic idea of a supranational empire, in favour of nationalism (which is at odds with the cosmopolitic Church). We are talking in the context of Schäönerer's "Los-von-Rom!" movement.
Of course your reasoning "Secular evolution by natural selection in particular has no reference to a divine creator." is completely faulty - Evolution as a scientific theory makes no claims, either positive or negative, about the supernatural, God included. The theory of evolution is not incompatible with a creator god ... however, the theological-philosophical-ethical deductions can be quite different: Hitler reduced God to a deity siding with the winner in the "fight for survival", eclipsing any moral considerations. And (leaving aside the question whether this god wasn't just a figure of speech) this is incompatible not with Theism per se but with Christiantity and with Catholicism. And since you claim so, a belief in a god is not an "aspect of Catholicism" in so far as it is not very special to it.
I must say that you begin to read like an apologist for "Darwinism", trying to fence it off against any accusations (accusations which no one has made here).
And I really can't see where chemistry, geology, history come into play here.
You say you never said that Hitler lost faith in 'anything' - no, that was my hyperbole -but constantly equated his remaining faith (in whatever) with Christianity or Catholicism. And such an identification is deeply flawed, remembering me of certain atheist website that know only Christianity or Atheims - granted, your writing is not that simplistic but it goes into that direction.

All in all, there is no problem here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. 24, you can easily sign your posts by typing four tildes (~) - this will expand into a full signature like this: Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"For Hitler to retain faith in a Creator implies that whatever influence secular Darwinism had on him could not have been very great." Oh really? Darwinism says nothing regarding the the existence or non-existence of a creator, only that animals were not popped in existence in their current form. Perhaps we could replace "Darwinism" with "Evolutionary Theory" or "Natural Selection" if you are concerned that the generally liberal-minded Darwin is being made guilty by association here, but the fact is that racialist versions of Natural Selection were very prominent in Germany when Hitler was growing up, notably in the work of Ernest Haeckel. The connection between Darwinism and Aryanism was made from the 1880s on, even Thomas Huxley wrote about it in his essay "The Aryan Question". Vitalist ideas were attached to evolutionary theory very commonly by the end of the nineteenth century, so that the idea of evolution as the unfolding of some sort of life-force was commonplace, and was a mainstay of popular Aryanist thought. Even the Blavatsky-inspired versions had a notion of a kind of spiritual evolution over millions of years, adapted from Hindu traditions. Yes, of course there were also writers like Teilhard de Chardin at the same time who attempted to "darwinise" Catholicism. That just goes to show how common this mentality was, and how it was seen as sufficienly problematic that de Chardin had to make this effort. It's perfectly reasonable to point out the influence of Darwinian ideas in the culture at this time. Paul B 09:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have yet, anywhere to see Hitler refer to Evolution or Darwinism, or for that matter I don't see it used anywhere in Nazi propaganda. The word evolution only appears once in Mein Kampf, and is used in the context of political evolition, not biological evolution. Alot of creationists try and charicaturize Hitler as promoting social darwinism and evolution, yet this was neither taught in German schools at the time, nor was it official Nazi policy, nor have I ever read anywhere of Hitler using the term evolution in a biological sense. Does anyone have any sources on the above linking Hitler to the theory of evolition and Darwin? Stalin mentions he was heavily influenced by Darwin and caused a complete change in his thinking about religion. This however is mentioned nowhere by Hitler. --Nazrac 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true that Hitler didn't generally refer to Darwin, Haeckel or other evolutionary biologists. He preferred to make semi-mystical pronouncements about the demands of "nature" and the "divine will", but these were usually couched in quasi-Darwinian language about the struggle for existence.

Nature herself in times of great poverty or bad climactic conditions, as well as poor harvest, intervenes to restrict the increase of population of certain countries or races; this, to be sure, by a method as wise as it is ruthless. She diminishes, not the power of procreation as such, but the conservation of the procreated, by exposing them to hard trials and deprivations with the result that all those who are less strong and less healthy are forced back into the womb of the eternal unknown. Those whom she permits to survive the inclemency of existence are a thousandfold tested hardened, and well adapted to procreate-in turn, in order that the process of thoroughgoing selection may begin again from the beginning. (Mein Kampf, 1, 4.)

Paul B 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Very true, that sounds like the perfect description of micro-evolution. It's also a very accurate description of Hitler's race views and the reality of organic life. Those who have desirable characteristics that give them a survival advantage over others will survive and pass on those traits, giving their offspring that advantage as well. I think the main point Hitler tries to make is that humans now have this silly idea that the laws of nature don't apply to us. In many ways we have transgressed natural selection and introduced a form of artificial selection such as those with more wealth are the ones with the advantage, regardless of biology. Conversely in a society of total equality those with beneficial traits, abilities or potential are marginalized to the lowest common denominator of the masses, ensure a society becomes stagnant, weak and unfit for survival. An example of this would be our reliance on technology rather than natural human talent and intelligence. If a disaster were ever to strike this planet on such a scale that everything in society would fall apart and collapse, only those with the characteristics of natural fitness of body and mind, the enginuity and perserverance to carry out this struggle for survival would be capable of surviving the harsh conditions. without the artificial means of society and unnatural selection which otherwise allowed those unfit to survive, people would perish, with the fittest of them surviving. I think the danger Hitler and others forsaw was that artificial weaknesses in this survival mechanism that has allowed our species to survive since its beginning may be weakened and lost through the artificial survival of otherwise unfit elements. That really doesn't sound so far fetched to me and it is an accepted principle of evolution and indeed every aspect of biology. --Nazrac 21:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler alive?

ishitleralive.ytmnd.com/

I know YTMND is a joke site, but this could be factual.

No, it really couldn't. --Golbez 04:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler and alcohol

In a recent TV-documentary Hitlers personal typist (Recently deceased) stated that Hitler had a glass of white wine at dinner from time to time and that he told her it was the only alcoholic beverage he coul apreciate sometimes, mainly as an 'aperitive' before dinner. I did not include this in the article however as I can not remember the typist's name. Perhaps someone could find this out 81.245.170.52 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what that minor detail has to do with anything. How many people speculate on Stalin's favorite underwear color or whether or not he liked canned pickles? The answer is, who cares? --Nazrac 22:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Protect this page from non-logged in users?

Should we protect this page from anaon users? With the high level of vandalism this article is suffering from, I feel that a concrete action must be done soon. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Do it. I was feeling the same. Aran|heru|nar 12:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Table

User:Gidonb has removed this table from text. I consider it a vandal.

Nazi Party Accomplishments
Date	Votes	Percentage	Seats in Reichstag	Events
May 1924	1,918,300	6.5	32	Hitler in prison
December 1924	907,300	3.0	14	Hitler is released from prison
May 1928	810,100	2.6	12
September 1930	6,409,600	18.3	107	After the financial crisis
July 1932	13,745,800	37.4	230	After Hitler was candidate for presidency
November 1932	11,737,000	33.1	196
March 1933	17,277,000	43.9	288	While Hitler is the Chancellor of Germany

--Haham hanuka 10:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Learn wikitable format please. And as the reverter said, it's better in the specific article. Finally, please don't call a content dispute vandalism. We hate that. --Golbez 10:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. Be nice, :). Aran|heru|nar 12:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Such a table is not particular fitting to an article on the person Hitler, rather more to an article on the NSDAP or Weimar Republic election results. All with proper wording and formatting of course. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this user is that he is tracking my edits. If this table was added by someone else he wouldn't revert it. It seems he is seaching over and over again for edit wars with me. You can watch our history. This is why I called it vandalism. --Haham hanuka 19:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with the table. Whether he is tracking your edits or has something against you does not matter. I would remove it myself if I saw it. If he made other edits that you find are unjustfiably against you, then you can leave him a friendly note and tell him to stop it. Aran|heru|nar 14:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Birmoverse

What is the Birmoverse and why should there be such a category? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Testicles

I have commonly heard it asserted that Adolf Hitler had only one testicle. Is this a myth? Whether it is or not, why is it not addressed at least briefly in the article? It is true Hitler only had one testicle.

Answer: This idea is not a serious rumor but comes from a comical set of verses to the British "Colonel Bogey's March" (best known as the march in the film "The Bridge Over the River Kwai"). "Hitler/Has only got one ball/Goring/Has two but they are small/Himmler/Has something sim'lar/ And poor old Goballs/Has no balls/At all." No need to address frivolities like this in this article.

It's probably a myth, but there is some supporting evidence. The Russian Hitler autopsy claimed it was true. Rosenbaum's book Explaining Hitler has a good discussion of this important issue. See also Hitler has only got one ball. Paul B 09:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop this silly discussion? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't decide what people can discuss. Paul B 21:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

But I may always hope in the sense of my fellow human beings. Though, sometimes that is limited. ;-) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just be thankful we weren't discussing the Billy-Goat Bite Theory. See Rosenbaum p. xxx. Paul B 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

"Meanwhile he was treated by a military physician and specialist in psychiatry, who reportedly diagnosed the corporal as "incompetent to command people" and "dangerously psychotic"." Citation is needed for this statement.

Repression Section

Is the Repression section really appropriate for the this page? After all, it contains hardly any information about Hitler himself. It would be more appropriate for the Nazi Germany, NSDAP or Gestapo page, rather than here. Sure, Hitler was the driving force behind it, but by that logic you could squeeze the whole Third Reich history into this page. --Frescard 05:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler/Hanisch

For anyone interested in writing more about this line: "Several biographers have noted that a Jewish resident of the house named Hanisch helped him sell his postcards.[citation needed]"

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/hitler/sources/30s/394newrep/394NewRepHanischHitlersBuddy.htm

Virgin?

A few reputable historians have claimed that Hitler was a lifelong virgin, as no one has yet to fully verify if he engaged in sexual relations with ANYONE. Does this warrant mentioning in the article? --152.163.100.74 06:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How many people can "fully verify" that you're not a virgin? ;) --Frescard 06:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from one claim that Hitler was "physically unable to perform the sexual act" (which did not receive widespread acceptance) the evidence points to Hitler having a sex life. He once remarked "for love I keep myself a young girl" - that girl was Eva Braun. Anyway, do we really need to reflect unprovable claims like him being a virgin (apart from a contrafactual vow of lifelong continence). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make? Unless, of course, one subscribes to the Marxist psycho-babble of the ridiculous Wilhelm Reich, or the even more ridiculous Robert Waite. White Guard 00:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Removal

I recently removed two items of trivia from the article, but somebody didn't like that. I felt they were quite irrelevant (and in one case even uncited) facts, and that's why I deleted them. How do others feel about these items:

The origin of the name "Hitler"
There are two theories about the origin of the name "Hitler":

(1) From German Hittler and similar, "one who lives in a hut", "shepherd".
(2) From Slavic Hidlar and Hidlarcek and similar.

Is it really important to know where his name might have come from? What's the relevance to his personality and history?

Popularity of the name "Adolf" among Jews
During the early 20th century, Adolf was a popular name for German Jews. After World War II many survivors who had been born with this name changed it and the popularity of the name decreased dramatically.
Obviously the popularity of the name went down after his rise. Does that really need to be stated?
Statistics for the name are also included in the new source that's used for the origins of the name Adolf.--Frescard 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care much about the "popularity" issue but the origins of the name are interesting, thought certainly not the most relevant information in the world. But no need to delete them. And finally, you did not discuss your deletions are and neither were you obligated to do so. But then please don't apply double standards to others. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between an edit during which some items (especially unsourced items) are removed and a total revert of a recent edit.
I wouldn't even mind that much if you would have just re-inserted those two items, but you also reverted my edits that integrated the trivia points into the article chapters (as per the trivia guidelines), as well as the references in the speech section.

I've explained my reasons for deleting the Hitler name origin paragraph above: no sources, and fairly irrelevent trivia. Why do you think it's important? The origins of the name Adolf are important since Hitler himself referred to it in his self-chosen nicknames and naming of military installations. I don't see any relevance like that to his last name though. --Frescard 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Given Wolfie's unflattering view of Slavs, the possible Slavic orgins of Hitler/Hiedler are worth noting. Paul B 11:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And he referred to his ancestors as "einfache Häusler", a term related to his family name, according to one of the theories. Anyway, it is an interesting fact and though right now without a citation it is accurate. And no, there is no difference between an edit and an edit, expect regarding the Three-Revert-Rule (which is not a Three-Edit-Rule). I will restore the changes whose reverting you decried in particular but retain the information. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since his ancestors used both the names Hiedler and Hüttler the slavic version seems not very probable to me. See also: http://www.adel-genealogie.de/Hitler/is01/is01_003.htm --AchtungAchtung 13:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

hitler childhood

Hitler was the only child of a mom that loved him greatly. His father persihed and his mom had many miscarriages so she loved him like any overprotective mother would. He was given anything and di d antyhing he wanted to do this might have had an impact on his career.

He had a sister. What you say is true of many people, who do not all rise to be important world leaders. Be careful of reducing history to personal profiles. White Guard 19:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives