Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 6

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

Proposed article split

This article is overweight and needs to be split into 2 in order to guarantee editorial freedom. Put your proposals here, and I will hopefully do the split on Sunday on the basis of consensus reached. I am putting a note at the top of the article to let readers participate in the debate. Squiquifox 22:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree to splitting this. The subject has great historical importance and the length seems justified to me. --Nate Ladd 06:45, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think the 32K limit is fairly arbitrary, and related to older versions of web browsers. While it probably makes sense for many articles, Hitler is a particularly historically significant individual, and a longer treatment makes sense. Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Squiquifox: I agree with the idea of splitting it, I think the personal dyanamics around Hitler need to be examined without intruding on the biographical details.

(talk) 16:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nate Ladd, the article's present lenght is certainly justified. Also as Jayjg says, the 32k limit is arbitrary and is becoming more and more out-of-date. This article still has room for growth, if it needs to. Unless there are compelling reasons from an article content and structure point of view, in my opinion, it's better to have all the content in one place. Paul August ☎ 19:10, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


Internet Explorer for Mac (including the most recent version) has a hard limit of 32K on text fields. So if someone edits the article and saves it using IE for Mac, half of the article will disappear. Therefore to guarantee editorial freedom for Mac users we must split the article. I am not trying to get consensus on whether to split the article, but on how to do so. If you don't like the 32KB warning try and get the policy changed. How do we split this article?--Squiquifox 21:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Few Mac users still use IE. Since June 2003, Apple's Safari (a free download) has been provided as the default browser on the Mac, Microsoft has ceased further development of IE, and IE is no longer supported on the Mac. In addition, many other excellent (mostly free) browsers are available for the Mac platform including Firefox (the fastest growing). However, for the Mac users who do still use IE, they can edit articles longer than 32k, like this one, using section edits. As regards to policy, I know of no hard and fast rule that says articles longer than 32k must be split. As far as I know, keeping articles under 32k is a recommendation only, and should be decided, case-by-case, on editorial, rather than technical, grounds. Paul August ☎ 17:09, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Mac users using older versions of Mac OS X (or OS 9, for that matter) can't use Safari. The former will want to use Camino (a Mac-only Mozilla-based web-browser, similar to Firefox but developed specifically for the Mac) and the latter will want to use iCab. A Man In Black 09:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have brought the issue of whether articles should be split/slimmed or not to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Squiquifox 03:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggest 58 possible wiki links and 24 possible backlinks for Adolf Hitler.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Adolf_Hitler article:

  • Can link Western Europe: ...although he has become, especially in the United States and Western Europe, virtually emblematic of tyranny and monstrous evil. The [[...
  • Can link irreconcilable differences: ...espectful of his father, though he does state that they had irreconcilable differences over his firm decision to become an artist. His father stau... (link to section)
  • Can link civil servant: ...aunchly opposed this career path, wanting Adolf to become a civil servant instead. In January [[1903]] Alois died, and in December [[... (link to section)
  • Can link homeless people: ...paintings to merchants. Yet Hitler lived in [[hostel]]s for homeless people and lived a marginal existence. During his spare time he of... (link to section)
  • Can link spare time: ... homeless people and lived a marginal existence. During his spare time he often attended operas in Vienna's concert halls, especia... (link to section)
  • Can link Eastern Europe: ...[[Jew]]ish community, including many [[Orthodox Jews]] from Eastern Europe. He became influenced by publicists such as [[Lanz von Lieb... (link to section)
  • Can link political views: ...ority of the "[[Aryan race]]" which formed the basis of his political views. Ultimately Hitler came to believe that the Jews were the n... (link to section)
  • Can link physical examination: ...liking. The Austrian army later arrested him and gave him a physical examination. Found unfit for service, he was allowed to return to Munic... (link to section)
  • Can link German army: ...d at the German capitulation in November [[1918]], when the German army remained, in popular German belief, undefeated. At the time... (link to section)
  • Can link poison gas: ...surrender, Hitler was recovering in a field hospital from a poison gas attack that had temporarily blinded him. Like many other Ge... (link to section)
  • Can link World War: ...group was to create a [[scapegoat]] for the outbreak of the World War and for Germany's defeat. This scapegoat was found in "inte... (link to section)
  • Can link nationalist party: ...eas and was assigned by Headquarters to infiltrate a small nationalist party, the [[German Workers' Party]]. Hitler joined the party in ... (link to section)
  • Can link National Socialist German Workers Party: ...ties. He soon became its leader and changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (''Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei''—N... (link to section)
  • Can link Field-Marshall: ... the [[Sturmabteilung|SA]]. Another admirer was the wartime Field-Marshall [[Erich Ludendorff]]. Hitler decided to use Ludendorff as a... (link to section)
  • Can link beer hall: ..." of [[November 8]] [[1923]], when the Nazis marched from a beer hall to the Bavarian War Ministry, intending to overthrow Bavari... (link to section)
  • Can link right-wing: ...the Bavarian War Ministry, intending to overthrow Bavaria's right-wing separatist government and then march on Berlin. The army qu... (link to section)
  • Can link The turning point: ...he road to power == ''See also the [[Weimar Timeline]].'' The turning point in Hitler's fortunes came with the [[Great Depression|Depre... (link to section)
  • Can link Social Democrats: ...ed by conservatives and was openly opposed by fascists. The Social Democrats and the traditional parties of the centre and right were un... (link to section)
  • Can link middle-class: ...n over the bulk of the German farmers, war veterans and the middle-class, who had been hard hit by the inflation of the [[1920s]] an... (link to section)
  • Can link half-sister: ...l]], was found dead in her bedroom. Hitler had taken in his half-sister Angela and her daughter Geli, to live in his Munich apartme... (link to section)
  • Can link presidential election: ...aving little success, the government was anxious to avoid a presidential election in [[1932]], and hoped to secure the Nazis' agreement to an... (link to section)
  • Can link working class: ...o join the government, along with the Nazis' efforts to win working class support, alienated some of the Nazis' previous supporters, ... (link to section)
  • Can link majority government: ...[Kurt von Schleicher]], who promised that he could secure a majority government by negotiations with both Social Democratic labour unions a... (link to section)
  • Can link labour unions: ...rity government by negotiations with both Social Democratic labour unions and with the dissident Nazi faction led by [[Gregor Strasse... (link to section)
  • Can link Alfred Hugenberg: ...ssident Nazi faction led by [[Gregor Strasser]]. Papen and Alfred Hugenberg, who was also Chairman of the [[German National People's Pa... (link to section)
  • Can link political power: ...me == ''See also [[Nazi Germany]]'' Having secured supreme political power without winning support from the majority of Germans, Hitle... (link to section)
  • Can link mass media: ...s regime. He was a master orator, and with all of Germany's mass media under the control of his propaganda chief, Dr. [[Joseph Goe... (link to section)
  • Can link German economy: ...ction and civil improvement that Germany had ever seen. The German economy achieved near full employment and greatly expanded its econ... (link to section)
  • Can link full employment: ...hat Germany had ever seen. The German economy achieved near full employment and greatly expanded its economic and industrial base. Hitl... (link to section)
  • Can link ethnic Germans: ...d other civil improvements. Hitler's health initiatives for ethnic Germans were successful and progressive. Hitler's policies emphasi... (link to section)
  • Can link family life: ...rogressive. Hitler's policies emphasised the importance of family life: men were the breadwinners, women’s priorities being ... (link to section)
  • Can link German people: ... these and other reasons, Hitler was very popular among the German people during this time.... (link to section)
  • Can link armed forces: ...acting an oath of personal loyalty from every member of the armed forces. This merger, which had been approved by the Weimar parliam... (link to section)
  • Can link non-Jewish: .... They were subject to a barrage of hateful propaganda. Few non-Jewish Germans objected to these steps. These restrictions were fu... (link to section)
  • Can link Air Force: ...ing a massive military machine, including a new Navy and an Air Force (the [[Luftwaffe]]). The enlistment of vast numbers of men ... (link to section)
  • Can link prisoners of war: ...apped]], the mentally [[retarded]], [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] prisoners of war, the [[Poland|Polish]] [[intelligentsia]], [[Jehovah's Witn... (link to section)
  • Can link mass killing: ...y role. While no specific order from Hitler authorizing the mass killing of the Jews has surfaced, although there is documentation t... (link to section)
  • Can link central planning: ...nn]], the records of which provide the best evidence of the central planning of the Holocaust. Just days later, on [[February 22]], Hitl... (link to section)
  • Can link German-speaking: ...al entry into Vienna. Next he intensified a crisis over the German-speaking [[Sudetenland]] district of [[Czechoslovakia]]. This led to... (link to section)
  • Can link British prime minister: ...ed to the [[Munich Agreement]] of September [[1938]], which British prime minister [[Neville Chamberlain]] hailed as 'Peace in our time'. At ... (link to section)
  • Can link western powers: ...der the [[Treaty of Versailles|Versailles Treaty]]. But the western powers were unable to come to an agreement with the [[Soviet Union... (link to section)
  • Can link Great Britain: ...] of Italy, to join the war on Hitler's side on May 1940. Great Britain, whose forces had been driven from France at the coast of D... (link to section)
  • Can link bombing raid: ...t of Dunkirk, continued to fight on alone. Hitler ordered a bombing raid on the British Isles, leading to the [[Battle of Britain]],... (link to section)
  • Can link British Isles: ...ued to fight on alone. Hitler ordered a bombing raid on the British Isles, leading to the [[Battle of Britain]], which continued unti... (link to section)
  • Can link Baltic states: ...barossa]], seized huge amounts of territory, especially the Baltic states and the Ukraine, resulting in destruction of many Soviet fo... (link to section)
  • Can link North Africa: ...d]], the first major defeat Germany suffered in the war. In North Africa, Britain defeated Germany at the battle of [[El Alamein]], ... (link to section)
  • Can link turning point: ...z Canal]] and the [[Middle East]]. These defeats were a key turning point in the war. After these, Hitler’s military decisions ... (link to section)
  • Can link declaration of war: ...w]] believes he suffered from [[Parkinson's disease]]. His declaration of war against the [[United States]] on [[December 11]] [[1941]] (... (link to section)
  • Can link resistance movement: ...r narrowly escaped death. Savage reprisals followed and the resistance movement was crushed.... (link to section)
  • Can link Central Europe: ... German troops from their territory and began charging into Central Europe. The western armies were advancing into Germany. The German... (link to section)
  • Can link The Germans: ...ral Europe. The western armies were advancing into Germany. The Germans had lost the war from a military perspective but Hitler all... (link to section)
  • Can link German military: ...peace talks with the Allied forces and as a consequence the German military continued to fight. By April 1945, the Soviet forces were a... (link to section)
  • Can link at the gates: ...y continued to fight. By April 1945, the Soviet forces were at the gates of Berlin. Hitler's closest lieutenants urged him to flee t... (link to section)
  • Can link Nazi leaders: ... doubt. ==Legacy== In his will, Hitler dismissed the other Nazi leaders and appointed Grand Admiral [[Karl Dönitz]] as the new [[Pr... (link to section)
  • Can link Grand Admiral: ...will, Hitler dismissed the other Nazi leaders and appointed Grand Admiral [[Karl Dönitz]] as the new [[President of Germany]] and [[J... (link to section)
  • Can link half-brother: ...er]] mother *[[Paula Hitler]] sister *[[Alois Hitler, Jr.]] half-brother... (link to section)
  • Can link HarperCollins: ...1 *[[Alan Bullock]], ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives'', HarperCollins, 1991, ISBN 0679729941 ... (link to section)
  • Can link Oxford University Press: ...542 *Brigitte Hamann, Thomas Thornton, ''Hitler's Vienna'', Oxford University Press; New Ed edition, 2000... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

  • In Ásatrú, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...ot widespread among the party ''(see [[Nazi Mysticism]])''. Adolf Hitler is quoted as opposing any open revival of belief in the Nor...
  • In Baptism for the dead, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...umbus, Jewish Holocaust victims, Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Buddha. Vicarious baptism does not mean ...
  • In Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ... value inherent for it regardless of context. In 1938 when Adolf Hitler included creations of Futurism in an exhibition, deriding w...
  • In Nuremberg, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...se interested in the [[History of Germany]] overall. After Adolf Hitler came to power, Nuremberg was made a national shrine by the ...
  • In PR Watch, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...ents in Bejing's Tiananman Square with neo-nazi claims that Adolf Hitler did not kill millions of European residents. [http://www.di...
  • In Toni Schumacher, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...st hated man in France, and Schumacher managed to beat even Adolf Hitler (who finished second) into first place....
  • In Codename Garbo, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...Operation Fortitude]] an effort that successfully convinced Adolf Hitler and many of the German high command to believe that the All...
  • In 1948 Arab-Israeli War, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...es. An increase in Jewish immigration following the rise of Adolf Hitler led to the so-called [[Great Uprising]] from [[1936]] to [[...
  • In Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...or, the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP) of Adolf Hitler, 1933–1945. Despite our identification with many part...
  • In IMZ-Ural, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...tov-Ribbentrop Pact]]), against the German Third Reich, and Adolf Hitler, the ruthless dictator of Nazi Germany. Joseph Stalin order...
  • In Moselle, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...''Gau Westmark'' at the armistice of [[June 22]], [[1940]]. Adolf Hitler considered Moselle and Alsace part of Germany....
  • In List of frequently misused English words, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...amous'' is to be of exceedingly ill repute. **''Standard'': Adolf Hitler was an infamous dictator....
  • In Doctors' Trial, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...ncil - not guilty * [[Karl Brandt]] - Personal physician to Adolf Hitler; Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and Generalleutnant (Major Genera...
  • In Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...airman of the Association of German Industrialists, and the Adolf Hitler Spende, a political fundraising organisation for the Nazis....
  • In Bucky O'Hare, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ... led by a vast computer system known as KOMPLEX, resembling Adolf Hitler in many ways. Bucky O' Hare was the Captain of a mammal fri...
  • In Eastern Front (WWII), can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...lin itself held useful post war strategic assets, including Adolf Hitler and the German atomic bomb programme....
  • In Walter Warlimont, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...er of the high officer caste in favor of the German Führer: Adolf Hitler. On the basis of this memorandum, Hitler developed the “Ob...
  • In Thomas Sangster, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ... Robert Nobel''' *''Hitler: The Rise of Evil'' (2003) .... Adolf Hitler (10 yrs)...
  • In Rudolf von Sebottendorf, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...;nchen Deutsche Arbeiterpartei]] (DAP). It was the DAP that Adolf Hitler was introduced to in 1919. By [[April 1]], [[1920]], the DA...
  • In La caduta degli dei, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ... how so called "German Upper Class Nobility" first resented Adolf Hitler, then accepted him, and at last embraced him....
  • In History of MoveOn.org, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...d (neither of which became a finalist) had compared Bush to Adolf Hitler, a comparison that conservatives described as "political ha...
  • In Glossary of WWII German military terms, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ... volunteer *Führer -- leader, title given to exclusively to Adolf Hitler: Mein Fuhrer, Der Führer...
  • In Breitspurbahn, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...ink to that site, too, thanx</i> Im Deutschen Reich plante Adolf Hitler eine (die) Breitspurbahn mit einer Spurweite von 3000 mm. M...
  • In Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...schaft was the German Federal Railways from 1920-1945. When Adolf Hitler died the DRG (as Der Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesselschaft was a...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Please keep in mind the neutrality policy. Hitler is widely regarded as having been among the worlds most successful oraters. The purpose of this article is to inform, not to convince people Hitler was bad. If they don't think he's bad already, reading a biased article won't convince them any. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 16:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


It is not a question of trying to promote certain feelings about Hitler. I am willing to try to find language that people can agree on but I have much more substantive objections. The sentence: "A gifted, charismatic orator possessed of a profound personal presence", has two significant problems.

First, the perhaps more minor problem is that, while Hitler was undoubtedly a sucessful and charismatic orator, there is often associated with oration a certain lyrical and literary quality that Hitler's oration lacked. I would not refer to him as a inherently gifted orator. Hitler spoke with great emotion and fervor, many would say vengeful rage, about topics that resonated with the German public. However I know of no historian or writer who thinks that Hitler had a great command of the German language in the way that Churchill or Lincoln did of theirs. Hitler himself often wrote his speeches, at least early in his career, and, like his writing, they are almost universally thought to have little or no literarly value. I dont think an assessment of writing ability is really such a subjective thing. If Hitler wrote like Churchill, German literary circles would not deny it. Admittledly, this is somewhat of a semantic problem with what one means by oration.

The second more substantive objection relates to Hitlers personal presence. I am not going to argue that this is purely a subjective notion. Certain people, like Martin Luther King for example, have been almost universally recognized to have had great charisma in private settings. Certain more sinister characters like Saddam Hussein are also fairly widely seen to have been personally charasmatic. The problem with applying this sort of language to Hitler is that one of the things he is known for is to have been, at least among a large minority, a very disappointing person to meet personally. Even Mussolini found him to be a very ascetic and somewhat withdrawn character. Hitler was also known for doing very poorly in social cirlces and he was not someone who was known, at least while he lacked power, to have had much of any sexual attractiveness to either sex. He had great difficulty rising above Corporal in the first World War despite a record of some distinction. Some think this was due to a bad psychological evaluation but it is almost certainly due to a lack of command presence. It is just a fact that over the course of Hitler's life many people found him to be repulsive or a non-entity, and this really affected his early life. Obviously this is only part of the story and he was undoubtedly charismatic in a sense. However he had to overcome a sort of lack of attractiveness in his personality that manifested itself over the course of his entire life. This is not someone who I would refer to as one who is "possessed of a profound personal presence". --Wtmgeo 17:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We largely agree. In refering to his "profound personal presence", I ment his speech giving abilities. In that area, he is unmatched, regardless of his theoretical eloquence (I have heard both Hitler and Churchill give plenty of speeches, and Churchill has nothing on Hitler, regardless of vocabulary ;) Lets try finding a woring we can all agree to. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have used the words "highly animated and charismatic". I could use language like "captivating" or "stirring", but for the reasons I have mentioned, I might shy away from a term like eloquence. I should say that I actually quite like the turn of phrase "possessed of a profound personal presence" and I understand that it applies to Hitler as a public figure and speaker. Maybe it could come later in relation to his speeches during his rise to power. By the way Churchill won the Nobel prize for literature and, while this was mostly for his history of WW2, it was also for a lifetime of literary achievement, including his oratory. --Wtmgeo 18:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Its funny this would come up, because I have an enormous amount of WWII related speeches on MP3. I'm sure many have outdone me, but I've heard speeches (especially the more famous ones) by Churchill, FDR and Hitler an amazing amount of times (I play all my MP3's on shuffle). Anyhow, their talents are best interpreted by the effects they had on their intended audience, their respective publics, rather than their effects on us, or other critics. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hitler was a better speaker than Churchill. Hitler gets the crowd involved, cheering madly and hanging off his every word. If he tells them to say "Seig Heil" or "Heil Hitler" they listen, he could tell the people anything and they would say it. I've never seen this kind of enthusium from any of Churchills speaches. I don't like Hitler at all but, if you have to respect him for something its his ability to get people to hang off his every word. Canaduh

Bal Thackery and Hitler

To the anonymous poster who keeps adjusting the Thackeray reference:

(1) The reference to Thackery is *entirely* appropriate for the section of the article which concerns Hitler's legacy. You have claimed that "no indian group or political leader supports Hitler's philosophy or ideology", but Thackeray's own words suggest otherwise. Here are a few quotes from an AsiaWeek article, dated 1995:

"BOMBAY'S BALASHAHEB "BAL" THACKERAY, 68, does not object to the assertion that he is a demagogue - he openly revels in it. A short time after telling an Indian newspaper that he wanted to be the "Hitler of India" he repeated the claim - with pride - to Asiaweek."

[...]

"[Interviewer]: You recently described yourself as the Hitler of Bombay, and you have expressed a desire to be the Hitler of India. Is that correct?

[BT]: Why not? I am a great admirer of Hitler, and I am not ashamed to say so! I do not say that I agree with all the methods he employed, but he was a wonderful organizer and orator, and I feel that he and I have several things in common. Look at the amount of good we have done in just six months in Maharashtra. Actually, we have too much sham-democracy in this country. What India really needs is a dictator who will rule benevolently, but with an iron hand."

Check out [www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/95/0922/nat5.html] for the full interview.

A few years ago, when he was trying to pass himself off as a "moderate", Thackeray backed away from statements like these (or claimed he was misinterpreted). Notwithstanding which, it would be a difficult task to gloss over the presence of at least some support for "Hitler's philosophy or ideology" in the quote referenced above. </understatement mode off>

(2) Given that a reference to Thackeray is appropriate, it also seems appropriate to mention that he leads Shiv Sena, a right-wing Hindu nationalist party which embraces the principles of Hindutva, and has become even more militant in support of these principles since the BJP's defeat last year. (In passing, I can only imagine that Shiv Sena's own drubbing in the recent Maharashtra poll will push it even further toward its core constituency on this issue.)

If you want to mention that *not all* of supporters of Hindutva agree with Thackeray's views on Hitler, that might be fine. (Though in that case it should also be noted that *many* authors have drawn parallels between Hindutva and fascism.)

(3) This isn't really relevant to the article at hand, but I might add in passing that Thackeray's support for the destroyers of the Ayodhya mosque, and his party's general policy towards India's Muslim population, have some parallels with the conduct of the Nazi regime toward minority groups.

Comparing modern leaders to Hitler is usually a cop-out, but since Thackeray himself has invited the comparison ... well, let's just say it seems appropriate under the circumstances. CJCurrie 00:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its beyond slanderous to claim that the attitude of Hindutva towards Muslims is somehow on par with Nazi policies towards minority groups.

Which is not what I was claiming, either in the main body of the article or in this dicussion. I have read opinion pieces which describe Hindutva as a perversion of Hinduism, and as having been directly inspired by Hitler and Mussoloni; I am not, however, in a position to give authoritative comment on this controversy one way or the other. I *did* claim that (i) Bal Thackeray, who leads a Hindutva party, has expressed admiration of Hitler, and (ii) that the Shiv Sena's policy toward minority groups has "some parallels" with the policies of the Nazi regime. I stand by both of these comments, though in the interests of keeping this discussion on topic I would agree to set the second point aside. CJCurrie 02:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the context of this article, its a gross exaggeration. The Nazis had an explicitly racist and malicious agenda of systemized exclusion, revocation of citizenship, and ultimate elimination with regards to the Jews and other undersirables.

The BJP has advocated nothing of the sort towards the Islamic community, and has mainly pushed for a Uniform Civil Code and called for Muslims to do more to assimilate within mainstream Indian society.

This beside the point -- I wasn't talking about the BJP, nor did I accuse the Hindutva movement as a whole of endorsing Thackeray's praise of Hitler. CJCurrie 02:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is in fact the diametric opposite of the Nazi regime's disposition towards the Jews, whom it deliberately attempted to exclude and eventually destroy. Even the Shiv Sena, which is far more extreme than the BJP, has not voiced sentiment that could be construed as aiming at the extermination of the Muslims on par with the Nazi atrocities.

As far as the Ayodhya issue is concerned, Im not going to get into a long-winded debate over the subject, but lets just say that attempting to build a temple on what is one of the most holiest sites in Hinduism is a far cry from Krstallnacht.

Its not simply that not *all* of Hindutva followers are sympathetic towards Hitler, there isnt even a minority which is. Mainstream Hindutva organizations like the RSS and VHP have never published anything that can even remotely be construed as being supportive of Hitler's philosophy of genocide and discrimination. To conflate the fact that Thackeray is an admirer of Hitler with his party's acceptance of Hindutva is simply shading the truth.

So make a case in the main article that not all (or even many, as the case may be) supporters of Hindutva follow Thackeray on this point. This still doesn't nullify the description of Shiv Sena as "right-wing Hindu nationalist" and "Hindutva", nor does it make such a description inappropriate in this article. CJCurrie 02:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? CJCurrie 02:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have a thought. This thought is that people who primarily want to make points about politics and politicians in India should find another place on Wikipedia to do so. References to Hitler are a fine way to strike ones political opponents over the head or to put ones foot in ones mouth, as this guy Bal Thackery has evidently done, but what relevance do they have to a very short biography of Hitler? Why dont you create another page titled something like "Hitler as a modern political device", and take your debate there. --Wtmgeo 06:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's relevant to section dealing with Hitler's legacy, and to the choice of wording therein. I realize it's a bit odd to have a discussion this long concerning the inclusion or exclusion of four or five words in the main article, but the basic point is on-topic.
Anyway, I've thought of a compromise: what if we just describe the Shiv Sena as "right-wing Hindu nationalist" without referencing Hindutva? CJCurrie 22:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hitler's testicles

This article has a section "Medical health .... Hitler's medical health has long been the subject of debate, and he has variously been suggested to suffer ... and a missing left testicle.". Is this last item from valid medical evidence or other genuine reports? Or does it only refer to the common vulgar song "Hitler's only got one ball ..."? I see no purpose in merely commemorating an obscene traditional popular song here. (Even if the report is valid, it may refer to cryptorchidism rather than to complete absence.) Anthony Appleyard 08:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Allegedly, it goes back to an autopsy performed supposedly after the Russians discovered the body in Berlin. However, accounts are so varied, it's almost hard to know what to believe. Some accounts say Hitler's body was never recovered, others say that only a skull fragment was recovered, and another said his body was burned in the street and the Russians only found the charred corpse. But then again there are those who think Hitler escaped to South America, and that the U.S. State Department issued a wanted poster depicting Hitler with different hair styles, etc. on several occasions...even as late as 15 years after WWII ended. Who knows? —ExplorerCDT 08:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My German friend insists he fled to Austria, where he died peacefully of old age. The testicle bit was claimed even before his death, and was allegedly "proven" by that dubious russian autopsy you refered to. It should stay, but we shouldn't give it much respect either. I recommend you guys come help out over on Hitler's Death. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 10:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If there's no evidence, there's no fact. If no one has a reliable source that can be verified (i.e. official documentation of some sort), then the one-ball thing is nothing but rumor. Looking at the entry on Catherine The Great, I don't see any mention of her rumored sexual prediliction for horses - and for good reason; unverifiable rumors are out of place in an objective evaluation - so there wouldn't seem to be any point in leaving in rumors about any other famous / infamous person either, except in intentional violation of neutral POV to discredit the subject. It should just be stricken, as should the other rumors, until such time as someone can supply official sources of some sort for them. (unsigned) 63.80.207.34 14:31, 8 Feb 2005

Not only things that have been proven should be recorded in an encyclopedia article. If a legend is associated with a historical character, and that legend is significant (as is the case with Hitler's rumored monorchidism) then the fact of the legend should be recorded. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of any serious scholar who didn't dismiss the whole story as nothing more than propaganda. There is zero evidence for it and the propaganda legend is covered quite vividly in its own WP article, along with Hitler's Death. Wyss 20:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation notice

There was until very recently a notice at the top of this article:

"Hitler" redirects to this page. For other people named Hitler, see Hitler (disambiguation).

In my view it was a useful link. Everyking and I cannot agree on whether it is "clutter." Everyking has placed it under "Hitler's family" which makes sense. On balance I think I still prefer to have it at the top. Any other people with preferences? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it should be on top of this page, these people are not all Hitlers family. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 10:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

question

  • first: is there doubt about his suicide in the bunker?
  • is it true that he was on cocaine? perhaps a rumor page /section would be nice

See:

The short answers are: yes, there is loads of doubt from everybody who has looked into his death with any kind of interest, and it was meth he was on, not coke. He didn't know that was what it was tho, his doctor told him it was the super-soldier serum, or vitimins, or some such. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 22:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hitlerjugend

A brief section on the Hitler Youth might be a good idea (and not in the form of "Hitler was brainwashing youth to be his unquestioning fully obedient soldiers" but in terms of the focus on athletics and companionship and so on).

I agree that a section on the Hitlerjugend would fit in this article, but both the article must remain nutral. As the article includes the aformentioned topics, the ways those children were taught to discriminate must also be metioned. Mickeyreiss 02:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That's why we have an article on the Hitlerjugend. That's also why we link articles by wikifying the text. Putting Hitlerjugend stuff here would weigh the article down in tangents and obscure the true purpose of this article...as an biographical reference regarding Adolf Hitler. We don't spend an inordinate amount of space discussing the French nobility in the Napoleon Bonaparte article. The same applies here. That's what the "see also" section is for. And that is better linked from Nazi Germany. Want to discuss the Hitlerjugend, and how kids were inculcated with racist ideology, this isn't the place.—ExplorerCDT 02:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wannsee/Final Solution

This section of the document is severely flawed.

It is still only speculation that the "Final Solution" (being genocide) was decided here, or that the Final Solution even meant killing of the Jews. Anyone can read the Wannsee minutes, where they clearly talk about EVACUTION of the Jews and removing them from "all spheres of German life", not of removing them from the face of the planet.

For all Holocaust believers or generally average schmoes who learn their "history" piecemeal from movies and TV shows and what have you, they really believe that at Wannsee Hitler ordered genocide of the Jews, which is utter nonsense. It can be inferred that remaining Jew (after all other solutions being exhausted) "dealt with accordingly" meant killing them, but that alone is certainly no evidence of a systematic plan to slaughter every Jew in europe.

Okay, I've taken the libery and performed some editing myself. I believe it to be NPOV and rather fair to both sides of the debate. I have not denied there was a Holocaust (despite my personal beliefs) but I have made a far more accurate and informed edit about Wannsee (and Himmler's comments stating "we can not gas them or shoot them").

I put a lot of work into that, so please do not hastily revert it. Re-edit as you see fit, but to remove valid and complete facts in favour of half-facts which carry a different meaning, I hope that won't done....

I agree that the initial goal of the solution was evacuation of the Jews, but that doesn't change the fact that they weren't. If he didn't know what was happening in MANY of his camps, then that's no excuse; the buck stops with Hitler. If his men misinterpreted the order, he had more than enough time to correct them. --Golbez 18:40, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Well that was a waste of time, reverted already. Hitler was already seriously sick by 1942, by the way, and I don't just mean physically. Many articles on Wikipedia on WWII are NPOV, like Nuremberg_Trials, like Laconia_Incident and so on, but EVERY SINGLE ONE mentioning the holocaust is completely POV, and the slightest mention that it was anything other than pre-meditated genocide of all Jews is not allowed, ditto for any comment about the alleged 6 million (which is in dispute even by some hardcore Zionist Jews in Israel).
Why do you think that is? Frankly, the whole issue turns my stomach.
Except, er, it was premeditated genocide. --Golbez 18:58, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
For the previous guy who does not believe that 6 million Jews died as a result of a systematically planned Nazi extermination: you will probably have to erase a lot of historical resources in order to convince the other people about your unusual point of view. I've read a lot of resources myself. I know pretty well the history that led to the murder of all 2600 Jews in Pilsen, my hometown. And if you're promoting your "NPOV", be careful: if you're in Germany, you may be arrested for spreading your unusual opinion because holocaust deniers are treated as criminals in that country. Be grateful that I am only treating you as a stinky Nazi. --Lumidek 22:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that intimidation, however veiled, is appropriate in an academic discussion. Additionally - laws are neither always just, nor always objective, and our concern here is objectivity, not legality. A perspective is not "void" merely because it defies the law. Finally: why does the section on the Holocaust speak only of the systemic murder of Jews at first, then slip the other millions of human beings who were murdered by the Nazis into the story two sentences down? Gypsies, gays, and handicapped people are NOT second-rate humans, and the human tragedy of a murdered Jew does not outweigh the human tragedy of a murdered Communist. I would very much like to see fair consideration given to those exterminated by the Nazis. It's certainly important to mention that Jews comprised well over half of the victims, but let's make sure that we're not painting the holocaust as a Jewish event, with "everyone else" relegated to a role as supporting cast.

Poetsch

The article says Poetsch gave anti-Semetic lectures and yet "was not anti-semitic at all." Is this actually true? It sounds a lot like a contradiction borne of editor differences. Deco 11:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Confessing church, it was a protestant organization, and it prompted action against protestant (in particular Lutheran) clergy, not Catholic, as was stated in the article.


Disclaimer

The article is blatantly not neutral, and would require a complete rewrite to make it so. Any fair minded person can see that talking about Hitler in glowing terms when so much of the world considers him evil is unconscionable. Until such time a disclaimer must be put in place. --69.158.175.185 16:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then use the standard templates for NPOV disputes, however please read NPOV first. What's more, your "disclaimer" is anything but neutral. Lastly I'd advise you to accustomise yourself with wikipedia a little more before you start making such claims. --fvw* 17:05, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
There is no template that says what the disclaimer says. A strong disclaimer is required to counter the bias of the article. I have quite a bit of experience with Wikipedia, that's why I'm not logged in. --69.158.175.185 17:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think you need to explain how this article is biased. I just reread it, and to me it sounds like a relatively neutral, factual account of Hitler's life. Please read the section above headed NPOV, and remember that it is not our job to convince people that Hitler was evil. DJ Clayworth 17:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's New World Order

Is there any information about the New World Order Hitler was trying to create? I think that there should be an article about it. All I know is that he wanted to colonize the Ukraine with SS guards and their families, and Germany would extend up to Moscow and beyond.

"Seriously, people …"

Seriously, people, do you really need three adjectives praising Hitler's supposedly wonderful speaking style? Strunk and White says cut down on the adjectives, and this man is Hitler, not Tony fucking Robbins. -- JG

Well he did persuade the german military into doing all that.

Yes he was an amazing speaker and an insipration, but he was a horrible man.

this is nikhil bandale In a sense i agree with you. His horrible side was as horrible as ever and his good side was sensational. Maybe this quote from ' mein kampf' will reinforce your opinions: "...Cruelty impresses, people want to be afraid of something they want someone to whom they can submit with a shudder, the masses need that. They need something to dread..."
do mail me at nikhilbandale@indiatimes.com for some more quotes.

"I removed line …"

I removed the line: However, Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels, having been brought up in fairly devout Catholic households, still retained respect for the Church, hence the concordant with Rome. This abscribes to motive rather then fact, and is incorrect. Hitler sought to marginalize the Catholic church during his reign. The initial concept of the Hitler Youth was as a replacement of the Catholic programs the supplied a regular stream of voters to parties directly allied with the catholic church. (talk) 16:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Black hand society"

I just noticed there's nothing in here about the black hand society. --Cyberman 02:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry

It said: (quote) "There have been rumours that Hitler was part Jewish. Allegedly, his grandmother Maria Schicklgruber gave birth to Hitler's father after working as a servant in a Jewish household in Graz, Austria. However, historians such as Werner Maser and Ian Kershaw argue that this is impossible as the Jews had been expelled from Graz in the 15th century and were not allowed to return until well after Maria Schicklgruber's alleged employment. [1] (http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa070197.htm) [2]" I think the second part about there being no Jews in Graz at that time is more than doubtable. Although Jews were being persecuted a lot in European and German history, especially in the middle ages, it just doesn't make sense to say there were no Jews at that time. I removed the second part leaving it as open speculation, whether he was a Jew to a quarter or not. ben

And yet it is true. Study history. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks a lot for your kind advice. I think if you studied history you should know there is no such thing as complete truth. It is just a matter of stressing one thing and omitting others. If the text stresses it is "doubtable" than it sounds as if Hitler's Jewesh ancestry is dismissed by all serious historians. This is contrary to the facts. Another thing is that there were a lot of Jews living in Germany and Austria at that time and it is just again contrafactial to state the opposite. ben 10:52, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Provide a reasonable source for you claim that Jews were allowed to live in that area at that time. What you have done is the exact opposite; deleted sources and names, and inserted your own speculation. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
what i removed was an absurd statement, sorry if it sounds harsh. It is just absurd to say there were no Jews in Austria at that time. I ask you, how does it come that so many Jews have been killed in the Third Reich (especially after the Anschluss, meaning Germany AND Austria) if there were no Jews there? It is just too absurd to state there were no. You are just playing in the hands of people who deny the holocaust. The paragraph that we are arguing about said first "his mother was thought to have worked for a Jew, but she couldn't have because there were no Jews". What the paragraph said was something completely divergent from the facts. Fact is, his grandmother was working for in a Jewish household when she became pragnant and you can find that in every biography on Hitler (I think you misread something). According to what I read, and I read a lot, it is thought improbable that he had Jewish ancestry, though it cannot be excluded and that is what the paragraph should say if it mentions the issue of his ancestry. - By the way, your source, I checked it, doesn't say anything about where his grandmother was working or not working (nothing of what you stated was there), it just says the same as what I said, that it is thought most probably Hitler's grandfather was the man she married five years after Hitler's father's birth. About your style: What you did was reverting ALL my changes, not only the one about his ancestorship and you didn't give a reason except for saying it is biased (which is about the same as saying nothing if you look at the article). ben 13:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Again, your personal beliefs and prejudices are irrelevant, regardless of what you think is or is not "absurd". The sources clearly state that no Jews were allowed to live in that area at the time; if you have some evidence to the contrary, please bring it. Do not delete well sourced and credible information. And I didn't revert all your changes, only that deletion. However, if you can't bring sources for you claims, and insist on deleting other well sourced information you find "absurd" based on your own personal beliefs, I think you will find your edits reverted by many other editors. Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
you make this very personal Jayjg. From the very start. I think you should reread sometimes what you write... The only source I saw for your claim were some ominous internet pages, nothing serious. You can just go on reverting all changes I make and be happy when Hitler becomes the nice charismatic intelligent boy again as before and you can call that unbiased. I am going to take a time out. Unfortunately for you, some people support my changes, when you read the article now, a lot has been improved and many people have added to what I wrote. ben 14:59, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are saying. The information regarding Hitler's ancestry were well sourced; can you explain what "ominous internet pages, nothing serious" means? If you have any information which refutes or contradicts the information regarding his ancestry, I'd be pleased to see it. Jayjg (talk) 15:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
hi again, i am waiting for the moment when it will finally make 'click' and you understand that my change was not about saying "Hitler is a Jew". All I say is that your valuable internet sources

don't support what you say about Graz and no Jews. Now take some time and think about that. ben 06:19, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Hitler was NOT I repeat so that this point gets to your head...NOT a JEW (even if you think a quarter of blood, in other words a needle in a hay sack, makes someone a jew). That point was made so that a certain blind individual could blackmail Hitler into giving them luxurious material. Why do we allpw such non-sense to puzzle idiots today? If you know Hitler as you say you do...you would understand that he did not hate jewish people and only used them to get into power and unite Germany by establishing a common enemy. In fact he had many Jewish friends (during his life in Wien aka Vienna). and let the Jew's who fought in WWI reside in veteran homes.

Yours in Arguement,

Gustav

Well, Gustav... if you take nearly any speech Hitler pronounced or anything he wrote and the Holocaust as a fact than it seems not credible what you say. He might have had some Jewish friends, he was even seen attending a burrial of a Jew, but he surely didn't like Jews. You might say he just used them as scapegoats, but he did much more than that... And many Jews who fought in WWI were killed in the gas chambers. In fact, much of Mein Kampf is centered on Jews and all his philosophy drives on racial issues (e.g. struggle of the races for survival) and Jews he saw as the nemesis, or the complete opposite to the Aryan race. ben 13:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


Dear Gustav(o great contributor), (if you ever read this). I am much impressed by you.I am happy there are people who take these things(contributions) seriously. I am happy you have added much to Wikipedia and even more so for adding to 'Adolf Hitler'.I find it that the article contains much nothing about 'Mein Kampf' and Hitler's ideals. I also do not find his should-be-famous quote
"...Cruelty impresses people want to be afraid of something. They want someone to whom they can submit with a shudder, the masses need that. They need something to dread..."(from mein kampf).
Please Please mail me at nikhilbandale@indiatimes.com I need to get some things sorted. By the way i'm
nikhil bandale
15
india
13:25 (Indian std time)

It would be good if the article could do some good work in educating people. And it should discuss some issues of his philosophy being very critical about it (much more than it is now). It is not good that people that had such a disturbed personality and commit crimes as big as Hitler did should attract people that read his propaganda and belive it. ben 13:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Was Hitler a Jew? No. Is there a faint possibility his grandfather was Jewish? Very faint, enough to to cause some interesting, ironic doubts over the past eighty years, but his paternal grandfather was more likely his step-father's brother, who was also one of his cousins. We don't know who it was, though and probably never will, since his grandmother seems to have decided early on to be utterly silent on the topic. Then again, he was born into a small, insular cluster of villages. He was a fairly close cousin to his own mother Karla, who was his father's niece. This sort of thing was common enough, but for a German national politician whose platform included ideas about racial purity and so on the hints of village "incest" in Austria and doubts about grandparents were enough for someone like Hitler to rather aggressively "avoid" the subject. Wyss 15:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
good comment. BTW, de.wikipedia has a schema of hitler's pedigree. Maybe someone could change the links from "n Ehe" to "nth marriage" and "Unehelich" to misbegotten/born to unmarried mother and "ausserehelich" to illegitimate/extramarital. ben 07:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Major Changes

I changed great parts of the article. It is still far from being good, inaccurate in many cases, but I think it is already much better. The article was much too positive and understating Hitler's masskillings, describing him as an intelligent charismatic leader, who did much good for Germans and Germany's economy. However historians paint a much different picture of him and I tried to have the article both correspond to that image and have it more politically-correct. If somebody who has Kershaw's original in English could correct my humble attempt of a back-translation from German to English (from the German wikipedia). ben 13:06, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Article was biased, neutrality questioned

I (male1979) made a lot of changes trying to restore neutrality. See change history. But I see that my changes are being reverted. ben

You should discuss the problems you see in the article and your proposed changes here and try to reach a consensus. Paul August ☎ 04:27, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
ok. i'll do comment on my changes in more detail from now on. I am rather new to editing in wikipedia, so excuse me if i don't know some stuff. ben 10:51, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
You definitely ought to take it easy, this is a particularly controversial article, so patience. GeneralPatton 14:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
hello to anyone who's reading.

i'm nikhil bandale, 15 , and really interested in Hitler's ideals. if there is any info we can exchange, discuss and put up on wikipedia please give me a feedback. I really feel He is not as bad as historians make him seem. I've been reading 'mein kampf' and i certainly dont feel so. You can contact me for any questions and I shall feel happy to do the same.
please send me your mail id . mine is ' nikhilbandale@indiatimes.com '

I have to say this, but that's got to be one of the worst things I've ever read, Nikhil Bandale. I would NEVER consider ideals responsible for the deaths of an estimated 30-40 million people through war and genocide as "not as bad as historians make him seem." I can't begin to say how screwed up that sounds. Hitler's ideals, especially those in Mein Kampf and the implementation and result of his and his subordinate's ideas on propaganda, minipulation, racial purity and authoritarian order are further proof of why Hitler was as bad, if not worse than historians paint him. Unfortunately, words (and the limit of the denotations and connotations of words by which historians are bound) are an inefficient means of conveying reality, and are condemned to not fully describe an event...but in this case, thank God for historians because they see where you obviously are blind. —ExplorerCDT 19:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel like portraying Hitler negatively is unavoidable. His actions, not at all watered down, are totally unsympathetic. So if any controversy comes from him possibly being portrayed as a bad guy... Hmmm.... Think about it. Solid fact is necessary, but making him appear neutral is not. Or uh hem, I think so.

I agree with you on that. After all what happened in the Third Reich, everything that describes Hitler as a nice guy can hardly be called neutral. I guess, alone giving the solid fact that he and his party caused the killing of so many people should already make people blush and say "What an ***!" But it is not enough as you can see from some of the comments on the page here. Still many people, usually people that don't know much about him and his politics, appeal to him and his power. They say "yes ok, he was not always a good person [or something in that tune], but he did a lot of good." I find that always hard to believe when I hear that but I heard it often and from many different nationals. A serious and unbiased article about Hitler has to explain in my opinion that much of what is ascribed to him as his achievements is just Nazi propaganda or served other purposes. For example, he was building roads and railways for preparation of the Blitzkrieg strategy and the economy was recovering as efforts increased for weapon production. Without such a deeper analysis the article could be used for propaganda purposes and the downplay of the genocide. I think the difficulty in portraying Hitler is to reveal his ideas and his motives holding a critical distance and as you said, not watering down what happened. ben 06:36, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
The Volkswagen was his only good deed. But even that cute little bug of a car doesn't make up for all the ill he's caused this world. —ExplorerCDT 06:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: IMO Hitler probably thought he was saving the world and Nazi propaganda had its appeal to many Germanic people who didn't understand the truth about him until it was too late. By murdering upwards of seven million and causing the wartime deaths of tens of millions more, not to mention laying waste to Europe and destabilizing its political and social balance even more than it was (including the partition of Germany for half a century), he did far, far more harm than good. Stalin was even worse, the horror. Wyss 21:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • And Mao far worse than Stalin, but that doesn't let Hitler or lesser criminal genocidists (Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Omar al-Bashir, the guy in Rwanda, etc) off the hook. —ExplorerCDT 15:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit block

Why has this article been blocked from editing by User:GeneralPatton with no explanation here. What is the problem? When will it be resolved? Please can we have a debate here so this article can again be opened up. Also why did GeneralPatton reedit this article after putting the restriction notice on it in breach of Wikipedia:Protected page policy? Also should GeneralPatton have put the restriction notice? given he has been involved in the editorial dispute, again against policy--Squiquifox 17:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For my response, see: User_talk:Squiquifox. GeneralPatton 22:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Although I think the block was probably warranted, I would appreciate an explanation here as to what the situation is with regard to the block. Specifically the reasons for the block, and when and under what circumstances the block will be lifted. I think it is always helpful to explain these things on the talk page whenever a block occurs. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
The reason was vandalism/revert war that resulted in anons and novice users breaking the 3RR. As the situation now here in talk is pretty calm and productive, I’m now going to lift the protection. However, if the 3RR rule is broken again and/or multiple and frequent instances of vandalism occur, the page will be probably protected once again. GeneralPatton 22:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for providing an explanation. (Better late than never ;-) Paul August ☎ 22:58, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Although I thought the reasons for protection were fairly obvious (reverts/vandalism), I definitely should have written an explanation on here. Mea culpa. GeneralPatton 19:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the explanation, and please do explain here if you feel it necessary to do so again. --SqueakBox 21:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Painter Hitler

I heard a Hitler painting sells in the high million dollars when one goes up for auction. Maybe it would be useful to include some more info about Hitler's artistic period, especially considering the recent world-wide distribution of the film titled "MAX".

And the article should have much more condemnation of the pure evil Adolf Hitler was. Maybe if he died in 1937 he would be viewed as a great dictator, but his last seven years are plain unexcusable.

  • To 195.70.48.242: Hitler paintings usually garner $30,000-$60,000 at auction or private sale as their only marketable quality is their connection to Hitler's infamy. They lack artistic merit and are usually amateurish architectural or landscape studies. I picked up a Hitler painting a few years back just for the novelty, and being familiar with a large portion of his work and its market, I haven't heard anything close to approaching million-dollar sales for Hitler paintings. While I agree to condemning Hitler's acts as the leader of Nazi Germany, we do have to worry about being too POV...not that it is possible (unless you're a brainless Holocaust deny-er or Neo-Nazi scumbag) to advocate Hitler's acts, but it is possible to sound self-righteous and make the article look too amateurish. Furthermore, Hitler's years from 1919 on were inexcusable, look at what his regime did to Erich Mühsam (an article I am currently half-way through writing) whose only crime was satirizing Hitler before he came to power. —ExplorerCDT 16:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't notable as an artist (a quick look at his paintings and postcards show a mild talent, mostly for drawing buildings). His paintings are valued because of his historic celebrity, not for any intrinsic esthetic effect. Wyss 20:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

section "Biography"

should be merged with Sebastian Haffner --Haham hanuka 13:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Really over the top opening sentence

I think the first sentence is much too ambitious. I've tried to clarify it slightly, but it is hopeless. How is someone who doesn't know what the terms mean expected to take it all in? There are too many clauses, too many concepts, and too much German. All that is needed it something along the lines of:

Adolf Hitler (born etc..) was the founder of the Nazi Party, and the head of the German Government from 1933. He was the leader of the dictatorship known as the Third Reich. He died in 1945 during the closing stages of World War II.

Wincoote 16:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I must say I like the opening sentence as it is. I understand the concern about it being top-heavy and maybe it can be cleaned up without losing content but over-simplification is a minefield (excuse the metaphor) in an emotional, sometimes controversial topic like this one. Wyss 16:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've cleaned it up, mostly by cutting repeated words and correcting the translations of titles. The content's the same but it's a third shorter now and seems to read much more easily. I hope this is helpful... Wyss 19:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you did a good job with the article and the introduction. The information is very much simplified of course, but details can be brought later. ben 06:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
The first sentence still tried to say too much in a single sentence. As a result it is redundant and contains too many comma-separated subordinate units. Every time a reader thinks he's come to the end, there's another clause. Breaking it up into separate sentences does not oversimplify the paragraph informationally. It only simplifies it syntactically, and that makes it readable. There are similar problems throughout the article. I've changed the first, third, and fifth paragraphs as examples. --Nate Ladd 17:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

First, Hitler was not "dictator" of Germany, he was chancellor and Fuhrer. Context is vital when dealing with an explosive topic like this one. When I found it I thought the article had superb neutrality and accuracy, but convoluted syntax, so I was quite careful to work only on that. I removed zero content, adding only two or three nano-bits for clarity. During my childhood and teens I met lots of older people from both sides at the time, from Jews who survived the camps to former SS officers, English and American soldiers/officers etc, even a few who saw or met him. My impression is that, during the early 1930s, anti-Sematism was socially acceptable (a key societal flaw that he exploited) and most people, friends and enemies alike, had no idea how harmful and murderous he'd become. He was a brilliantly talented politician and public speaker, adapting and developing a message that appealed to many Germans (and others) in the wake of Versailles, the struggles of the Great Depression and growing communist influence. Disasterously for all concerned, once in absolute power he was a ghastly leader. The results speak for themselves... tens of millions dead, Europe in ruins, Germany partitioned for half a century, half of Europe under Stalin (and the other half tottering that way for a time), millions of surviving Jewish victims streaming into Palestine to cause destabilisations and conflicts which still continue. Even today, some people (neo-Nazis, for example) have trouble separating the appealing parts of his message about German culture from the utter horror of the man's underlying ineptness and criminal sociopathy. Wyss 17:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the IPA phoneticization should go, and I applaud whoever took it out. Only linguists use IPA, and they already know it. The common person doesn't give a shit about IPA. Further, I have yet to meet a soul who doesn't how to pronounce "Adolf Hitler" and "Third Reich." Another note, get rid of the MLA citations in the text and put footnotes at the end. MLA sucks because it breaks up the flow. Oddly, most people don't really have a concept of what "Reichskanzler" was, and have only heard Hitler referred to as Führer. Only those who really delve into the details really know the history of his two titles. However, we don't need to hit everyone hard with the facts in the first sentence. Perhaps, it would be be best, as the information is reiterated later in the article in greater, less confusing detail, to eliminate the confusion in the opening sentence. Stylistically, the opening sentence needs better flow, and by achieving the perfect flow the awkward cumbersome feel to the multi-claused sentence would be alleviated with minimal limitations to the information conveyed. My suggestion for improving flow is, as follows:
Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 in Braunau-am-Inn, Austria-Hungary — 30 April 1945 in Berlin, Germany) was a German politician and government leader who served as Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and Chancellor) of Germany during the Third Reich (1933-1945).
That way, it remains NPOV, the sentence is not bogged down with dates, superqualification and detail, and eventually when you get down into the article, you learn the nuances of Führer und Reichskanzler and when he became the leader of the NSDAP.
Now, onto rewriting the biography section...those first two paragraphs are woefully out of place and smack like the construction of a second-year college term paper. —ExplorerCDT 18:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with all the above... Wyss 18:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think it's okay to leave out the more difficult political or German terms in the beginning and explain them later. But one has to be very careful in simplifying. "...who served as Führer" doesn't make any sense. Führer und Reichskanzler is propagandistic, it is how he called himself, it shouldn't be used as an official title. "Dictator" is much more accurate. Also I find it out of place anyway to use "to serve" with reference to his terms in office, because he abused his powers in a horrible way, "to serve" give him respect for that in my understanding. I liked the content of the paragraph as it was before with the difficult subclauses. It has to say in my opinion that Hitler became head of government, later dictator, and is thought to have caused WWII. And it has to mention the Holocaust.

About anti-Semitism: surely a bit anti-Semitism was accepted at that time, but not that much as Hitler showed and not how he showed it. The interesting fact is that everybody could have known what he was planning to do as a politician, one only had to read Mein Kampf, but obviously not many people really did or cared (first translation to English was very late, too). There was even one assassination attempt in 1938 (I think it is still not mentioned in the text), by a man who read Mein Kampf and thought him to be dangerous. About the neutrality: I think the article has become much much better! I think the focus should now go to the second half of the article from the way to power to his end. The article centers too much on events that happened during his dictatorship and forgets about Hitler as a person and his involvement, just one example: the last time I read Eva Braun was not mentioned at all. ben 05:51, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, most people in the 1930s didn't think at all about slaughtering Jews by the millions (and the idea, again to most, would have been disgusting), but casual anti-semitism was part of the general social landscape (both in Europe and N. America). Regarding Eva Braun, there's a linked WP article on her which, while short, is accurate and succinct. Wyss 06:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Eva Braun article is good, but the link at the end is not enough, probably. ben 15:00, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
More could be said about her, Eva was an important aspect of his life for over a decade and he did marry her in what amounted to a suicide pact. However, bear in mind that until after the war, hardly anyone in Germany knew about her (much less elsewhere), and there's zero evidence she had any political influence on him although we'll probably never know for sure. Wyss 15:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article is not about the politics in Germany from the 1920s until 1945. It is about a person who had a person life. Even though she probably didn't have any political influence on him (I think she was just like his puppet or doll). So the article has to explain who this person was that had an important part in his life and why he didn't show her, etc. I will add something later, maybe tomorrow. ben 04:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
About using the term served, etc... that one makes me wince a bit, too. However, I don't think dictator is appropriate. It's like calling Abraham Lincoln a "ruler" (did you know lots of northerners called him a "tyrant" while he was president of the US?), too vague and potentially PoV. So I'd say, call AH by what he was, Fuhrer, chancellor... it's accurate and it's how he was perceived at the time. It's certainly not propaganda to use the legal, historic titles. Wyss 06:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think you got caught in your own argumentation. You don't call Lincoln a "ruler" or a "tyrant" anymore (at least in an introduction ;) ) and you would write he was a president. And you don't call Stalin "vozhd" and Mussolini "il duce" it is just nonsense. ben 15:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
So call Lincoln a president, Stalin a general secretary, Mussolini Il Duce (leader) and prime minister of Italy... these guys didn't get themselves elected as dictators, after all. Is this biased? Is this too complicated for readers? (Ending with that question isn't meant to be snitty, just thought-provoking etc). Wyss 15:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, you can mention the terms like "duce", "vozhd", "Führer", etc. and use them in quotation marks and explain them later (not introduction), that's ok. I even think the term "Führer" is necessary for the introduction, as this is a very in/famous notion, but you should never leaver out the quotation marks. I think ExplorerCDT found a good solution for the "dictator problem" (see below) but we still need some idea of how to call his terms in office (see my comment below). ben 04:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
oh, and the information in the introductory section "biography" is necessary I think. It explains more generally what historians think about him and how the information about him was collected. Other opinions? ben 05:54, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't belong as an introduction to the Biography section. I don't think it even belongs in the article. It's a theory proposed by a historian to describe his interpretation of the linear progression of Hitler's life. It's something to be argued in a term paper or a dissertation, not in a neutral encyclopedia article. —
And to say he was Führer of the party confuses, maybe it could be left out in the introduction. And the term "Führer" should not be used as in "and from ... he was Führer". It was a propagandistic title, he was dictator and let people call him "Führer" that's a big difference. ben 05:59, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's significant and informative that he transferred his party title directly into his governmental title. Actually this was modeled somewhat after what Mussolini had already done in Italy, which the article could mention. Wyss 15:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how that confuses anything. His leadership of the NSDAP was linked inextricably with his rise to power and exercise of it: The term Fuhrer in government was a carryover from the party. It may confuse cartoonish preconceptions about this horrid person, but if the article is to successfully inform and educate, why not give readers credit for their ability to learn and re-structure their knowledge (etc)? Reduce him to a characature, and how will people have the tools to recognize the next [sic] one who comes along? Wyss 06:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the whole idea about rewriting the introduction was to have the necessary content in a simple form. Therefore, "the fuehrer became fuehrer" will confuse anybody who is not familiar with the terms. Then: Nobody was talking about a characature. I think your last sentence makes sense though. It should describe Hitler and make people understand history and dictatorships and genocides and much more... ben 15:24, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
introduction could be something like (just the content not the style):

Adolf Hitler (born etc..) was the founder of the Nazi Party, and the head of the German Government from 1933. He established a dictatorship known as the Third Reich. His racist policy culminated in the Holocaust. He is thought to have caused WWII. BTW, to say "during the Third Reich" is close to a euphemism. ben 06:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't the "founder" of the Nazi Party, he was an army enlistee who was sent to investigate it. Kinda hard to investigate a party before you "founded" it. He only recreated it at later dates to further cement the "cult of personality" that he was establishing. To say that these remoldings of the party were Hitler "founding" the party, are misleading. If you check your facts, "during the Third Reich" is appropriate as Hitler was not the only leader during the Third Reich...you forget Admiral Karl Doenitz, and Joseph Goebbels briefly at the end, and before 1934, Paul von Hindenburg. Lastly, "racist policy" is inherently loaded, and too bold for an opening statement; and "he is thought to have caused WWII" is weakly speculative and ambiguous, which doesn't belong in a place where a firm, neutral statement is required. See my amended proposal below. —ExplorerCDT 16:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand the urge to simplify, but for me, calling anyone "head" of government in an encyclopedia article is unhelpful. Also, although the Third Reich was a dictatorship from any reasonable point of view, the term is too general and open to mis-interpretation (and characature) for my own taste. I don't understand why saying what he was, Fuhrer and chancellor, would be a problem. Wyss 15:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed, I hear Hitler and dictator and my first thought is Charlie Chaplin's 1940 film The Great Dictator. —ExplorerCDT 16:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dictatorship is a loaded word, and while the authoritarian nature of the regime can be explained further in the article, it is not wise to load the first sentence up with such multi-connoted judgments. I do agree that some reference should be added regarding Hitler's involvement in starting World War II in Europe and in perpetuating the Holocaust. As Hitler wasn't the only leader of the Third Reich (I stated above that Goebbels, Doetniz and von Hindenburg "served" in leadership posts too). As to the use of "served", Funk & Wagnalls, Brittanica, and a few other encyclopedias I've checked used some combination of "political" or "government leader" with the verb "served." My amended proposal (taking into account WWII and Holocaust), as follows:

Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 in Braunau-am-Inn, Austria-Hungary — 30 April 1945 in Berlin, Germany) was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party and a German political figure who served as Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and Chancellor) of Germany during the Third Reich (1933-1945). Upon the Nazi Party's rise to power, Hitler and his National Socialist Government established an authoritarian regime that perpetuated policies directly causing World War II in Europe and the genocide of European Jews and other social and ethnic minorities, in the Holocaust.

I believe this establishes the following key facts.

  1. Hitler - birth/death dates and places
  2. AH was leader of Nazi Party.
  3. AH was a political figure (see below)
  4. AH became Führer und Reichskanzler during Third Reich
  5. established dictatorship, but said less judgmentally and more firmly as "authoritarian regime"
  6. His and his governments policies cause World War II and Holocaust

Would it be best to describe him as a "politician" or as a "political figure"? I am leaning towards the latter (and did so in my last revision) because while all politicians are dirty, Hitler's repugnancy isn't equivalent to LBJ's slickness, or Huey P. Long, or Leon Blum and the usual folks who are just "politicians." "Political figure," in my opinion, seems to embody and connote the aura that seems to come with Hitler's fiery speeches and cult of personality, and puts him on par (though not as repugnantly) with an almost epic political experience like Washington, Egmont, Bolivar, or Kossuth, and those who came to lead mass movements.

Respectfully submitted, —ExplorerCDT 16:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For me, political figure evokes images of a fat, drunken and corrupt old boy arriving at EU headquarters in Brussels in his Mercedes :) Wyss 16:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the image. Why we had to firebomb Dresden when both Paris and Brussels were uglier cities, I'll never know. —ExplorerCDT 16:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. What did you think of my amended proposal?

Adapting what I interpret as your concerns and trying to mix that with my own, I've been bold and edited the article. About Dresden, what a waste. About Paris, Les Invalides and L'Etoile are cool neighbourhoods, otherwise it's mostly a pit inside the periphique. Wyss 17:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT, I see your point with the party, but he actually renamed it and refounded it, so it would be fair to speak of him as the founder of the party. However, something like "party leader" is better, I agree. I like your amended proposal already much much better. The key points are all there and I fully agree with what you stated as the key points. But I still think "served as Führer und Reichskanzler" is not good (see above my comments on "served") To state in quotes "Führer und Reichskanzler" is ok, but to leave the quotes out and translate it to English as official sounding terms is just giving way to propaganda. This is why I had these terms in German and in quotes with a translation in brackets in the introduction in my later edits. I see the point with "dictator" and I think you solved the problem and I agree that just to say "head of state" sounds stupid. Something like Reichkanzler/chancelor would not be enough of course. BTW, the German encyclopedia just leaves the quotes and describes it as head of state and head of government. That is the same as in the lengthy and difficult introduction I edited before. Oh, and I prefer "politician". "Political figure" sounds affected. ben 04:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for seeing the light. ;-) I was worried about you. Political figure seems to have different connotations, and while I don't see it as sounding "affected" it could be possibly seen as more elitist or exclusive than politician. There I do see your point. As for the party, let me use an example that would make Shakespeare blush...you can rename a goat four or five times, but has the goat really changed? Führer and Reichskanzler is a soft point, mostly because Hitler made up the rules as he went along--part of the cult of personality in authoritarian situations (Chaplin makes good fun of this in The Great Dictator if you ever get to see it)--and his title reflects that. If it gives way to propoganda, I don't know, but I do know that in popular parlance, everyone knows Führer, and a few less know Reichkanzler, but most people say Reichs Chancellor only because Hollywood uses that often. As to using the word "served", I brought that to the table from other encyclopedias, and in the mind of some the public trust is "service" whether we like the guy after he's out of office or not. —ExplorerCDT 04:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You shouldn't be worried about me. You can rename a goat the goat doesn't change but if you call it a horse some people might see it as a horse. Take a goat and everybody called it "horse", but does this make it a horse? Everybody called Hitler "Führer", but do we have to call him a Führer (without quotation marks)? Does this make you understand my point? See above for some more discussion. Anyway, I the introduction again improved, and generally I see a lot of light already in the article. It was a complete mess two/three weeks ago and now we're really going somewhere. Oh, and I will revert the biography section, we should have a discussion about it now and then we can maybe go slowly to the second part of the article. I saw the Great Dictator of course. I was shocked at your "if you ever get to see it". The film makes you feel the authoritarian cult around the Führer. Now I used it without quotation marks just to shock you. Do you finally see my point? ben 07:10, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)