Talk:Hitler's rise to power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hitler's rise to power article.
Article policies
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Hitler's rise to power: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit: Check for grammatical errors
  • Verify: Add citations for every claimed fact. Assume nothing. Use books by established authors, not webpages for facts.
  • Expand: Add paragraphs more accurately detailing Hitler's rise from 1921-1933
  • NPOV: Maintain NPOV. Do not give additional weight to any one factor
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

Contents


[edit] Everything?

So, everything? And linkage everywhere? And full inclusivity in NPOV of whatever supposed agenda. I refer to my recent consideration of the Avro Manhattan agenda and the fact that he is in fact a likely Primary Source(for his direct contacts within the vatican). Well I'll go along with this but- what of Hitler and the church . That will be relating and absorbing too? Let's face it there are so many lengthy factors that the page could big bang outwards- and no I don't mean the church(es).Edgar Ansel Mowrer and John Wheeler- Bennett are the foreign experts for the rise, the former up to the turn of 32-33, and the latter specialist in Hindenberg and in the Army to 1945. Shirer arrived after Mowrer left, and may not have possessed the benefit of his deep german grounding. Arthur Rosenberg is the contemporary native expert, again falling short at the last fence like Mowrer, due presumably to having to run for it. In fact the trials were the full study, and this Article will be based upon those affidavits and findings. Wheeler-Bennett advised the british Govt during the war, and may for his advice then still be resented by natives. He contributed to the disparagement of the Widerstand, which is sensitive to natives still.

Let me lay claim to the manner of the text. It is concise and clear yeah? Can we aim to marry the encyclopedic with the intelligent here, and not with the accessible ? Oh- I forget, I'm pushed on a protest strike. Maybe one day they'll un-cuff me and others will stop force feeding me mental excreta. If you require source here, you don't have far to look in that which I have distributed. I don't see Str1977 accepting Avro's Centre Party take, so without a German speaker, we will not be able to overcome his barriers.

But in all I second this move of Cberlet's as long overdue, and thank him for rallying to the need to save the initial text.EffK 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I will clarify that it is made impossible for me to further contribute to Wikipedia Articles by bad faith denialism of clerical revisionist editors. I will not be submitting myself to such un-verifiably based interventions. To CBerlet who seems interested in Concepts relating to Nazism, I suggest you try and find a copy of The Roots of National Socialism by Rohan D'O. Butler, Faber & Faber, London 1941. This book is erudite determination of the roots of Hitlerism, of why Hitlerism fell into fertile receptive ground, and of its disastrous future failure pre-figured by great German minds.In this book will be found in English the entire relevant history of German philosophical developement since 1783. I would help by entering some of it here in Wikipedia discussions, but I am sick of being abused. I seem to remember even some editors with no apparent axe to grind were willing to make an assumption of my bad faith. I will expand the source on concepts now, as used by Butler. I remind you that Butler was a highly respected member of All Souls College , Oxford. I write this because the apparent Wikipedia assumption that Hitlerism was peculiar to Adolf Hitler is too simplistic.--EffK 10:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, EffK, but a big part of the problem is that for many of us, myself included, your prose style is so convoluted that we find imuch of what your write incomprehensible; and certainly not adequate to defend some of your edits.--Cberlet 14:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Forgiveness is perhaps wiki rules,but I must directly address your statement.Your saying style is a big part 'of the problem' is to minimise the severe editorial conflict I have suffered for a year.It is to completely ignore the question of bias in here in WP.If you do not see it, please say so. Otherwise this is most unfair,as it is not universal and bespeaks a total lack of your sympathy or understanding .Within assumption of good faith , it is to knife me intellectually. I remind you I have suffered enormous loss of time wrongly. You diminuish me. I am therefore aggravated to defend myself, am I not? Address the issues or don't address the issues. To simply focus on what you do not understand or the length and style convolution, is to ignore the veracity of my conclusions. I remind you that I solely re-wrote the historical facts re:Hitler in here that put his rise into it's illegality. I can prove this to you. All were accepting of the revisionsit slant of legality. I alone de-convoluted Weimar Republic, supplying Wyss with the text. Do you or do you not approve of the clear prose style represented by this text that you saved here? Do you or do you not believe that the part from the Magnates which is appended here, is POV as charged and deleted? My discussion style is determined by the level of guarding raised against me, and I think my disputant has never found it other than clear, actually. I write a lot because there is always a lot to say. I think you could get off your rather high horse, and concern yourself rather less with the issue of my writing. The point of WP is to input proper verifiable text, and I ask you clear as daylight-Do you contend or criticise me in any way for being in error either historically or in purely WP verifiability terms? If you again suggest that I am in the wrong, "certainly not adequate to defend some of your edits"- I shall again have to defend myself. You particularly should not be lessening my capacity to correct WP error and slant. Go to Ludwig Kaas and Centre Party and deal with the real short certain itemisation, and face up to the WP reality I define. I have made it abundantly clear I will not roll over and be trampled, and you are being zero help whilst yet benefiting from my texts and efforts. Please qualify your critical statements here and made earlier, or if you find me so criticsisable, join the rush. Not everyone desires to focus on such an easy part of the FK issues. In good faith I have supplied you with direction to the , probably, most useful source for Concepts underlying the Nazi reality. You mentally slap me for it. I shall not expect to have to answer you any further, at this rate, as you might withdraw. I have to digitally regret your digitally immortal intervention, Cberlet.

EffK 11:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hitler succeeds"

Is it just me, or is the "Hitler succeeds" blatantly POV? +Hexagon1 (t) 07:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is ... or at least terribly worded. I have my own suspicions who wrote this and hence I can say, he didn't mean to write in a pro-Nazi way. The whole article is a wreck. Str1977 (smile back) 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this section because it is quite simply a piece of Nazi propaganda. It is also appallingly written. White Guard 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A wreck? You are far too kind; its gone well beyond that stage. White Guard 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

this article desperately needs to be "squared."


[edit] Sources

Could somebody please post a list of sources? I may have missed them, but there seems to be absolutely none listed.

shouldn't the quotations "Now we have him where we can control him" be cited, doing a google search (with quotations to find an exact match) i couldn't find anything to reference to, so i believe that the phrase may be made up or may just be a summary of what was said. (AraH 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Conclusion

Compared to past votes Hitler was a key subject that connected this all together, its like a tower of bricks, remove a significant part like the Wall Street Crash or the Nazi propaganda then there will be no Nazi power.

The crash may have hurt American economy but the whole German country was dependant on the American loan and, once removed, German economy like American was crippled. 90 days was the set time for Germany to repay America back for the loans but regardless of this time there was no real cure for the impact of the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

Germany has been victim to economy failures in the past with the Hyperinflation crisis, of cause if they did not learn from there mistakes of producing more money they would be in even more trouble.

I like the idea of having a conclusion, but this one seems POV. Can we source this viewpoint to its adherents? --Uncle Ed 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Dam man , it was a good idea. it took me time but ahh well i understand your pointT,J,B..L33t 3Lit3 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of writing

I read this article for this first time today (3-July-2006) and must agree with those who have problems with the writing. To be blunt, the current version is one of the most incomprehensible and poorly written articles I have encountered in the English Wikipedia. Someone might try to clean it up, if only they could discern the intended meaning. I suspect, however, that any attempts to clarify the text, would only arouse in the primary contributor suspicion of bias or mean-spiritedness. Robert

I understand this has already gotten a little discussion, but here's my two cents: I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information because my interest in the subject is purely casual. However, the prose should be re-written by a third party whose first language is English. Why? No offense to the original writer (who has obviously put considerable time and effort into the article), but personally I don't think the writing is clear. Also, what's up with the word "squared"?

-Chris.

[edit] What needs to be done July 2007

This article needs a lot of work. It basically starts at the end, 1933. Hitler's rise began in 1921, or even 1919. What happened to get him to where he was in 1933?

The section on "Rhenish-Westphalian industrial magnates" is a good contribution, but because it is about 25% of the article right now, it gives undue weight to one factor. It almost makes it seem like the "Rhenish-Westphalian industrial magnates" levered Hitler into power, which is not true. They had a hand in it. By 1933, Hitler had money to spend on propaganda and advertising. But in those days, that was basically limited to speeches and posters. The fact that millions and millions of Germans in free elections voted for Hitler cannot be explained by the fact that some rich men contributed to Hitler. That Hitler was able to gain so many votes is the central factor in explaining his rise to power.--Mcattell 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final note

As of July 22, 2007, this article is incoherent and incomprehensible.--Mcattell 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some sources are more even-handed and reliable than others

The Nemesis of Power by Wheeler-Bennett is cited as a source here. It is a good source, but it was written over fifty years ago.

There are two sources in English that are very thorough, and very well researched, and very balanced, and rely on recent, up-to-date research. They are:

  • Hitler: Hubris 1889-1936, by Ian Kershaw (1999);

and

  • The Coming of the Third Reich , by Richard J. Evans (2004).

Go to your library. Check them out. Read them. Then make contributions. There are plenty of other books to use, but these are recent, even-handed, and well-written.--Mcattell 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total revision

I've completely revised the page, the prior version was terrible. Some of what I've put is covered by the NSDAP section already but I've elaborated on the street battles and other information which can't be found on wiki, which I think should be the purpose of this article.Iconoclast322 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Were you the one who made that whole change anonymously? I'm not quite sure what to make of it; I was ready to revert, but now that you've made a note on the talk page, it helps. The Evil Spartan 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, with all due respect though, I cannot see any reason to revert. I rushed it a little so there may be some spelling errors and so forth, but everything in it is true and substantiated by the sources quoted...which is more than can be said for a lot of wiki articles.Iconoclast322 17:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem much, except that an IP with no previous contributions, who doesn't use an edit summary or mention anything on the talk page, and changes the entire text of the article... this presents a problem. Like I said, it's better that you've left a note here. The Evil Spartan 17:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The previous version of this article was complete shambles. It was nearly incoherent. The article at this point still needs a lot of work, such as citations. (For a good example of a properly cited article on Nazism, see Night of the Long Knives, a featured article.) However, at least this article has a proper structure that can be expanded on. Iconoclast322 might in the future try to develop the article more incrementally, using edit summaries. But good work in revising it from what it was.--Mcattell 00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section called "Fatalities"

I think that having a separate section called "fatalities" detracts from the article. First, it is completely against Wikipedia style to have a separate section that just a sentence fragment. Second, it's uncited, and I can't see how someone can really come up with such a precise number that would list all fatalities that occurred over more than a decade of street violence in every city and every region of Germany. Why does it only include Communists and Nazis and few others? The Nazis broke up meeting of Social Democrats and brawled with them also. What about people killed without any political affiliation? Third, the information about deaths from street violence should be wrapped up into other sections. It shouldn't just be a scoreboard at the end of the article without any context.--Mcattell 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)